Seite - 166 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

STREAM: General STS Topics Interdisciplinary Research in Law and Forensic Science: From 'silos' to systems. RICHMOND, Karen Leverhulme Research Centre in Forensic Science, University of Strathclyde, Dundee, United Kingdom Current approaches to the interdisciplinary co-production of forensic-scientific knowledge claims tend to found on the belief that a shared understanding of the respective capabilities, and needs, of both forensic science and criminal justice, may enhance the co-production of knowledge and lead to improved communication. However, the results of empirical research into the Streamlined Forensic Reporting (SFR) scheme, in England and Wales, appear to confound this 'contest and communication' narrative. SFR signals an almost complete co-option of scientific processes by the criminal justice system, the concomitant loss of interpretative forensic expertise, and the avoidance of the allocation of epistemic responsibility. Such instrumental approaches to forensic reporting may be traced to the disruption, and restructuring, of the forensic profession. Nonetheless, it is argued that the application of legal norms and rationality to forensic science may be better understood through the lens of legal autopoiesis, and should be viewed as an instance of the structural coupling of competing sub-systems. Introduction: the ‘contest and communication’ narrative Previous commentators have tended to view law and forensic science as operating in isolated silos. This popular explanation for the interdisciplinary co-production of forensic-scientific knowledge claims is predicated upon a belief that institutional agents from the legal and scientific fields are ‘siloed’ within their respective domains. ‘Siloed’ refers to the phenomenon whereby particular centres of organization and activity become isolated in terms of their constituent processes and systems. These centres of organization become self-referential in terms of their conceptualisations, leading to a lack of communication with other centres, and a lack of understanding of the needs of other systems. It occurs when domains, departments, or management groups, do not share information, goals, tools, priorities and processes with other departments. Or it may occur when those networks, which facilitate the sharing of goals, are attenuated or unavailable. The phenomenon may therefore refer to either an intra-disciplinary, or a homologous, process, occurring across disciplinary boundaries. The subsisting view, as regards the silo-ed nature of law and forensic science, aligns with a narrative in which it is posited that improved communication, and an understanding of each other’s needs, may lead to positive creative tension and the co-production of knowledge. Indeed, the majority of accounts of the production of forensic-scientific knowledge claims rest on just such a narrative, which highlights the lack of meaningful communication between forensic scientists and legal professionals. The corollary of this ‘contest and communication’ narrative is that many of the difficulties encountered by these two discrete fields may be overcome through 166