I thought about “super soft” forensic work and peer review after comments on my most recent blog on “soft” investigation by a reader in Ottawa, Chris Morry. (Ref. 1 and the Appendix)

If soft applied science during a forensic investigation, sans peer review, is susceptible to a hostile rebuttal review, as I suggest in my recent blog, (Ref. 1) super soft applied science during an investigation is over-the-top with susceptibility.

Super soft is out there according to Chris, and I agree. And hostile rebuttal review is just around the corner.

Some simple definitions:

1. Hard science relies on math, physics, chemistry and field and laboratory testing 2. Soft science relies on a mix of testing and observation 3. Super soft science relies on observation

Chris’ example of super soft: His example comes from work he often had to do. He had to determine habitat compensation to cover the harm done by an industrial activity that unavoidably destroyed fish habitat. This would be a super soft, investigation because determining compensation is based on a lot of observation and personal experience.

Eric’s example of soft: I saw fish habitat destroyed by sediment-soaked runoff from a construction site last year. An estimated 20% of the lake down slope of the site was medium brown with sediment – I swim in this lake but not in the 20%!

An engineering investigation of the cause of the sediment in the runoff would be soft, forensic engineering investigation. This is because design and construction of sediment control measures is well supported by the semi-empirical science of soil mechanics. This is a science that is based half on observation and half on field and laboratory testing.

***

Both Chris’ investigative work and mine would be susceptible to hostile rebuttal review if not peer reviewed. For sure that would happen in civil litigation if the lawyers were on their toes. And in insurance too if a questionable payout on a claim were on the table.

This is the reason I’ve gone on at length in the last two blogs about soft and super soft investigation, and the importance of peer review to avoid hostile rebuttal review.

***

References

1. “Soft” forensic engineering investigation and peer review. Posted May 28, 2024

Appendix

(The following comment came in May 28, 2024 from a friend in Ottawa, and former neighbour, on reading my blog posted that day: C. J. Morry, B.Sc., M.Sc. (Limnology, the study of fresh waters), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Retired, after serving in a number of advisory positions and regions including National HQ) and author of several books, notably, When the Great Red Dawn is Shining; Howard L. Morry’s Memoir of Life in the Newfoundland Regiment, Breakwater Books, St. Johns 2014)

“Hi Eric:

“I was interested and not at all surprised that this dichotomy exists in your area of science as it does in mine. As an environmental scientist, I was constantly aware of the differences between soft and hard science. These differences exist, as much as we may wish to think that they did not.

“In my area of science I dealt with hard forms of science like chemistry and soft forms of science, like behavioural science in biota. The difference is easy to explain. In any form of science that can be quantified with predicable and constant results like chemistry, given that the conditions are completely controlled, such as an experiment in the lab, the end result will always be the same. Whereas in the life sciences like biology and ecology, as carefully as you attempt to control all the variables, you will never be able to predict the outcome of the experiment 100% of the time. Real life gets in the way.

“A specific example. One of the things that we were required to do in my work was to determine what form of habitat compensation would adequately cover the harm done by an industrial activity that unavoidably destroyed fish habitat. All the high powered mathematics in the world and all the computer fire power you could bring to bear on the subject would never even come close to defining a remediation program that would offset that habitat loss with absolute certainty. Nature is far too complex for such a determination.

“I think that much the same is true in your area of science – forensic studies using the principles of engineering. In the lab, you can recreate the circumstances of a failure observed in the field to attempt to demonstrate the root cause and you will be right — much of the time. But never 100% of the time. There are too many unpredictable variables out in the real world that cannot be quantified and that will alter the outcome each time the experiment is run. So as an expert intervenor in such circumstances, it is up to you to be humble and to admit that your assessment is only an approximation of what occurred in the real world example and to build-in a measure of uncertainty that covers all the possibilities.

“AI (artificial intelligence) is the latest buzz word that everyone is talking about, some with fear and some with unrealistic anticipation of the benefits to humanity. Those who develop systems based on AI are naively suggesting that systems using AI can get around our human limitations to capture uncertainty as in the cases above to predict the unpredictable. Or possibly they are maliciously covering up the fact that they know already that this is not the case. There is the subject for your next blog!

“Off to Newfoundland on Saturday morning for three weeks. Luckily, the temperature and the weather so far or on an improving trajectory, but again, this is the real world and in the real world Newfoundland’s climate is amongst the most unpredictable of the unpredictable phenomena!”)

