Skyler Maynard

Professor Gardiakos

ENC 1102

21 January 2022

Reading Response for Creating, Using, and Sharing information in Research

Communities

When discussing research communities, the first one that comes to mind is the

forensic science community, which I partake in directly as a forensic science major.

Forensic scientists have one goal; finding conclusive evidence to solve a crime, whether

it be DNA evidence, digital evidence, or other forms. In order to do so, many scientists

research new ways to improve on current techniques used within the forensic community,

Take fingerprint analysis for example. This was a technique pioneered by Sir Francis

Galton in 1892, but was later researched further and improved upon by Victor

Balthazard, making fingerprint evidence more accurate. While this example demonstrates

a part of forensics that takes years to develop, smaller aspects of this are achieved every

day through the work of forensic scientists. Whenever a new case occurs, forensic

scientists of all disciplines work together to discover and research the evidence further,

allowing the truth of the incident to come forward. The main focus when researching the

evidence is to find how the evidence pertains to the case specifically, but within that

focus scientists are attempting to improve upon the techniques as well, allowing for the

science used to improve along the way.

 Since forensic science is a form of scientific research, forensic scientists will

often follow the same unspoken rules that chemists or other scientists do in their

respective disciplines. For example, forensic scientists will have their work looked over

by peers, allowing the knowledge to be confirmed and shared. Sharing information within

the forensic science community can be tricky considering the origin of the information.

Meaning, it sometimes takes years for new information and research to be published for

the community to consume. Often this occurs because forensic scientists choose to wait

for the case to be completely closed with a court decision being made on the matter. This

is because the release of certain information, no matter how little, could damage the court

trial and negatively impact the community as a result. The work done within the forensic

community impacts more groups than itself. It has the capability to affect everyday

people as well as the law, which is why forensic scientists are careful with sharing

information and research among themselves and others. Personally, I think this is one of

the most important aspects of the community for outsiders to understand before joining or

while in the process of acclimating to the community. From the outside perspective, it is

hard to understand why information can’t be given or why specific actions are frowned

upon. This is mostly because people don’t understand the laws and morals that have to be

respected in the pursuit of truth, and the negative outcomes that occur if these aren’t

respected. For example, one of the largest complaints of forensic scientists is the public’s

view on forensics as a whole. To the public, forensic evidence is the smoking gun to any

case, but in reality it can be far from it. Much of the evidence found through forensics is

circumstantial and shouldn’t equate to a person’s guilt by itself. This is because almost all

the evidence found through forensics is an estimate in a sense. When looking at DNA
evidence for an example, it’s almost always a percentage of likeliness with a given

person, never an exact match. Meaning, there is always a small chance the evidence

could be relaying something else than how it is being interpreted.

When I read about Cassie’s experience joining the podcast community, I imagine

their reasons for believing one must learn the process instead of guessing is similar to

beliefs in regard to the forensic community. Without first learning, one isn’t able to fully

grasp the effect of their actions. For a podcast, not understanding what topics are

interesting, could negatively affect the podcast’s engagement, leading to a negative

understanding of podcasts by the creator of the podcast. Within the forensic science

community, coming in uneducated could have similar effects on people attempting to join

the community. One of the largest reasons people stop studying forensic science is due to

something called the “CSI Effect,” which is basically a phrase used to describe when

someone believes practitioners of forensic science behave and work in a similar manner

seen on TV shows. Not only could this have damaging effects on any cases, but it could

lead the person to have a negative view on forensic science as a whole, believing it to be

boring and unnecessary instead.

 Works Cited:

Hemstrom, C., & Anders, K. (2022). Creating, Using, and Sharing Information in Research

Communities. Writing Spaces, 4, 184–196.