BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk// X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:All Talk and No Conversation? Methodological Preconditions of An Interdisciplinary Forensic Science - Paul Roberts (University of Notting ham) DTSTART:20160901T093000Z DTEND:20160901T100000Z UID:TALK67151@talks.cam.ac.uk CONTACT:INI IT DESCRIPTION:Ten years ago I wrote a paper titled &lsquo\;Can we Talk ?&rsquo\;\, drawing attention to the importance of promoting more effectiv e interdisciplinary communication between lawyers and scientists in the ar ea of forensic science. The argument was addressed to practitioners as wel l as to scholars concerned with the administration of criminal justice. Si nce that time\, there have been repeated efforts and numerous enterprising projects to bring scientists (of various kinds) and criminal justice scho lars and professionals together to facilitate interdisciplinary communicat ion about forensic science\, several of which I have participated in mysel f. These occasions are always enlightening and instructive\, but often als o frustrating. Talking to or at or over is the not th e same as talking with. A cacophony is not a conversation. Nor is t o talking to yourself.  \;
 \; Part of the problem\, to be sure\, is that not everybody is sold on the idea of interdisciplinar y collaboration in forensic science. There are income streams\, profession al self-identifies and disciplinary turf to defend. But growing ranks of p ractitioners and scholars appreciate the value\, and even the necessity\, of interdisciplinary cooperation in forensic science theory and practice. Exploring &lsquo\;the nature of questions arising in court that can be add ressed via probability and statistical methods&rsquo\; is evidently intend ed to contribute to an interdisciplinary &lsquo\;forensic science&rsquo\;\ , in the broad sense in which I understand that designation of field. For those well-motivated to contribute to interdisciplinary communication\, th e barriers to successful collaboration are primarily cognitive and methodo logical.  \;
 \; Interdisciplinarity\, in forensic sci ence or anything else\, is hard to do well\, much harder than one might in itially imagine. Interdisciplinary communication is not merely a matter of sharing information\, but rather of crossing between different pro fessional and practical life-worlds constituted by their own peculi ar set of objectives\, values\, methods\, technology\, discourses\, instit utions and cultures. A didactic model of communication is not well-suited to interdisciplinary collaboration\, nor is a simplistic model of scientif ic research according to which the exposure and correction of errors by su perior logic or data must &ndash\; sooner or later &ndash\; force consensu s. A genuinely interdisciplinary forensic science must be a collaborative co-construction\, generating new forms of knowledge\, practical techniques and policy interventions (including law reform). To advance this project requires real conversation between knowledgeable\, well-motivated and refl ective experts across a range of pertinent disciplines\, not just more tal k. As a contribution to translating talk into conversation\, this p aper identifies some methodological preconditions for a genuinely interdis ciplinary forensic science\, with illustrations drawn from recent cases in which English courts have found themselves grappling with probability and /or statistics.  \;



LOCATION:Seminar Room 1\, Newton Institute END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR