ON BECOMING MORE OF A POLICY SCIENTIST

This essay presents some subjective thoughts on becoming more of a policy scientist, based on nearly thirty years of intense interest in policymaking and its improvement. Written as a token of gratitude for the privilege of receiving the first Harold Lasswell Award from the Policy Studies Organization, the essay takes the form of advice to striving policy scientists in nine desiderata followed by five operational recommendations. Some readings for exploring the suggestions presented in this paper are included in the reference section.     

“Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide

Inconclusive decisions, deciding not to decide, are decisions. We present a cognitive model which takes into account that decisions are an outcome of interactions and intersections between the actual data and human cognition. Using this model it is suggested under which circumstances inconclusive decisions are justified and even warranted (reflecting proper caution and meta‐cognitive abilities in recognizing limited abilities), and, conversely, under what circumstances inconclusive decisions are unjustifiable and should not be permitted. The model further explores the limitations and problems in using categorical decision‐making when the data are actually a continuum. Solutions are suggested within the forensic fingerprinting domain, but they can be applied to other forensic domains, and, with modifications, may also be applied to other expert domains.     

ISO Standards Addressing Issues of Bias and Impartiality in Forensic Work

The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom from bias. Meeting these requirements for implicit cognitive bias is not a simple matter. In this article, we address these international standards, specifically focusing on evaluating and mitigating the risk to impartiality, and quality assurance checks, so as to meet accreditation program requirements. We cover their meaning to management as well as to practitioners, addressing how these issues of impartiality and bias relate to forensic work, and how one can effectively evaluate and mitigate those risks. We then elaborate on specific quality assurance policies and checks and identify when corrective action may be appropriate. These measures will not only serve to meet ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 requirements, but also enhance forensic work and decision-making.