Introduction The National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences Report (2009) recommended forensic science training

move from in-house training to formal education. Although in-house training has a place in the

crime laboratory, formal education can reduce the time it takes to move a new hire to

competency. However, crime laboratory directors identified inconsistencies among the curricula

of forensic science programs as an impediment to this shift.

With the increase in media coverage of high profile trials and the rise in television crime

dramas, there has been an increase in public awareness of forensic evidence. The first network

forensic crime drama was Quincy, M.E., that began in the mid-1970s (Ramirez & Parish-Fisher,

2012). In the 1990’s the O. J. Simpson case relied heavily on DNA evidence, which caused the

defense to scrutinize the procedures and personnel involved in the collection and analysis of the

evidence (Ellis, 1995). The procedural errors and jurors’ perception of the forensic scientists’

knowledge and skills cast doubt on the evidence presented (Ellis, 1995). In the 21st century,

forensic crime dramas have increased in popularity beginning with Law and Order followed by

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (Jackson, 2009). Although these shows have heightened public

awareness, they have also created numerous misconceptions about what a crime laboratory can

or cannot do (Kruse, 2010). This is one piece of what has come to be known as the CSI Effect,

which is defined as “the false or exaggerated perception of forensic science techniques by the

general public, and how it influences opinions of the public” (Ramirez

& Parish-Fisher, p. 5, 2012).

The CSI Effect has affected many areas of the criminal justice system in addition to

forensic analysis of evidence. One of the noticeable effects is that investigators and prosecutors

now request numerous tests on a myriad of pieces of evidence which has created a backlog in

crime laboratories that are already understaffed and underfunded (National Academy of

Sciences, 2009; Harriss, 2011). Not only are the crime laboratories overwhelmed by the

increased number of requests, but as technology has increased so have the staff training needs

(National Academy of Sciences, 2009; Ramirez and Parish-Fisher, 2012). This has also led to

defense attorneys questioning the credentials of crime laboratory personnel and the validity of

forensic techniques used as in the O. J. Simpson trial (Ellis, 1995). As crime laboratories have

struggled to keep up with the demand, many laboratories have hired new personnel to assist

with reducing the case backlog. Other laboratories have contracted their backlog to other

facilities for analysis.

The CSI Effect has also led to an increase in the number of students applying to forensic

science programs (Bergslien, 2006). The increased number of students seeking forensic science

education nationally led to an increase in the number of universities offering forensic science

degrees (Quarino & Bretell, 2009). Since there were no standards in place to guide curriculum,

programs and degrees were created with incredible variability in curriculum (Quarino & Bretell,

2009). Some were extensions of criminal justice programs which merely added a forensic

science internship at a local crime laboratory or medical examiner’s office with little to no

chemistry or biology in the curriculum (Quarino & Bretell, 2009). Because of the rapid growth

and variability of forensic science academic programs, crime laboratory directors preferred

applicants with biology or chemistry undergraduate degrees due to the standardization of

those degrees nationally (Peterson & DeForest, 1977; Hooker, 1984; Higgins & Selavka, 1988;

Siegel, 1988; Furton, Hsu, & Cole, 1999).

Shortly after the O. J. Simpson trial highlighted possible procedural and personnel issues

in the Los Angeles Police Department, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in conjunction with

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Law Enforcement Standards Office

(OLES), and American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) evaluated the needs of the

forensic science community at a two day workshop in 1997 (National Institute of Justice, 1999).

Their report, Forensic Sciences: Review of Status and Needs (1999), identified the need to shift

the burden of training to formal degree programs. They also identified the need to standardize

the curricula offered by the forensic science degree programs (National Institute of Justice,

1999). This began a cascade effect that led to the creation of the Forensic Science Education

Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) and subsequently the National Academy of

Sciences Committee Report which re-evaluated the needs of the forensic science community.

Several studies surveyed crime laboratory directors. These studies identified

inconsistencies between forensic science program curricula as an impediment to hiring

personnel with forensic science degrees (Peterson & DeForest, 1977; Hooker, 1984; Higgins &

Selavka, 1988; Siegel, 1988; Furton, Hsu, & Cole, 1999). Peterson et al. (1977) determined that

although universities felt they were properly preparing their graduates to work in a crime

laboratory, the crime laboratory directors did not necessarily agree. Siegel (1988) concluded,

“There is apparently little uniformity among programs which call themselves forensic science”

(p. 1068). Higgins and Selavka (1988), and Furton, Hsu, and Cole (1999) investigated the crime

laboratory directors’ preferences regarding applicants’ educational background. The studies

continued to find that crime laboratory directors preferred a strong chemistry background

rather than or in addition to forensic science because of the continued inconsistencies in

forensic science curricula (Almirall & Furton, 2003).

