We need to talk about dialogue: Accomplishing collaborative sensemaking in homicide investigations
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Author | Fiona Brookman,Jim Fraser,Robin Williams,Helen Jones |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X20970999 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2021, Vol. 94(4) 572 –589
Article
We need to talk about
dialogue: Accomplishing
collaborative sensemaking
in homicide investigations
Helen Jones and Fiona Brookman
Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Life Sciences
and Education, University of South Wales,
Treforest Campus, Pontypridd, UK
Robin Williams
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences,
Northumbria University, Newcastle City Campus,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; School of Applied
Social Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK
Jim Fraser
Centre for Forensic Science, University
of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the importance of dialogue for collaborative sensemaking
during homicide investigation, focusing upon interactions between detectives, forensic
scientists and other experts involved in managing and undertaking forensic work.
Drawing on data from a 4-year ethnographic study of British homicide investigations, we
provide insights from criminal justice actors about both the value of, and barriers to,
inter-professional and cross-disciplinary dialogue. We explore how and why organisa-
tional arrangements may limit opportunities for forensic scientists and other experts to
engage collaboratively with detectives and prosecutors. We conclude by considering
ways to enhance collaborative sensemaking during the investigation of homicide.
Corresponding author:
Helen Jones, Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales,
Treforest Campus, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK.
Email: helen.jones11@southwales.ac.uk
The Police Journal:
Theory, Practice and Principles
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032258X20970999
journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx
Jones et al. 573
Keywords
Homicide investigation, sensemaking, dialogue, collaboration, forensic scientists, experts
Introduction
Homicide investigation provides a part icularly useful lens through which to exa mine
critically the workings of inter-professional dialogue and cross-disciplinary collaboration
for the achievement of organisational goals. Unlike many other kinds of criminal inves-
tigation, homicide inquiries, due in large part to the gravity of the offence, tend to attract
considerable resources and involve the input of multiple criminal justice actors from a
diverse range of disciplines and organisations (Association of Chief Police Officers,
2006). These actors are drawn together (literally and figuratively) at different moments
of the investigation in what is essentially a sensemaking endeavour (Innes, 2003). Brown
et al. (2015: 266) note that there is ‘an emergent consensus that sensemaking refers
generally to those processes by which people seek plausibly to understand ambiguous,
equivocal or confusing issues or events’. Such events invariably characterise homicide
investigations as criminal justice actors try to make sense of who did what to whom, when,
where, why and how. The extent to which this collaborative sensemaking process works
well, depends upon whether and how relevant actors’ voices are heard at key moments of
the investigation (or, in fact, at all). Dialogue affords the exchange of information, knowl-
edge, ideas and opinion through, for example, face-to-face exchanges, documents and
email, enabling criminal justice actors to work together to resolve ambiguity and uncer-
tainty. Nevertheless, there are some tensions around how such exchanges work. Some
commentators caution that sharing too much irrelevant case information can lead to
cognitive bias (Almazrouei et al., 2019; Dror, 2017). Equally, failure to communicate
effectively can compromise the effective resolution of the case (Kelty et al., 2013).
Drawing on data from a 4-year ethnographic study of homicide investigation, this paper
seeks to supplement existing work on cognitive issues in the practice of forensic science by
examining how criminal justice actors collaborate in order to manage and implement
forensic strategies in homicide investigation. In particular, we consider instances of (and
barriers to) effective dialogue between detectives, forensic scientists and other experts, for
example, fingerprint examiners and those from in-house digital forensic units.
1
We focus
upon the formal and informal spaces where dialogue takes place during the pre-trial, case
building stages of homicide investigation, including crime scenes, major incident rooms,
briefings, forensic strategy meetings and prosecutors’ case conferences.
2
We document
the concerns expressed by detectives, forensic scientists and other experts regarding
opportunities for meaningful dialogue, which, we suggest, is a critical pre-requisite for
effective collaboration and collective sensemaking during homicide investigation. We
consider how and why opportunities for dialogue appear to be diminishing at different
stages of the criminal justice process. Lastly, we reflect upon practices and arrangements
that foster inter-professional dialogue and help to accomplish cross-disciplinary colla-
boration. We begin by briefly setting out the risks of cognitive bias and the importance of
dialogue and collaboration during homicide investigation, we then outline the nature of
our research and data, before presenting our findings and conclusions.
2The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles XX(X)
To continue reading
Request your trial