Morrissey Joanne, Stodter Anna, Sherratt Fred, Cole Michael D
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.
Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Sci Justice. 2023 Jan;63(1):74-82. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.11.005. Epub 2022 Nov 25.
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.
本研究探讨了法医学领域学术人员与从业者伙伴关系的发展情况，并考察了该领域相关人员的意见和经验。56名从事法医学领域工作的参与者完成了一项匿名在线调查。问题涉及他们的工作经验、研究与伙伴关系经验，以及他们对现存益处和障碍的看法。研究结果采用混合方法进行分析，对封闭式问题的回答进行定量分析时使用双向卡方统计分析，对自由文本回答进行定性分析时使用反思性主题分析。这项工作确定了对伙伴关系的需求、感知到的现存益处和障碍，并确定了参与者（学术人员、实践型学者或从业者）的角色如何影响他们对伙伴关系的看法。我们使用“实践型学者”一词来表示曾担任过从业者和学术人员的个体，不一定是同时担任这两个角色。定量分析表明，各群体之间的回答在统计学上差异很小。实践型学者认为，“制度和文化”以及“缺乏对对方角色的尊重”比其他群体面临的障碍更大。研究还发现，研究经验更丰富的人更倾向于认为伙伴关系“提高了实践中的合法性”和“增强了研究的合法性”。在伙伴关系经验超过平均水平的人中，也有统计学意义表明他们认为“提高了实践中的合法性”是伙伴关系的一个益处。对自由文本评论的反思性主题分析确定了对伙伴关系的需求，并形成了成功伙伴关系所需的三个关键主题。这就是“三个‘R’”——有效沟通和关系发展的必要性；伙伴关系与参与者角色的相关性；以及个人回报的纳入，如实践的改进或研究的提升。
