The word empirical keeps coming back to me after posting a recent blog about the importance of peer review in forensic work. (Refs 1, 2 and 3) This because many forensic engineering investigations of failures and accidents in the built and natural environments are empirical in nature. Meaning, they are based on observation or experience not laboratory and field testing.
The Observational Method – or Empirical Method, if you like – is widely used and accepted in both the theoretical and applied sciences. Check out Dr. Google:
- Civil, geotechnical and environmental engineering. The OM method is particularly valuable in geotech work because the engineering properties of the ground can change with every step.
- Design and construction
- Forensic investigation
- Criminal investigation
- Psychology
- Child development
- Anthropology
- Marketing
- Statistics
What needs to be understood is that, in general, one forensic observation is insufficient in determining cause. Cross checking is essential. Several observations must be made and a number of these – the preponderance – must point to the probable cause of a failure or accident. If this is not done, peer review will flush out the fault.
In general, the Observation Method, regardless the field of practice, like in the above list, involves:
- Preparing a preliminary design or investigation based on what is known at the time. This could be of an engineering structure or the forensic investigation of the failure of one, a research study, treatment of a PTSD patient, etc. – anything where there are unknowns.
- Preparing a monitoring plan to verify, for example, that the forensic investigation or research study is yielding expected data or findings.
- Preparing a contingency plan that is put into operation if the data or findings are not within defined limits. For example, if the preliminary design is of an engineering structure, and different foundation soil conditions are found during excavation, a contingency plan might require deep piled foundations rather than shallow ones. Or, the initial findings of a forensic investigation are incompatible with the initial hypothesis of the cause of a failure or accident, then the hypothesis is modified and additional investigation is done.
Getting back to empirical, I don’t remember the last time that I did a forensic investigation that was based on laboratory testing. Field testing, yes, plus lots of observation and experience. Testing like the re-enacting of accidents, testing the layout of a highway design, or field testing the properties of materials used in construction. There’s one field test I do – 10 times in each of three (3) different directions.
Why is talk about observation and experience, and peer review, important? Because forensic engineering investigations based on the Observation Method – many are – are best served when a peer review is carried out on completion of the investigation. Better a peer review than a rebuttal review if dispute resolution or insurance claims adjustment is not reached on the court house steps.
References
- How are forest fires and earthquakes similar, and what can experts learn from them about the importance of peer review? Posted June 27, 2023
- Update: A Bundle of Blogs: On the need for peer review in forensic engineering and expert services. Posted April 28, 2021
- A Bundle of Blogs: On the need for peer review in forensic engineering and expert services. Posted November 29, 2019 There are seven (7) good reads on peer review in this blog including the two (2) in the Update
(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, July 18, 2023. ejorden@eastlink.ca)