The National Institute of Justice (1999) reviewed the challenges facing forensic science

nationally. In the course of their discussions, they made several recommendations regarding

the training needs of the profession which included accreditation of academic programs and

national standards for education (National Institute of Justice, 1999). These recommendations

led to the creation of the Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic

Science (TWGED) and eventually the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission (FEPAC) (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science,

2004; Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). TWGED established

“best practices for training and education in forensic science” (Technical Working Group for

Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004, p. 3). FEPAC utilized TWGED’s

recommendations for curriculum standards to establish a system of accreditation for forensic

science programs (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The

expected outcome for these efforts was to reduce inconsistencies in curricula between forensic

science programs; however, there are limited studies published that evaluate forensic science

programs’ curricula following the institution of FEPAC Accreditation. The National Academy of

Sciences Committee published in 2009, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A

Path Forward, which continued to cite inconsistencies among forensic science degree programs

as problematic.

Statement of the Problem

Although several studies investigated the coursework and minimum degrees crime

laboratory directors prefer new employees to possess, no studies have been conducted to

evaluate how the accredited graduate forensic science programs fulfill the FEPAC Accreditation

Standards and the extent to which FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’

curricula are consistent with each other.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate curricula of FEPAC Accredited Graduate

Forensic Science Programs to determine: how the curricula of these programs fulfill the FEPAC

Graduate Curriculum Standards, and to what extent curricula among graduate programs are

consistent with one another.

Rationale of the Study

Each graduate program has fulfilled the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards in order to

receive accreditation; however, the manner in which they fulfilled the elements of the

curriculum standards may vary among programs. This study sought to understand how each

graduate program fulfilled the FEPAC standards by analyzing the programs’ websites and

selfstudy documents. By identifying the curriculum consistencies and inconsistencies among

FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs, this study provided an assessment of

graduate program curricula.

Significance of the Study

This study established whether the curricula at FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Programs provided graduates with knowledge and skills in the forensic science

disciplines that were consistent among graduate programs. Crime laboratory directors spend

too much time evaluating coursework and transcripts for applicants or rely upon costly inhouse

training (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). Prior to the advent of FEPAC accreditation of

forensic science programs, crime laboratory directors specifically stated in several studies that

inconsistencies among curricula were an impediment to evaluating the knowledge and skills of

applicants (Peterson & DeForest, 1977; Hooker, 1984; Higgins & Selavka, 1988; Siegel, 1988;

Furton, Hsu, & Cole, 1999). Directors would benefit from knowing what knowledge and skills a

graduate of a FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Program should possess. FEPAC

Accredited Forensic Science Graduate Programs would benefit from knowing how other

accredited graduate programs fulfilled different aspects of the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum

Standards. Perspective students would benefit by knowing what knowledge and skills they can

expect to gain by attending a FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Program.

The need to address the inconsistencies among graduate forensic science programs led

to TWGED recommending model undergraduate and graduate curricula which FEPAC utilized for

their accreditation standards (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic

Science, 2004; Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). FEPAC

determines whether a forensic science program meets the standards through the graduate or

undergraduate program’s completion of a self-study which FEPAC verifies through an on-site

review process (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Although two

studies, Tregar and Proni (2010) and Springer and Melino (2011), evaluated the curricula of

accredited and non-accredited graduate programs after the implementation of FEPAC

Accreditation Standards, no study has evaluated only FEPAC Accredited Graduate Programs.

Research Questions

1. How are the accredited graduate forensic science programs implementing the Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission Graduate Curriculum Standards?

2. What are the consistencies and inconsistencies in curriculum across Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission Accredited Graduate Forensic Science

Programs?

Operational Definitions

The following operational definitions were used to guide this study:

Consistencies among curricula: the information regarding the curricula that is in

agreement among all FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs as presented as

gathered from graduate programs’ websites and self-study documents.

Inconsistencies among curricula: the information regarding the curricula that are lacking

agreement among all FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs as gathered from

graduate programs’ websites and self-study documents.

