Do we need partnerships between academia and practitioners in forensic science?

Purpose: This research seeks to examine the importance of academic-practitioner partnerships in forensic science through the evaluation of the opinions of those working in the field, through reflection on the researchers practical, educational and professional experiences and through the analysis of literature.

Research design: This research was completed in two phases. The first was an anonymous online survey which was completed by 56 participants who work in the field of forensic science, either academia or practice. 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. The second was a series of 28 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants identified as practitioners, academics or pracademics in forensic science that were analysed 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. The term pracademic includes individuals who have worked as a practitioner and an academic, not necessarily simultaneously.

Findings: 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’ factors 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 statistical significance between those participants with more than average experience of partnership and ‘improved legitimacy in practice’ as a benefit of partnership. Reflexive thematic analysis of free text comments in the survey and the responses to the semi-structured interviews identified a need and demand for partnership, with three key themes developed as being necessary for successful partnership. These were initially identified as 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. The semi-structured interviews identified a new fourth theme, Risk which needs to be considered by all parties engaging in partnership.

Conclusion: This research establishes the importance of building relationships based upon respect, communication, trust, openness and realism in order for them to be successful. It clearly identifies the desire for successful partnership across all three groups included in this research, and the outcomes that can be achieved with the creation of a stable structure and clear governance frameworks. It has been shown that successful partnerships need to be realistic and relate to the real world and can then result in positive impact on practice and research.