***

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 24, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

***

I recently saw reference online to soft science and hard science. I was researching topics while also looking at titles of blogs I had posted in the past. My research was in the nature of an assessment of what more needs to be known about forensic engineering investigation and expert services.

The adjective “soft” in the reference troubled me and this not reflecting well on forensic work. Particularly a forensic investigation that had not been peer reviewed.

I found a lot of comment in the literature on what’s soft science as distinct from hard science. In the engineering spirit of trying to keep it simple I settled on the following:

• Hard science relies on math, physics and chemistry and has more control of the variables and conclusions in applying the scientific method
• Soft science relies on empirical data – originating in or based on observation or experience – and has less control of the variables and conclusions

If science can be soft and engineering is applied science can it be said there is soft and hard engineering? Would engineering relying on the Observational Method be an example of soft engineering? (Refs 1, 2 and 3)

Why do I think this is relevant? Because, to the uninformed soft engineering might not be seen as engineering. Does that mean soft science is not science? I don’t think so; check out the discussion at Wikipedia.

But, if nothing else, perceiving engineering as soft opens it up to hostile rebuttal review. That’s all the more reason for peer review particularly when a forensic engineering investigation is of a soft engineering failure.

***

Examples of soft engineering:

• Investigation of the cause of a personal injury accident like slip and fall accidents
• Forensic engineering investigation of failures, particularly of structures in the natural environment – in and on the ground – compared to those in the built environment – above the ground
• Design of shoring for an excavation
• Design and construction of foundations, particularly on soft and loose soils
• Flood water protection
• Design and construction of stable cut slopes. (A cut slope is a slope in natural, undisturbed soil, like along the side of a highway)

References

1. One forensic observation does not a cause make Posted July 18, 2023
2. Observational Method: Example #1 Posted July 31, 2023
3. Observational Method: Example #2 Posted August 29, 2023

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 28, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

***

Excuse me if I huff and puff a bit about being right. There really is only one way to analyse evidence in a crime to identify the bad guy – not four ways. Similarly, there is only one way to analyse data to learn the cause of an accident or failure in the built or natural environment.

This came out in a talk with a friend about his career in police work. He saw four ways of analysing data and evidence. I allowed maybe four but only one underlying method as posted in a previous blog. (Fig. 1)

My friend sees the four methods as follows:

1. Tactical (Specific to a project or occurrence)
2. Strategic (Addressing general issues, trending or potential) i.e. foresight, threat and risk assessments
3. Intelligence (Discover plans or developments of concern)
4. Business (As above, to monitor intelligence pertaining to the industry, company,  competitors, risks of takeover)

I see four different types of data and evidence in my friend’s list. I don’t see four different types of analytical method. Analysis is analysis is analysis – check out the definition in the dictionaries:

Four dictionaries – Cambridge, Brittanica, Merriam-Webster and Oxford -gave similar definitions of analysis. I’ve summarized these in the following as applies to forensic engineering investigation, and for sure as applies to catching the bad guys:

Analysis is the act of studying or examining “something” closely and carefully in detail, it’s elements or structure, to discover or understand more about its nature and the relationship of it’s parts, it’s essential features

The “something” could be a single task in a forensic engineering investigation and if it indicates the cause of an accident or failure in the built or natural environment, or supports the findings of another task.

(A little aside, there is a strong moral and ethical burden on an analyst to be thorough, accurate, unbiased, and objective. The result of the analysis must be credible and reliable and as much as possible, beyond reproach)

There was nothing in the four dictionaries about four methods of analysis. The definitions were very similar as I summarized above. Go see in the dictionaries I listed above – two of these were checked by my friend and two by me.

My friend may have been led astray by the nature of his work. He went on to list six (6) different purposes for an analysis, four (4) methods of analysis – see his list and my comments above – and 11 methodologies of analysis.

I’m not surprised at his detailed lists – like said in my earlier blog he did good work and travelled extensively. The lists help my friend and his colleagues do good police work – even if the four (4) types of data are mislabeled as four (4) methods.

The lists reminded me that I hadn’t seen comparable lists in forensic engineering investigation. If they haven’t been prepared they could be – the information is out there and followed in engineering work. Maybe the lack of published lists in engineering takes the huff and puff out of my sails.