Delimitations

Since the FEPAC Accreditation Standards were implemented in response to perceptions

of crime laboratory directors, only FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’

curricula were reviewed. Since the preferred degree identified by several studies is a Master’s

of Science degree in Forensic Science, only graduate forensic science programs were reviewed.

FEPAC policy requires all information provided in the program’s application and self-study

remain confidential and only accessible to FEPAC designees (Accreditation, n.d.); therefore, data

were gathered from the graduate forensic science program directors and institutional websites.

Time also presented a limitation to the study. The timeline set by the researcher of this

study would not allow the researcher to directly observe the curricula at the accredited

graduate programs. To undertake direct observation and possible participation at seventeen

graduate programs across the United States would take an exorbitant amount of time and would

be cost prohibitive for the researcher.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The word forensic is derived from the Latin word forum which means public (Siegel &

Mirakovits, 2010). During the Roman Empire, the forum was a place where the Senate would

conduct public meeting and debate politics (Siegel & Mirakovits, 2010). In today’s culture

forensic science means science utilized in a court of law (Siegel & Mirakovits, 2010).

Accordingly, any area of life or science can be involved in the commission or analysis of a crime;

therefore, a forensic scientist is an essential element in the criminal justice system.

Forensic science originally began out of a need to solve crimes (Saferstein, 2016).

Analyses and equipment from other disciplines such as chemistry, biology, or anthropology,

were adapted to determine if a suspect had been in contact with a piece of evidence or in a

particular location (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2015; Saferstein,

2016). The profession gleaned what it needed from other scientific disciplines such as DNA

analysis from biology (Saferstein, 2016), handwriting analysis from education (Lewis, 2014), and

fingerprint analysis from anatomy and anthropology (Saferstein, 2016).

Initially crime laboratories were staffed by police officers who completed an in-house

training program or by scientists in the basic sciences from nearby universities (Saferstein,

2016). In-house training programs varied widely between laboratories and within disciplines,

usually based on the resources of the laboratory (Hooker, 1984; National Academy of Sciences,

2009). As scientists at the universities became increasingly involved in casework, this

precipitated the development of formal forensic science degree programs (Quarino & Brettell,

2009). The first formal forensic science degree began at Michigan State University in 1947

(Peterson & DeForest, 1977).

Forensic science programs began to operate in relative isolation to each other (Peterson

& DeForest, 1977) and continue to do so today. Curricula between programs are thought to

vary significantly which leaves crime laboratory directors unsure of what knowledge or skills a

graduate with a forensic science degree possesses (National Academy of Sciences, 2009).

Because of this, many crime laboratory directors prefer to hire applicants with a chemistry

undergraduate degree plus a possible forensic science graduate degree and then provide

inhouse training in forensic science (Hooker, 1984; Higgins & Selavka, 1988; Siegel, 1988; Furton,

Hsu, & Cole, 1999). The studies reviewed below compare the forensic science programs’

curricula to the crime laboratory directors’ expectations.

Studies Comparing Forensic Science Programs

The question then becomes: are forensic science programs producing graduates that

possess the knowledge and skills crime laboratory directors are seeking in new employees? This

question directly relates to the forensic science education curricula. Using employment as a

benchmark, Siegel (1988), and Furton, Hsu, and Cole (1999) surveyed crime laboratory directors

to determine what degree they prefer in new hirers. Siegel (1988) found that an undergraduate

degree in chemistry or a degree with a heavy chemistry emphasis in conjunction with a

graduate degree in forensic science was preferred. However, the comments provided by the

crime laboratory directors were illuminating. The crime laboratory directors indicated that the

weakness of the forensic science degree was the variability between program curricula (Siegel,

1988). They could not determine if the degree was built on a basic sciences degree or a criminal

justice degree with a few chemistry or biology courses (Siegel, 1988).

Eleven years later, Furton, Hsu, and Cole (1999) surveyed crime laboratory directors to

determine the minimum degree requirements for a new hire in the laboratory. Furton, Hsu, and

Cole (1999) arrived at the same conclusion as Siegel (1988): crime laboratories preferred to hire

applicants with a strong chemistry background. However, unlike Siegel, Furton, Hsu, and Cole

(1999) asked crime laboratory directors about the hiring requirements, not their personal

preference.

