Transparency
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:48 pm
Transparency is not something new to the friction ridge discipline but it is a concept that has certainly grown in its use in the past few years. In Tampa if I heard the word transparency once I must have heard it thirty times.
In my dictionary some of the definitions of transparent are: 3. easily understood; very clear 4. easily recognized or detected; obvious 5. without guile or concealment; open; frank; candid.
In every agency I have worked there was always an open door policy. If contacted by a defense expert or defense attorney there was great cooperation on our part in providing them with access to the evidence (or copies if they wanted), the reports, and any case notes. I considered this transparency of work product.
One of the most common ways to show transparency is through documentation. Documentation can take on many forms and is dependent upon what aspect or function is being documented. In looking at over 20 agencies forms for examination documentation they are varied and exhibit different ideas and concepts on documentation. Just what exactly is to be documented is something still being debated.
Several years ago the concept of the transparency of the methodology started showing up in lectures, presentations, articles and on this web site. From some questions that I received there was some confusion. How can you document the mental process? I think instead of calling it documentation of the methodology it is actually the documentation of your observations. How this information is assimilated in the mind in my POV would be difficult. All of this to make us more transparent!
Now the issue is the documentation for transparency purposes of those actions that have no part or function of the examination itself. For example the documentation of those individuals on an AFIS list that do not match the friction ridge detail in question. Or the documentation of the substrate and matrix when they are not a factor in the examination of the friction ridges as it is my POV that identifications based upon friction ridge detail can be made without knowledge of the substrate or matrix. In some cases it is a factor but not in all examinations. All of this to make us more transparent!
It is my view that transparency is not very transparent as it means different things to different examiners.
What does it mean to you?
In my dictionary some of the definitions of transparent are: 3. easily understood; very clear 4. easily recognized or detected; obvious 5. without guile or concealment; open; frank; candid.
In every agency I have worked there was always an open door policy. If contacted by a defense expert or defense attorney there was great cooperation on our part in providing them with access to the evidence (or copies if they wanted), the reports, and any case notes. I considered this transparency of work product.
One of the most common ways to show transparency is through documentation. Documentation can take on many forms and is dependent upon what aspect or function is being documented. In looking at over 20 agencies forms for examination documentation they are varied and exhibit different ideas and concepts on documentation. Just what exactly is to be documented is something still being debated.
Several years ago the concept of the transparency of the methodology started showing up in lectures, presentations, articles and on this web site. From some questions that I received there was some confusion. How can you document the mental process? I think instead of calling it documentation of the methodology it is actually the documentation of your observations. How this information is assimilated in the mind in my POV would be difficult. All of this to make us more transparent!
Now the issue is the documentation for transparency purposes of those actions that have no part or function of the examination itself. For example the documentation of those individuals on an AFIS list that do not match the friction ridge detail in question. Or the documentation of the substrate and matrix when they are not a factor in the examination of the friction ridges as it is my POV that identifications based upon friction ridge detail can be made without knowledge of the substrate or matrix. In some cases it is a factor but not in all examinations. All of this to make us more transparent!
It is my view that transparency is not very transparent as it means different things to different examiners.
What does it mean to you?