References

1. How many different ways can data and evidence be analysed? Posted May 17, 2024

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 16, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

Any geotechnical engineer – Dirt Doctor to some – worth his weight in soil could have predicted what was going to happen to a building near a four-story deep excavation. This was an excavation at the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus in Kelowna, B.C. That’s about 40 feet deep – a big hole!

The excavation was dug for construction of a 43 story high-rise and four-level underground parkade. Eighty-four (84) tenants were evacuated from one building near the excavation, the Hadgraft Wilson Place because of potential collapse. Problems developed over months as the excavation got deeper including bricks falling from nearby buildings onto the sidewalk below.

I’ve consulted on big failures – a railway embankment in northern Australia that almost took a train down – but nothing like this. You can see a picture of the excavation and read about it in the following link. And also get a feel for the depth of the excavation knowing that the orange security fence surrounding the excavation is about the height of a tall construction worker.

Google .https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/kelowna-apartment-evacuation-1.7160537..)

This failure is big but the cause is simple. The sides of all excavations in soil slump down or cave in a little or a lot, or something in between depending on the type of soil. An excavation in stiff clay would slump down a little whereas loose sand and gravel a lot. Part of the excavation for this building caved in a lot according to news reports and a picture at the link above.

The surface of the soil beyond the excavation settles and moves when this happens. Depending on the magnitude of the settlement, cracks may appear in structures like buildings, parking lots or roads supported on the soil behind the excavation.

This settling and cracking is sometimes okay – when it’s really really tiny – other times it’s not. When it’s not okay the side of the excavation is shored or propped up. Something like a wall is built against the side of the excavation – a shoring-wall like mentioned in the news.

The shoring-wall is built against the vertical side of the excavation in the soil to hold it in place. The shoring is more or less elaborate and strong depending on the depth of the excavation and the nature of the soil.

Like all materials used in construction the shoring gives a little – moves – when there is pressure on it. The pressure comes from the side of the excavation wanting to fall or slump down.

The surface of the soil in back of the excavation settles or subsides a little when the pressurized shoring-wall moves a little. The foundations of a building in this soil settles too and cracks appear in the building – like did in the buildings near the excavation in Kelowna as reported in the news.

The amount of foundation settlement depends on factors like the following:

1. The depth of the excavation,
2. Nature of the soil,
3. Strength of the shoring,
4. Distance of the building foundations from the face of the excavation,
5. Pressure from the foundations

Anything on the surface of the soil in back of an excavation settles and subsides, a little or a lot or something in between.

Geotechnical engineers know this based on common knowledge, some knowledge of the soil in the area from a published surficial geology map, and the depth of the excavation – they wouldn’t need to leave their office. Look at me way Down East telling you this.

The magnitude of the building settlement and cracking, and whether or not it would get reported in the newspapers, is another matter. This is another level of engineering that would require me, like any engineer, to get out of the office. Get on site and get my hands dirty and mud on my boots.

But knowing why is easy. Also knowing that something like this would happen – before the excavation was dug – is easy too. And that a shoring-wall would need to be properly designed and constructed.

***

This settling and cracking-up occurred in the building where I took my lectures in civil engineering. I remember a 2.5 inch crack in the corner of our lecture room. It was still there years later during a class reunion.

An addition to the building was being constructed at the time that involved an excavation adjacent to the foundations of our lecture room. The excavation was shored up but not well enough – I remember a wall of vertical, steel I-beams and horizontal wood planks. The pressure on the shoring-wall caused it to move and soil in back to settle undermining the foundations of the room. I don’t think there were any Dirt Doctors on site in this case.

***

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, April 29, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

Imagine my interest on learning that there are at least four different ways of analysing data and evidence. A former police officer told me this. That was his job before he retired and he traveled extensively doing it.

He was excited telling me this. It was obvious that he enjoyed his job, and did it well. I was excited too, and concerned that I didn’t even know there were four ways. But, cut me a little slack till I learn what’s involved in these four methods in the event there is a basic process and it’s reflected in what I do.

I analyse data collected during a forensic engineering investigation to determine the cause of an accident or a failure in the built or natural environment. I look at each piece of data and see if it indicates the cause of the incident. I then see if there is agreement among the different data as to cause, and the extent of the agreement.

My examination of each piece of data is based on observation. Also science, math and physic’s principles applicable to the design and construction of the accident or failure scene.