Peterson and DeForest (1977) felt that the most important issue facing crime

laboratories was the quality of education the scientists possessed. To enable the crime

laboratory directors and university educators to better understand the current status of forensic

science education, Peterson and DeForest surveyed twenty-two forensic science programs, both

undergraduate and graduate (1977). Information gathered by the survey included: type of

degree, year the program was established, geographic location of institution, program’s location

within the institution, degree title, number of graduates since inception, number of students

currently enrolled, employment status of graduates, facilities and equipment for teaching and

research, internship, and courses offered (Peterson & DeForest, 1977).

The results of their survey found that the tremendous growth in the number of forensic

science degree programs occurred without any coordination of the curricula at a national level

(Peterson & DeForerest, 1977). The students graduating from different programs did not

possess the same knowledge or skills (Peterson & DeForest, 1977). In as much as forensic

science programs were operating in isolation from each other, a common curriculum covered by

all programs would decrease variability (Peterson & DeForest, 1977). They also determined that

a degree in forensic science rather than a basic science allows the student to develop a forensic

science way of thinking (Peterson & DeForest, 1977).

Hooker (1984) conducted a study specifically to guide the curriculum at Virginia

Commonwealth University for a forensic science degree. He surveyed thirteen graduate

forensic science programs and visited three programs. He found the degree programs varied

significantly between institutions (Hooker, 1984). Hooker (1984) also surveyed 243 crime

laboratory directors. The crime laboratory directors indicated that a forensic science degree

was of value; they recommended a wide variety of courses and topics that should be part of a

forensic science degree (Hooker, 1984). The laboratory directors’ recommendations indicated

that the variety of needs that exist at various crime laboratories possibly cause variability

between programs.

Higgins and Selavka (1988) also surveyed forensic science programs and crime laboratory

directors to determine if forensic science programs were fulfilling the needs of the crime

laboratories. Nine forensic science graduate programs were surveyed; however, only five

responded meaning that any conclusions drawn are based on a limited sample size. Their

survey covered a multitude of topics including: entrance requirements, curriculum, facilities,

faculty, program position within the university, and funding for teaching assistants and research

(Higgins & Selavka, 1988). Higgins and Selavka (1988) found little variation between the

responding graduate programs in all areas surveyed. Although they found little variation among

forensic science curricula, Siegel (1988), after surveying crime laboratory directors, concluded,

“there is apparently little uniformity among programs which call themselves forensic science”

(p. 1068).

As technology and laboratory techniques have increased in sophistication, so has the

need for graduate education. The studies outlined above and government reports argue for a

uniform core curriculum and minimum course requirements be specified for the individual

forensic science disciplines in order to demonstrate the foundation of forensic science

education. This would require the implementation of a system of accreditation for forensic

science academic programs. This has supposedly been addressed by the creation of the

Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC).

Higher Education Accreditation in the United States

Accreditation of colleges and universities began in 1885 with the creation of the New

England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) (Prince, 2012). The NEASC was created as

a non-government, peer review based accreditation system (Prince, 2012). According to the

U.S. Department of Education’s Accreditation in the United States, (n.d.) there are two types of

accreditation in higher education: institutional (national and regional), and specialized or

programmatic. The different types of accreditation can themselves be accredited by either the

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the United States Department of Education

(USDE) (Eaton, 2015). Institutional accreditation applies to the entire university and can be

conducted by a regional accrediting organization (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) such as

the Higher Learning Commission and Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Council

for Higher Education Accreditation, 2016). Universities with forensic science graduate programs

are required to be accredited by a regional accrediting organization prior to seeking

accreditation from Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) (Forensic

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). Programs, such as forensic science

education, can exist within multiple universities and can be accredited specifically by their

respective professional organizations (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Specialized or

programmatic accrediting organizations only review the program and not the institution (U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.).

The principle of accreditation of a university or program is to demonstrate accountability

and academic quality to stakeholders (Eaton, 2009). It is a form of quality assurance conducted

by professional organizations. Although the accreditation process is voluntary and non-

governmental, federal and state governments have made some financial aid and grants

conditional upon accreditation (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015). Initially accreditation focused on the

institution or program resources; however, in the 1990’s the focus shifted to student learning

(Ikenberry & Kuh, 2015). The accreditation process ensures that an institution or program has

met certain standards (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015).

