Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Partnership between academics and practitioners - Addressing the challenges in forensic science.
Morrissey, Joanne; Stodter, Anna; Sherratt, Fred; Cole, Michael D.
  • Morrissey J; Forensic and Investigative Science Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK; National Police Chiefs Council Forensic Capability Network, UK. Electronic address: joanne.morrissey@aru.ac.uk.
  • Stodter A; Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
  • Sherratt F; The Avon, Porth-y-Waen, Oswestry, Shropshire SY10 3LR, UK.
  • Cole MD; Forensic and Investigative Science Research Group, School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Sci Justice ; 63(1): 74-82, 2023 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36631184
This research discusses the development of academic-practitioner partnerships in forensic science and examines the opinions and experience of those involved in the field. An anonymous online survey was completed by 56 participants who work in the field of forensic science. The questions related to their work experience, their experience of research and partnership, and their opinions on the benefits and barriers that exist. The results were analysed using a mixed methods approach, with quantitative analysis of the responses to closed questions using two-way chi-square statistical analysis, and qualitative analysis of the free text responses using reflexive thematic analysis. This work identifies the demand for partnership, the perceived benefits and barriers that exist, and establishes how the role of the participant (academic, pracademic or practitioner) impacts their view of partnership. We include the term pracademic to mean an individual who has worked as a practitioner and an academic, not necessarily simultaneously. Quantitative analysis identified that there was very little statistically significant difference in the responses between groups. Pracademics considered that 'institutional and cultural' and 'lack of the respect of the other role' were more significant barriers than the other groups. Association was also found between those with greater experience of research and the view that partnership 'improved legitimacy in practice' and 'increased legitimacy of research'. There was also statistical significance in those with more than average experience of partnership who identified 'improved legitimacy in practice' as a benefit of partnership. Reflexive thematic analysis of free text comments identified a need and demand for partnership with three key themes developed as being necessary for successful partnership. These are the 'three 'R's' - the need for effective communication and the development of a Relationship; the Relevance of the partnership to the participants role; and the inclusion of personal Reward such as improved practice or better research.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ciencias Forenses / Grupo Social Tipo de estudio: Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ciencias Forenses / Grupo Social Tipo de estudio: Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article