You will see a process in my forensic reports that looks like this:

• What task did I do?
• What data did I get from the task?
• What cause was indicated by each piece of data?
• What agreement is evident among the data as to cause?

A forensic engineering investigation will consist of a number of tasks, data from each and, often, a single cause.

But not always a single cause – sometimes more than one presents as worthy of consideration. In cases and claims like this, civil procedure rules, like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia, require a statement of analysis and reasoning as to why one cause was selected and each of the others rejected.

Now I’m on a hunt to learn about these four ways of analysing data and evidence reported by the retired police officer. That surprised me at the time. I’ve wondered since, are we really talking about four types of evidence and just one method of analysis?

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer and Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, March 28, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

I was annoyed recently when I read on Google about the Observational Method in Geotechnical Engineering – that is, the engineering of the ground where everything is supported, or, the engineering of the natural environment. (Ref. 1)

I didn’t see any reference to the engineer or investigating expert getting his hands dirty and mud on his boots. (Ref. 2) Doing this while observing conditions on site and collecting data to design a structure or analyse the cause of a failure or accident.

It was the boots-on-the-ground aspect that was missing – conspicuous by its absence.

I saw lots of references to big, impressive structures like suspension bridges, multi-story buildings, dams, tunnels, coastal works and slope stability. But little or nothing about more humble structures like low rise buildings, suburban roads, sidewalks, retaining walls, and sign posts and towers.

I saw one research paper, out of literally dozens – like dozens – about the Observational Method in forensic engineering investigation. One.

I saw lots of theorizing on Dr. Google but not much real world stuff.

Yet, it’s the nuts and bolts in the built and natural environments that carry the day in design and construction. Also in the resolution of a dispute or the settlement of a claim. It’s this level – the guy/gal with dirty hands and muddy boots – that gets cross-examined and peer reviewed back and forth and up and down, not the theory up in the clouds.

Why isn’t this grassroots level and humble structures talked about in the Observational Method? The engineer in me was annoyed to say the least.

References

1. Google Observational Method in Geotechnical Engineering and see for yourself. I did this earlier this week, possibly Dr. Google has since changed or updated.
2. Billiam, John. One of my professors at the University of Birmingham, England noted that “Canadian engineers are noted for going on site and getting their hands dirty and mud on their boots”. I liked hearing that, and make certain I live up to it.

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, February 27, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

Both need to be thorough and objective, but the sameness ends there. Data analysis is based on numbers and the scientific method and is more precise. Evidence assessment is based on case law and legal principles – words – and is less precise. A hard analysis compared to a soft analysis.

Where does that leave the accident victim, the property owner, the claimant? It leaves them some wiggle room, or the butt of some. Think what lawyers – wordsmiths as they say – can do with wiggle room.

I’m not sure where these thoughts came from but they are relevant to recent blogs on the role observation plays in forensic investigation and the importance of peer review. (Refs 1 to 5) Observation – the soft underbelly of forensic investigation? (Ref. 6)

It’s interesting too that civil procedure rules governing experts, like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia, are prepared by the legal profession – the wordsmiths. Proponents of the soft analysis telling those of the hard analysis how to analyse their data and write their reports. Interesting.

But the Rule reminded me to keep my forensic report writing tight, including noting other possible causes of an incident and why they were dismissed. This echoes the scientific method in a big way – the hard analysis. I wonder if the wordsmiths realized this?

References

1. One forensic observation does not a cause make. Posted July 18, 2023
2. Observational Method: Example #1. Posted July 31, 2023
3. Observational Method: Example #2. Posted August 29, 2023
4. The science of peer review in forensic investigation. Posted November 30, 2023
5. A mini application of the scientific method in a forensic engineering investigation. Posted December 31, 2023
6. Google the Observational Method and learn about it at this level. For example, Google Observational Method in Geotechnical Engineering; a good example seeing as everything rests on the ground – like in Geo

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, February 20, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

A lecturer in drone technology said so last evening, and I would agree in a heart beat. And I would also say that it’s a BIG lead in both civil litigation and insurance and getting bigger as we speak.

This quickly came to mind last evening when I attended an introductory lecture on drones by Dr. Ian MacVicar entitled Drones – Detectives, Deliverers, Deceivers, Spies, and Murderers. He outlined what he was going to talk about in the six, two hour lectures organized by SCANS (Seniors’ College Association of Nova Scotia). I was there as the one time guest of another student. The course is filled and over subscribed 🙁 so forget about getting in during this session.

