The Quest for Regulating Crime Scene Investigation in Forensic Science: Can We Learn About Discretion and Standardization From Other Fields?

Growing calls for better standards and quality assurance, particularly in crime scene investigations, have raised questions about the impact and suitability of these regulatory mechanisms on the forensic process. However, to date, debates on whether quality management strategies are “fit‐for‐purpose” have often overlooked how standards may influence the existing power dynamics inherent in forensic science and policing. Research in other sectors, such as public administration and policing, has nevertheless shown that frontline practitioners demonstrate a significant ability to resist standardization efforts. Police officers, teachers and physicians maintain considerable discretion in navigating and (re)interpretating standards to deal with the unique contingencies they face in the field and to respond to any perceived threat to their professional autonomy, competence, and identity. As crime scene examiners share many similarities with these other professional groups, this advanced review suggests that assessing the suitability of quality management strategies for standardizing crime scene investigation should better account for crime scene examiners' ability to negotiate, adapt, or even resist these strategies based on pre‐existing sociocultural practices. This calls for further empirical research into the actual effects—both positive and negative—that these standards have on perceptions, practices, and outcomes in forensic science.