Minimizing Contextual Bias in Forensic Firearms Examinations

Abstract

Abstract Solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science are emerging [Dror, I.E. (2014). Practical solutions to cognitive and human factor challenges in forensic science, Forensic Science Policy & Management 4(3–4), 1–9.], but have not yet been widely communicated let alone applied in practice. Within the discipline of forensic firearms examination, a procedure has been developed and implemented that minimizes the effects of domain‐irrelevant information and maximizes the utilization of domain‐relevant information. This procedure, termedcontext management, is described and for this we distinguish between different types of contextual information that an examiner may come across. Contextual information may come from the trace (Level 1), the reference material (Level 2), the case information (Level 3), and the “base rate” information (Level 4) [Stoel, R., Berger, C., Kerkhoff, W., Mattijssen, E.J.A.T. & Dror, I. (2014). Minimizing Contextual Bias in Forensic Casework, inForensic Science and the Administration of Justice: Critical Issues and Directions, p. 67–86, SAGE.]. By going through the steps of the examination of a typical comparison case (i.e., checking and acceptance of the case, preassessment of the case, comparison of the markings, and peer review and reporting), it is illustrated how and when contextual information may influence the examiners' judgment and how this influence can be minimized by implementing context management.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.