Standards-based Curriculum

Accreditation is a sign to stakeholders that the university or program has met or

exceeded a certain set of standards; however, it is the standards that the stakeholders must

investigate to know what the accreditation means (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015). Standards define

what knowledge and abilities a student should possess for a particular subject (Lund &

Tannehill, 2010; Squires, 2005). They provide a comprehensive vision of what needs to be

taught and afford a foundation for assessing student progress (Squires, 2005). Depending on

the purpose of the standards, they can be written from a specific point-of-view (Squires, 2005).

Lund and Tannehill (2010) assert that “Developing a standards-based curriculum begins by

looking at the standards; recognizing the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that students

should demonstrate to meet these standards (p. 7).”

In order for a standards-based curriculum to be efficacious, several premises must be

considered. The content of the standards must be widely accepted in its field and developed by

experts in that particular field (Squires, 2005). This should pave the way for the dissemination

and acceptance of the standards (Squires, 2005). If they are not accepted than they will not be

used (squires, 2005). The standards should be aligned to the curriculum; they are the guide for

what is to be taught in the classroom (Squires, 2005). Assessments must also be aligned to the

standards to determine successful student achievement (Squires, 2005). Additionally, the

assessments must be meaningful to truly demonstrate achievement (Squires, 2005).

Relationship among Accreditation, Assessment, and Curriculum

Accreditation of universities and programs has increased the amount of assessment

being conducted because how an institution or program meets the standards is demonstrated

by the documentation of student assessment (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015). Assessments in a

standards-based curriculum provide students and instructors with the necessary feedback to

determine whether the curriculum is facilitating the students in achieving the standards (Lund &

Tannehill, 2010). Outcomes from the assessments should be utilized as a means to improve

curriculum (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015). Curriculum guides the instructors to properly apply the

standards; it is the link between the standards and assessment (Squires, 2005).

The general process for accreditation is self-study, on-site peer review, and board

recommendations (Eaton, 2015; Ewell & Jankowski, 2015; Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The self-study is an

indepth self-evaluation of the institution or program’s compliance with the accreditation

standards (Eaton, 2015; Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015; U.S.

Department of Education, n.d.). It affords universities and programs the opportunity to reflect

upon student learning and make improvements (Ewell & Jankowski, 2015). The self-study

provides information for an on-site peer review team (Eaton, 2015). The on-site team verifies

the information found in the self-study (Eaton, 2015). An on-site team for regional accreditation

usually includes administrators from other universities (Scott, 2014). For specialty or

programmatic accreditation, the on-site team is usually composed of people from that

profession (Scott, 2014). FEPAC on-site teams include a practitioner and an academician

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). The on-site team makes

their recommendations to the board, which determines whether to grant accreditation

(Eaton, 2015; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

History of FEPAC Accreditation

In 1997, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in conjunction with National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), Law Enforcement Standards Office (OLES), and American

Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), held a two day workshop, Forensic Science Summit:

Roadmap to the Year 2000, to identify the current needs of the forensic science profession and

suggest ways to meet those needs (National Institute of Justice, 1999). The 44 member

committee published their results in the NIJ Report titled, Forensic Science: Review of Status

and Needs (1999). One of the primary needs they identified was training, which included

graduate education.

The workshop participants reported the primary role of the crime laboratory is to

provide support to those in the field performing casework (National Institute of Justice, 1999).

In order to accomplish this, scientists in the crime laboratories need training, including access to

quality graduate education; however, this is costly. The NIJ (1999) recognized the importance of

higher education particularly in the form of graduate degrees as a cost effective way to develop

knowledge and skills of forensic scientists. Academic institutions could assist the crime

laboratories by providing education and research (National Institute of Justice, 1999). The NIJ

(1999) also recognized the need for accreditation of academic programs to ensure that all

programs conform to a minimum national standard.

Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science

Based on the NIJ’s recommendations in Forensic Science: Review of Status and Needs

(1999), the Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science (TWGED),

composed of educators, laboratory directors, and lawyers, met “to establish best practices for

training and education in forensic science” (Technical Working Group for Education and Training

in Forensic Science, 2004, p. 3). TWGED determined what elements of curricula model

undergraduate and graduate degrees in forensic science should possess and published their

recommendations in a NIJ Special Report titled, Education and Training in Forensic Science: A

Guide for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions, and Students (Technical

Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004).

