What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

Institutions of Deliberative Democratic Processes and Interest Groups: Roles, Tensions and Incentives

There are inherent tensions between traditional, more pluralist forms of public participation and new deliberative democratic processes, such as citizens' juries. These innovative processes, known collectively as citizens' forums, challenge existing roles and power relationships between interest groups and the state. Instead of having key access to the policy stage, interest groups are required to be 'bystanders', 'information providers', and ultimately 'process legitimisers'. With such a radical shift in roles and power structure, there are few apparent reasons why interest groups would want to participate in such deliberative processes. In some cases, to the detriment of the process, they decide not to.     

Commissions of inquiry and policy change: Comparative analysis and future research frontiers

Canadian governments have spawned hundreds of federal and provincial commissions of inquiry (COIs). Many scholars have completed in‐depth analysis of particular COIs but less attention has been paid to policy impact and comparisons across COIs. This study addresses the following questions. What role do COIs play in policy change? Would policy change likely have occurred without the COI? Why do some COIs result in policy change and others do not? This analysis reports on findings from in‐depth case studies of ten COIs. It uses a theoretical framework focusing on ideas, institutions, actors and relations to examine whether and how COIs lead to policy and administrative change.     

Big change,little change? Punctuation,increments and multi-layer institutional change for English local authorities under austerity

This paper draws on new institutionalist theories to consider how we might characterise the process and outcomes of change occurring in English local government as a result of the UK’s austerity policies. It uses national and local empirical data to argue that changes are best understood as multi-layer processes, whereby radical ‘punctuated’ shifts in national funding can be mitigated to incremental adjustments in service delivery at a local level. However, the paper also suggests that the incremental appearance of change may be temporary, and that diminishing institutional resilience and emergent discursive shifts potentially prefigure a paradigm change in local governance.