I know that drone photography is out in front of law and insurance in forensic engineering investigation of failures and accidents in the built environment. No question about that. I don’t go on a site and investigate an issue without some drone video of the site – it has been the tie breaker on two recent cases. I’ve mentioned this in previous blogs. Usually the drone video is inexpensive for invaluable engineering data.

But I was taken aback by where drone photography has got to in the fiends covered by Dr. MacVicar’s planned lectures. Listen to the news and see how it’s being used in the wars in Europe these days. Go see how it was used for the first time in 1917 in WW1 and where it’s at now.

The lectures are so good you should consider sending a representative from your company and get up to speed, if the course is offered again. Not with the idea of becoming a tech-savvy drone photographer but to know what to look for in your expert’s report.

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, January 31, 2024 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

I chatted with a stranger sitting next to me at a concert recently. He told me about a concrete slab on his property that settled 10 cm in a few days after 10 years. The slab supported a small out-building. I don’t know the location of the property.

A vibratory roller was compacting layers of soil during construction of an eight (8) foot deep fill on the next lot. The chap attributed settlement of his concrete slab to the work on the adjacent property.

He filed a claim with his insurance company who had an engineer investigate the problem. I gather from the concert friend’s comments that the engineer’s investigation consisted of walking over the property and visually examining it. The insurance company denied the claim based on the engineer’s report.

I remember thinking at the time that examination of the building wall where it rests on the concrete slab would be helpful. If the slab was constructed level 10 years ago then recent settlement of 10 cm would distort the contact between the wall and the slab in some way and this would be visible.

If the slab was not constructed level years ago then the building wall would be constructed to rest on a sloping concrete slab which would also be evident during a visual examination. For example, the 2 by 4 wall studs would be longer at one end of the wall.

My concert companion also commented to suggest his lot was underlain by soft soils. Construction of a 8 foot deep fill next door suggests soft soils there as well.

Finally, vibratory rollers shake the ground, and not just directly below the roller but also beyond the roller to some extent. That’s how they compact soil and make it stronger and less compressible. Shaking the ground is accompanied by settlement of the soil surface.

So, what would application of the scientific method accomplish/do in this situation? We can go through the steps as referenced in a previous blog (Fig. 1) and listed below in the Appendix.

1. The problem in this situation is confirming that the concrete slab did settle 10 cm recently and, if this is the case, why – the cause?
2. Talk with the owner and learn about construction of the building. Talk with the adjacent lot owner and the contractor and learn about construction and compaction of the fill. Visually observe construction of the site, also the concrete slab and the building resting on it.
3. If observations confirm that the slab has settled recently and a vibratory roller operated next door then the roller causing the slab to settle is a reasonable hypothesis.
4. Survey and measure the layout of the site including the distance of the 8 foot deep fill from the building that settled. Measure construction of the building that settled and confirm the reported settlement. Check surficial geology maps for the type of soil underlying the site. Experiment: Excavate a test pit and confirm the type of soil. Re-enact construction activity at the site by measuring the vibration of the soil at different distances from a walk-behind plate compactor.
5. Collect data: Note the data collected from each of these measurements and experiments.
6. Analyse the data, the results: Note the cause of the building settlement as indicated by each measurement and experiment. Also where different data agree and reinforce cause and where data don’t agree. Identify additional measurements/experiments that could be carried out. For example, measure the vibration at distances from a vibratory roller similar to that used during construction and compaction of the 8 foot fill. Also measure the settlement of monitoring points at different distances from the vibratory roller. Analyse this data and how it agrees/disagrees with other data on cause.
7. Conclusion: Note the probable cause of the building settling 10 cm based on the analysis – the vibratory roller. Also note other possible causes – none – and why these were dismissed.
8. Form opinion: The vibration from the vibratory roller caused the building to settle 10 cm the same as it caused the 8 feet of soil to settle as it was being compacted.
9. Write a detailed report on the measurements and experiments done during the mini scientific investigation, the data collected, analysis of this data, the conclusion drawn and the opinion arrived at. Do this, for example, according to guidelines for experts in Nova Scotia and also the excellent expert report writing manuals available for sale.
10. Peer review: If a cost/benefit analysis justifies, get a peer review of your forensic investigation of whether or not compaction of the 8 foot fill caused the 10 cm settlement of the building. Get it done by a colleague rather than another. If you’re out on a limb because of an error – they sneak in at times – better that you learn from a colleague and get back off the limb, and fix things, rather than a stranger do the peer review and you fall to the ground.

