Investigations: What Could, and Should, Be Taught?
| Author | David Carson |
| Date | 01 September 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2013.86.3.628 |
| Published date | 01 September 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DAVID CARSON
Formerly University of Portsmouth
INVESTIGATIONS: WHAT COULD,
AND SHOULD, BE TAUGHT?
They are everywhere; inquiries. We all do it; investigate. Some
people are employed to do it; detectives. Every genuine
academic disciple requires it; the development of skills in
identifying, collating, analysing, assessing, presenting, etc.,
facts as evidence for an essay, report, argument, trial. And yet
no university, let alone one which proclaims the importance of
encouraging multidisciplinary studies, provides a degree
directly studying investigations in all their richness and vari-
ety. This article outlines the case for such a degree and
identifies the core courses it should contain.
Keywords: investigations, fact-finding, evidence, analysis,
assessment, persuasion and proof, trial
Introduction: Detecting a Degree?
Universities offer several undergraduate degrees which are
directly relevant for a range of professions, even if some further
study is required (e.g. medicine, law, psychology, nursing). So
should a special undergraduate degree be designed for detect-
ives? No; they should get something better. They should not
tolerate a cheap (intellectually and financially) repackaging of
existing criminology and criminal justice units, with just one or
two new units associated with criminal investigations or the
forensic sciences, tacked on to take advantage of associations
with current media representations, to appear modern and rele-
vant. Rather they should get a degree which ensures its students
gain academically rigorous skills in thinking and in managing
knowledge and evidence (i.e. research and science). This degree
would prepare its graduates for working with a wide range of
disciplines and professions (Tong et al., 2009; Monckton-Smith
et al., 2013). It would acknowledge that all, genuinely academic,
disciplines are concerned with investigations, with seeking, ana-
lysing and assessing claims to knowledge (science). It would
focus – in comparison with too many current degrees – on how,
rather than what, to think and know.
This article outlines the case for such a degree and identifies
six core courses. These would be studied over the first half of a
degree structure. Most of the proposed content is identified in
The Police Journal, Volume 86 (2013) 249
DOI: 10.1350/pojo.2013.86.3.628
Tables 1–3. Hopefully the rationales for inclusion will be self-
explanatory, although there is some accompanying explanation
in the text. For reasons of space, potential learning resources
have been excluded. The contents, of the remaining half of the
degree, would depend upon whether the student chose to com-
plete a single honours degree in investigations (some suggestions
for optional courses are included), undertake a joint degree (e.g.
in forensic sciences or investigative psychology (Canter &
Youngs, 2009), or use the core courses as a foundation qualifica-
tion for a traditional single honours degree (e.g. law, medicine,
psychology, etc.).
Disagreement over the details of this proposal is not only
expected but welcomed. Different institutions have different
resources, perspectives and approaches. Diversity and dialogue
should be valuable. Criticisms are also expected, for example, of
a bias towards legal perspectives (perhaps understandable given
the author’s disciplinary background), and to criminal investiga-
tions in particular. However, the article stresses that, however
convenient a source for examples, criminal trials should only be
one of many different forms of investigation investigated. It may
also be argued that the proposals are ‘too thin’; that there are
insufficient ideas, skills, issues and materials for an appropriate
level of study in the topics listed. Whilst a more substantial
document would allow more detail, it is submitted that the topics
identified could, and should, be taught/studied on the usual basis
of a minimum 10 hours a week, per course, over 24 weeks. And
the focus upon how to (i.e. the development of intellectual and
practical skills), rather than what (i.e. substantive knowledge),
should always be recalled. Indeed, the proposal may be criticised
for being too ‘expensive;’ the students would need extensive
opportunities to practise the skills they learn (e.g. in identifying,
assessing and presenting evidence). They should have workshops
as well as lectures and seminars. But much of their individual
learning could rely upon interactive, computer-based resources
(which the author is developing). There might also be problems
in attracting, or organising, teachers from a range of different
disciplines, particularly given the stimulation, to multidisciplin-
ary research, which the course would provide (Allen, 2011).
This, and the potential for postgraduate and continuing pro-
fessional education courses, is not further discussed here. How-
ever, given the extent to which British investigative practices are
often considered to be world-leading (e.g. in witness inter-
viewing), the potential to attract international students should be
noted.
250 The Police Journal, Volume 86 (2013)
To continue reading
Request your trial