TWGED members considered all elements of curriculum in their recommendations,

including funding, facilities, library support, research, and faculty, in addition to recommended

coursework. They stated that undergraduate programs should provide a foundation in basic

science education with a laboratory experience and an introduction to forensic science concepts

(Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004). Graduate

programs should begin with theoretical concepts but progress to discipline-specific knowledge

and skills (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004). A

curriculum model for a graduate forensic science program was designed to cover the primary

forensic science disciplines including: controlled substances, toxicology, trace evidence,

biological evidence, firearms, fingerprints, impression evidence, questioned documents, and

crime science investigation (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic

Science, 2004). Applicants to the graduate program would be required to possess a Bachelor of

Science degree in either forensic science or a natural science, or possess equivalent coursework

(Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic

Science, 2004).

In addition to rigorous coursework, an exemplary graduate program must incorporate

other necessary elements. Courses should be taught by qualified faculty with forensic science

experience and at least 75% of the full-time science faculty should have an appropriate doctoral

degree (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004).

Students must conduct a research project that utilizes a variety of advanced techniques and

equipment, which answers a question that benefits forensic science (Technical Working Group

for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004). Students need to produce a written

report of their work and present it in a public forum (Technical Working Group for Education and

Training in Forensic Science, 2004). Each graduate program should provide interaction with

operational forensic science laboratories and professional organizations. There are a variety of

ways to provide the necessary interactions such as internships and collaborative research

(Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004). The institution

which offers a graduate forensic science degree needs to provide sufficient laboratory space for

instruction and research as well as library resources and sufficient funding to accomplish high

quality education (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science,

2004).

Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission

Based on the recommendation of TWGED, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

(AAFS) first established an ad hoc committee, the Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Committee to develop an accreditation system (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). In 2004 AAFS changed the ad hoc accreditation committee to a standing

committee named the Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission (FEPAC)

and charged them with implementation of the system of accreditation (Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

FEPAC provides a “formal evaluation and accreditation system” which colleges and

universities can use to enhance forensic science education (Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 4). The application of the standards should ensure the

quality and rigor of forensic science education (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). The FEPAC standards (2014b) are separated into institutional (standard

3.0), which all programs must meet, and undergraduate (standard 4.0) or graduate (standard

5.0), based on the degree being evaluated. Standard 1 provides an introduction to the

accreditation standards (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

Standard 2 provides a brief overview of the standards (Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

The General Standards (standard 3) that each program must meet involve all areas of

curriculum including from before the students apply to after they graduate (Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Each graduate program must define methods by

which they are evaluating the quality of education provided to the students. The methods

should include: a capstone experience, an exit interview to allow students the opportunity to

express their thoughts, and an assessment of student success after graduating (Forensic

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014). Programs should demonstrate how they

are utilizing the information gathered through the assessment process to improve their

curriculum (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014). Additionally, fifty

percent of the forensic science faculty members must possess a relevant doctoral degree and

oversee all the coursework, meaning no more than fifty percent of the coursework may be

taught by adjunct or part-time faculty (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission,

2014b).

Applicants to a FEPAC accredited graduate program must have a bachelor’s degree in

forensic science, a natural science, a relevant field in computers, or relevant coursework

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). While progressing through

their coursework, students should also be provided with adequate support by mentorship,

academic advising, and career services (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). The curriculum must include at least ten instructional hours on: “crime

scene investigation, physical evidence concepts, law/science interface, ethics and professional

responsibilities, quality assurance, analytical chemistry and instrumental methods of analysis,

drug chemistry/toxicology, microscopy and materials analysis, forensic biology, and pattern

evidence” (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12). Students are

also required to present in written and oral format results from their independent research

project (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Graduate programs

must assess and document students’ successful achievement of the programs objectives

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

The use of the FEPAC standards should assist the graduate program in identifying areas

that need curricular improvement. Overall, the standards put forth by FEPAC should provide a

benchmark that all accredited institutions have met or exceeded. This allows crime laboratory

directors a point of reference to determine the level of knowledge and skills a graduate of a

FEPAC accredited graduate program should possess.

Comparison of TWGED Guidelines and FEPAC Standards

The TWGED Guidelines were created as a recommendation of what should be included in

a model forensic science graduate program. FEPAC Accreditation Standards are the

implementation of these guidelines (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in

Forensic Science, 2004; Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). How

closely do the current FEPAC Standards match the original TWGED Guidelines? Most of the

TWGED Guidelines transferred directly into the FEPAC Standards with minor modifications;

however, some elements of curriculum present in the FEPAC Standards were not mentioned in

the TWGED Guidelines (Appendix B).