References

1. The science of peer review in forensic investigation. Posted November 30, 2023

Appendix

Steps in the Scientific Method

1. Problem: The problem is determination of the cause of the failure or accident.
2. Observation: Get briefed on what is known about the failure or accident. Read documents. Walk over the site and visually examine where the accident or failure occurred.
3. Hypothesis: Note the possible cause of the incident based on the evidence from the briefing, reading the documents and visually examining the site of the failure or accident.
4. Experiment: Identify investigations suggested by the possible cause. Investigations like a) the layout of the site, b) the size of the site and its components, c) maintenance of the site, and, d) activity at the site when the accident or failure happened. Re-enact the accident.
5. Collect data: Note the data got from each of these investigations.
6. Analyze results: Note the cause of the failure or accident as indicated by each piece of data. Note where there is agreement and disagreement amongst the data on cause. Identify additional investigations that could be carried out. Carry out these investigations and analyze the data.
7. Conclusion: Note the probable cause of the accident or failure based on the analysis. Note other possible causes and the data supporting these, and why these causes were dismissed.
8. Form opinion: Form and state opinion on the cause of the accident or failure.
9. Report: Report in detail what was done during each step in the investigation according to the guidance of civil procedure rules like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia and manuals on expert report writing.
10. Peer review: Review what was done during each step of the investigation and it’s conformance to the standard of practice and what a reasonable person would do.

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada December 31, 2023 ejorden@eastlink.ca)    

A forensic investigation of a failure or accident in the built environment is the scientific method in action, like it is in many fields of study. (Ref. 1) It goes through the same systematic stepped process as the scientific method, or it should.

Peer review by a forensic expert’s colleagues – the last stage in a forensic investigation – checks that this has happened. In a sense, peer review is the scientific method in action again.

The following 10 steps in the scientific method are well known – it’s not rocket science. The actual tasks carried out at each step during a forensic investigation are less well known but easy to understand. For example, what’s simpler to understand in the following than “Reading documents” in Step #2?:

1. Problem: The problem is determination of the cause of the failure or accident.
2. Observation: Get briefed on what is known about the failure or accident. Read documents. Walk over the site and visually examine where the accident or failure occurred.
3. Hypothesis: Note the possible cause of the incident based on the evidence from the briefing, reading the documents and visually examining the site of the failure or accident.
4. Experiment: Identify investigations suggested by the possible cause. Investigations like a) the layout of the site, b) the size of the site and its components, c) maintenance of the site, and, d) activity at the site when the accident or failure happened. Re-enact the accident.
5. Collect data: Note the data got from each of these investigations.
6. Analyze results: Note the cause of the failure or accident as indicated by each piece of data. Note where there is agreement and disagreement amongst the data on cause. Identify additional investigations that could be carried out. Carry out these investigations and analyze the data.
7. Conclusion: Note the probable cause of the accident or failure based on the analysis. Note other possible causes and the data supporting these, and why these causes were dismissed.
8. Form opinion: Form and state opinion on the cause of the accident or failure.
9. Report: Report in detail what was done during each step in the investigation according to the guidance of civil procedure rules like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia and manuals on expert report writing.
10. Peer review: Review what was done during each step of the investigation and it’s conformance to the standard of practice and what a reasonable person would do.

***

I thought to blog on this topic – science in forensic investigation – when the extent of observation in forensic investigation kept coming to mind. Subjective observation compared to objective field and laboratory testing. (Refs 2 to 4) And how peer review ensures the forensic investigation including its subjective observations is properly carried out.

It was while researching this topic that I realized a forensic investigation and it’s peer review are both examples of the scientific method in action. The penny dropped again when I realized the simplicity of the scientific method – a bunch of simple steps. Others have seen this hence the wide application of the scientific method to the simplest of problems. (Ref. 1)

References

1. Google “scientific method” and be surprised like I was at it’s wide and sometimes simple application.
2. One forensic observation does not a cause make. Posted July 18, 2023
3. Observational Method: Example #1 Posted July 31, 2023
4. Observational Method: Example #2 Posted August 29, 2023

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada November 30, 2023 ejorden@eastlink.ca)