AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT IN LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
INFS 890: Decision Support/Knowledge Management
Elmer L. Buard
Dakota State University
February 10, 2016
Dr.Jun Liu
ABSTRACT
Despite the vast research on the value of forensic-sciences-technology contribution in solving complex criminal cases, little is known about the underlying adoption strategy and ethical implications. The overall image that emerges from such literature is largely positive: new forensic sciences technology can enormously enhance the ability to solve complex crimes. This study recovers some of the laboratory management perspectives on the adoption barriers of such technology using the "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) through literary reviews. An analysis of these literary reviews yielded that there were associated ethical implications, aligning to both utilitarianism and contractarianism theoretical views that served as adoption barriers or simply raised ethical concerns. forensic-sciences-technology complicated and sometimes even challenged two widely held assumptions about the value of adoption of forensic sciences technology: (a) the utilitarian viewpoint argues for adoption of such technology determined by the utility or disutility of its expected consequences, thus added value, and (b) contractarianism maintains that the legitimate authority of the government laboratory must derive from the consent of the governed, thus political inference. The different ethical viewpoints add nuance to our understanding of the adoption of forensic technology. This study is part of a growing body of research on both the adoption of forensic sciences technology and associated ethical implications. In using a largely scarce source of literary review on the UTAUT, accompanied by such ethical theories, this paper, will contribute to future research on similar topics
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 3
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 8
Rationale 9
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 11
Assumptions and Limitations 12
Nature of the Study 14
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 15
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Introduction 16
Brief Discussion on Forensic Science 17
Potential Impediments to Implementation 18
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 21
Other Models of Acceptance 27
Support of the Research Design 30
Conceptual Framework 31
Brief Description of Phenomenology 31
Previous Research 33
Summary 46
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 47
Research Design and Methodology 47
Research Questions 52
Research Population and Sample 53
Validity and Reliability 55
Instrument 57
Data Collection 60
Data Analysis 62
Ethical Considerations 65
Summary 66
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION, FINDINGS, AND DISPLAY 67
Introduction 67
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68
Introduction 68
REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTION LETTER 69
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT 78
APPENDIX C: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 80
vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Models of Acceptance Studied by Venkatesh et al. (2003) 28
Table 2 Process of Collecting, Analyzing, and Reporting Research Data 52
Table 3 Research Questions and Interview Questions Correspondence 58
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, graphically 27
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for the proposed research. 31
Figure 3. Schaper and Pervan’s (2007) model of acceptance. 37
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
It is essential that police precincts have the most current equipment so that criminal investigators are able to solve crimes accurately and efficiently. There are many cutting-edge forensic-science technologies and techniques that have become available to be used in crime-scene investigation (Joh, 2004; Paoletti, Doom, Raymer, & Krane, 2006; Simoncelli, 2006) and in the investigation of crimes that in the past may have been left unsolved due to the complexity and difficulty of the case (Adams et al., 2004). The advent of DNA testing, for example, has opened up an arena of criminal investigation that was previously unavailable (Joh, 2006; Dennis, Steadman, & Cocozza, (2000). These forensic-science technologies and techniques offer not only new ways to solve crimes, but also more efficient means of documenting, collecting, and transporting evidence (Adams et al., 2004; Duster, 2006). However, despite these advantages, state and local municipalities are not implementing new forensic technologies.
Under the American federal system, most laws are set forth as state statutes and local ordinances, with some overarching federal mandates, whereas the enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of state and local agencies (Schwabe, Davis, & Jackson, 2001). In this context, regulatory mandates in law enforcement constitute challenges that can affect technological advancements, specifically in forensic technology. Such challenges may serve as implementation impediments for smaller municipalities.
Forensic science is generally accepted as a critical element in effective crime fighting; however, the shortage of forensic-science resources has created a crisis (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Crime [Committee on Crime], 2000). Although the law-enforcement and criminal-justice systems rely heavily on forensic technology, most states and municipalities have not been able to meet the demand for forensic services due to a lack of funding (Committee on Crime, 2000). In 1990, forensic caseloads increased, on average, by 23%, with only a 10% and 9% increase in funding and personnel, respectively (Committee on Crime, 2000).
Exacerbating these conditions, laboratory-accreditation standards and unfunded federal mandates on analytical standards have further stretched an already short budget for these laboratories (Committee on Crime, 2000). Accreditation, which is generally analogous to quality assurance for forensic laboratories, is only attained by 50% of forensic laboratories that apply for it. The costs of facility and equipment upgrades, enhanced analytical processes, and increases in personnel required to attain and maintain accreditation are the reasons for the low-accreditation rate (Committee on Crime, 2000). Likewise, although the federal mandates are designed to improve national forensic-science practices, these standards can deplete the financial resources of the forensic laboratory (Committee on Crime, 2000), creating an impediment to the implementation of new forensic technology and use. Examples of these unfunded mandates include the standards set forth by the Department of Justice’s DNA Advisory Board (DAB), those set by federally sponsored scientific and technical working groups, and the standard-practice guidelines developed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ; Committee on Crime, 2000).this w
There is a wealth of research examining forensic-science techniques and programs (Adams et al., 2004; Hanson, 2007; Ogle, 2004; Dennis, Steadman, & Cocozza, 2000). However, there is a lack of research that is specifically targeted at examining police departments and state and local municipal forensic laboratories and their use and views of forensic science, and the adoption of new forensic-science technology, particularly as it relates to federal mandates and how these mandates and standards affect implementation and use (Ogle, 2004). The Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community of the National Research Council (2009) indicated that the “majority of forensic science laboratories are administered by law enforcement agencies, such as police departments, where the laboratory administrator reports to the head of the agency” (p. 135). There is, however, no indication of the views of the police departments and forensic-laboratory scientists about their use and the perceived barriers to the use of forensic technology. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to provide a qualitative analysis that will reveal the challenges and barriers preventing adoption of new forensic technology at local municipalities and to offer potential solutions to management to enable the continued growth and development of forensic science in law enforcement.