Each FEPAC accredited graduate forensic science program can create its own specialized

tracks or concentrations within its degree program; however, both TWGED (2004) and FEPAC

(2014b) agreed that accredited curricula should include core topics: “crime scenes, physical

evidence concepts, law/science interface, ethics and professional responsibility, and quality

assurance” (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004;

Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Specific topics to be covered

are: “analytical chemistry and instrumental methods of analysis; drug chemistry/toxicology;

microscopy and materials analysis; forensic biology; pattern evidence” (Technical Working

Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004; Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b). TWGED Guidelines suggested the ten topics be covered in a

minimum of 30 semester credit hours (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in

Forensic Science, 2004), while FEPAC Standards require a minimum of ten instructional hours be

utilized to cover each of the ten topics (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission,

2014b). FEPAC Standards (2014) also address assessment of the student’s mastery of the

material covered in courses; TWGED Guidelines do not. Mastery of the material is not defined

in the FEPAC Standards; this allows graduate forensic science programs to define mastery for

their students in alignment with their curriculum.

Both TWGED Guidelines and FEPAC Standards require interaction with operational

forensic science laboratories and professional organizations, but they do not prescribe how the

interaction is to occur. One way they encourage interaction is through graduate seminar

(Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004; Forensic

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). FEPAC specifically requires a seminar

course in which faculty and students, as well as forensic science practitioners, present

information on relevant topics and research (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b).

The TWGED Guidelines place a greater emphasis on the laboratory component of a

graduate curriculum than the FEPAC Standards. FEPAC accredited forensic science graduate

programs require an appropriate laboratory experience in addition to a capstone experience

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014). Also, both TWGED Guidelines

and FEPAC Standards require students to conduct independent research and present their

findings in both written and oral format (National Institute of Justice, 2004; Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The oral presentation must be made at a public

forum (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004; Forensic

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014); however, FEPAC standards specifically

exclude oral presentations at professional meetings (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b).

TWGED listed several benefits of accreditation: “an external means of program

validation; a valuable tool to help student select a program; a means for forensic scientists and

potential employers to judge the credentials of graduates; improvement of program quality; a

high level of competency for graduates” (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in

Forensic Science, 2004, p. 23). TWGED defined the standards necessary to build an accreditation

process; FEPAC is the end result of the work of TWGED. Approximately five years after the

completion of TWGED and implementation of FEPAC, the government asked the National

Academy of Sciences to review the needs of the forensic science community.

FEPAC Accreditation Process

Forensic science graduate programs seeking FEPAC accreditation must meet eligibility

requirements prior to applying for accreditation (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2015). Graduate programs “must conduct an in-depth self-study of its compliance

with FEPAC’s Accreditation Standards” (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2015, p. 9). After the self-study has been reviewed, two representatives of FEPAC

conduct an on-site review of the programs (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2015). The recommendations of the on-site team are submitted to the

commission who render a decision on whether to grant accreditation (Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015).

The Commission’s possible decisions are: accreditation, conditional accreditation,

probation, denial of accreditation, or revocation of accreditation (Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2015). Accreditation signifies that all the standards were met

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). Conditional accreditation

means a weakness in the program was identified but may be corrected in less than two years

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). A program is placed on

probation when one or more of the standards have not been met but may be corrected in less

than two years (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). A program is

denied accreditation when FEPAC determines the standards were not met (Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). Accreditation will be revoked if a program no

longer meets FEPAC standards (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015).

FEPAC specifically states on their website (http://www.fepac-edu.org/accreditation), “All

information conveyed through the online application and self-study system is confidential and

assessable to only the user/institution, the FEPAC Commission, and its designees (i.e. On-Site

Evaluation Team, FEPAC Administrative Assessment Team).”

National Academy of Sciences Committee Report

The Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006

required the National Academy of Sciences to create a Forensic Science Committee to study the

needs of the forensic science community excluding the discipline of DNA which had already

been studied (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). The Senate statue instructed the

committee to “make recommendations for programs that increase the number of qualified

forensic scientists … available to work in public crime laboratories…” (National Academy of

Sciences, 2009, p. 2). Members of the committee represented all facets of the forensic science

community. The committee held hearings and discussed reports on a variety of forensic science

community needs which included training and education (National Academy of Sciences, 2009).

Ultimately the committee recommended thirteen policy initiatives in their report Strengthening

Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academy of Sciences, 2009).