Background of the Study
Forensic science affords many valuable options in investigating crimes (Adams et al., 2004; Steadman, 2000). It has shifted the ways in which criminal investigations are conducted and informs legal proceedings at all levels (Adams et al., 2004). According to the National Research Council (1996), when DNA evidence is properly collected and analyzed, the evidence is considered valid and reliable. DNA evidence, for example, has helped solve many crimes that were previously thought to be unsolvable (Duster, 2006; Paoletti et al., 2006); and has allowed criminals who were wrongly convicted to be released once it was discovered that their DNA did not match that of the criminals (Paoletti et al., 2006). Forensic evidence carries a significant weight in the conviction of someone accused of violent crimes (Reilly, 2001).
Many previous studies have focused on specific agencies, primarily at the federal level, that make heavy use of forensic science (Duster, 2006), have a wealth of funding at their disposal, and comprise the most cutting-edge forensic-science technology (Adams et al., 2004). Even though the federal government has access to the most current forensic-science technology, there is a vast difference in the allocation of forensic-science resources at the state level (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Lambert et al., 2003). The use of forensic-science techniques at the state level is an area that is largely unexplored (Lambert et al., 2003). At the state level, forensic science does not mirror the sophistication that is seen at the federal level (Lambert et al., 2007); many law-enforcement officials are hesitant to incorporate such practices (Miller, 2000), pointing to such impediments as the cost associated with implementing the state-of-the-art technologies in their agencies (Lambert et al., 2003; Miller, 2000).
The proposed qualitative phenomenological study will explore the reasons for the adoption or nonadoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities through the participants’ perceptions of the impediments to forensic-technology implementation. The research will begin to ascertain why uniformity is lacking in implementation and hesitation in incorporating these techniques at the state and municipal levels. Moreover, this proposed study will examine the adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities and the implications of barriers and challenges, such as federal legislation.
According to adoption theory (Rogers, 1995), the adoption process involves the diffusion of an innovation, defined as a communication process by which a new idea or technology is accepted by a social group. The adoption process occurs through a five-step process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. This process follows an S-curve so that the adoption of a technology would begin with slow change, followed by a period of rapid change, and end with a return to slow change, due to product maturity or the emergence of new technology. Rogers categorized individuals involved in the process according to characteristics that cause people to be more or less likely to adopt an idea at a particular point in time. Using an understanding of these different categorizations can lead to an understanding of how to make an idea or technology more appealing to different people (Canada, Mortensen, & Patnaik, 2007).
The adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities will be examined in the proposed study by considering the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis 2003). The UTAUT procedure measures both the effort expectancy and performance expectancy of an organization in assessing the adoption of newer technology (Galletta, Zhang, & Benbasat, 2006). The aim of the UTAUT is to explain the intention to use certain information systems (IS) in different organizations. The theory will measure four key concepts when it comes to the adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities. These four constructs include (a)performance expectancy, (b) effort expectancy, (c) social influence, and (d) facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The UTAUT theory was developed by using eight models that explained the IS usage behavior. Subsequently, Venkatesh et al., (2003) validated the UTAUT theory, where it was found that the model was able to account for 70% of the variation in the intention to adopt the new technology.
Statement of the Problem
Given the increased importance of forensic technology throughout the nation’s law-enforcement communities, the problem is that an adoption impediment seems to exist at the local agency level. A number of problems regarding forensic-science technology adoption were identified in the proposed study. First, with the restricted resources available to the local municipalities, these dilemmas frequently require management to choose between forensic innovation and other departmental needs. Although federal mandates and accreditation standards are intended to improve quality in forensic laboratories, they can result in requirements that not only do not improve quality, but potentially complicate the process, adding unnecessary and costly demands on these laboratories (American Academy of Forensic Sciences [AAFS], 2004), serving as an impediment to adoption and contributing to a reluctance to invest on the part of law-enforcement management. Given the lack of funding for new equipment, supplies, and laboratory personnel, combined with increased federal regulation and inspection, the backlog of cases has become extensive, causing an equally extensive case turnaround time, which also affects the use and implementation of forensic technology by law-enforcement agencies, particularly at the local and state levels (AAFS, 2004).
Frequently, police agencies opt to allocate resources to other sources. This dilemma appears to be more prevalent with the rise of forensic technologies. The cost of implementing tools is always a concern when making decisions (Berg, 2000). Police agencies are faced with determining and implementing the most effective tool for the current job (Berg, 2000).
Second, one of the paramount challenges in the forensic community is staffing shortages (NIJ, 2006). At times, there are not enough individuals to operate a crime laboratory efficiently and much of staff time is allocated to addressing casework backlogs and federal unfunded mandates and regulations. Other reasons for a lack of practice are the lack of education (NIJ, 2006), lack of understanding, or misinformation regarding a particular technique or tool that may lead to poor budget decisions and inadequate provisions in policy and procedure (Berg, 2000).
Third, there is a lack of collaboration among federal, state, and local forensic-science laboratories (NIJ, 2006). As a result, a number of local municipalities are not current in forensic-science techniques and practices, compared to larger cities and federal agencies (Paoletti et al., 2006). In most cases, police departments in large urban centers have the most current equipment available, whereas smaller municipalities have little access to newer technology. In fact, the configuration of forensic laboratories varies depending on the jurisdiction (Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, 2009, p. 40). Their lack of knowledge, practice, and current equipment directly impacts the accuracy and timely flow of forensic information within and outside the organization (Simoncelli, 2006).