The tenth recommendation specifically addressed forensic science education and training:

“Recommendation 10: To attract students in the physical and life sciences to pursue graduate

studies in multidisciplinary fields critical to forensic science practice, … to improve and develop

graduate education programs…”(National Academy of

Sciences, 2009, p. 28).

To increase the number of qualified forensic scientists, forensic science education must

be based on knowledge and skills established in the scientific community and learned through

formal education. Apprentice style training has a place in the laboratory but it cannot replace

knowledge and skills gained through higher education (National Academy of Sciences, 2009).

However, forensic science education also needs to correct some deficiencies as well. The

Forensic Science Committee identified inconsistency among graduate programs’ curricula and

lack of funding as the two primary challenges facing forensic science education (National

Academy of Sciences, 2009). Crime laboratory directors indicated that several forensic science

degrees were essentially criminal justice degrees with a few science courses (Seigel, 1988) and

that although they prefer an applicant to possess a graduate degree in forensic science, some

crime lab directors saw no advantage for applicants to obtain it, although both of these studies

were conducted prior to the inception of FEPAC Standards (Higgins & Selavka, 1988).

The Forensic Science Committee determined that uniform and scientifically rigorous

forensic science core and discipline-specific curricula are necessary to produce the scientists

needed in the crime laboratories. The report cited pre-FEPAC studies to substantiate their

position as no post-FEPAC studies were available prior to 2009. The committee promoted

accreditation by FEPAC as a “seal of quality” for a forensic science program (National Academy

of Sciences, 2009, p. 228). The committee concluded, “… more information is required on the

number of programs that are available and the depth and breadth of the course offerings”

(National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 237).

Continued Shortfalls in Forensic Science Education

With the implementation of accreditation for forensic science programs, the NIJ released

a report titled Addressing Shortfalls in Forensic Science Education (2007). The report stated that

the increased number of forensic science programs necessitated a standardized curriculum to

provide competent applicants for crime laboratories (National Institute of Justice, 2007). With

the implementation of FEPAC accreditation standards, forensic science education has been

standardized which will assist crime laboratory directors saving time and resources when

evaluating and training new hires (National Institute of Justice, 2007). However, no studies are

cited in the report to support this.

Post-FEPAC studies conducted by Tregar and Proni (2010) and Springer and Melino (2011)

found that the degree preferred by crime laboratory directors remained the same as those

identified by Siegel (1988), Higgins and Selavka (1988), and Furton, Hsu, and Cole (1999). Tregar

and Proni (2010) reviewed forensic science programs as well. Like Peterson and DeForest (1977)

and Hooker (1984), Tregar and Proni (2010) found significant variation among forensic science

programs. However, much of the variation found by their study could possibly be attributed to

the survey itself. Tregar and Proni surveyed both accredited and nonaccredited forensic science

programs. Also, their survey did not ask where in the respective institutions the forensic science

programs were housed or whether the resources (facilities, funding, and faculty) of that location

were being considered. Potentially the investigators were comparing a chemistry department

with an emphasis or degree in forensic science to a standalone forensic science program.

Springer and Melino (2011) found the level of education required of crime laboratories’ new

hires had not changed since Siegel (1988), Higgins and Selavka (1988), and Furton, Hsu, and Cole

(1999).

Tregar and Proni (2010) and Springer and Melino (2011) still did not provide the data

requested by the NAS report regarding “…the depth and breadth of the course offerings”

(National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 237). However, the FEPAC Standards provide guidance

in the Graduate Program Standards on Curriculum regarding core course and discipline specific

material to be provided by each institution (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014).

FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on Curriculum

FEPAC Accreditation Standards are divided into five sections: Introduction, Overview of

the Standards, General Standards for All Programs, Undergraduate Program Standards, and

Graduate Program Standards (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

The Introduction and Overview of the Standards sections provide information on the origin of

the standards and a summary of all the standards (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). The third section, General Standards for All Programs, outlines the

standards that all programs must fulfill regardless of the level of degree offered (Forensic

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The fourth section, Undergraduate

Program Standards, outlines the additional standards specific to undergraduate programs that

must be achieved in order to be accredited (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). The final section, Graduate Program Standards, outlines the additional

standards that graduate programs must achieve in order to be accredited (Forensic Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). All of the FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Programs utilized the General and Graduate specific standards.

Each year FEPAC revises the accreditation standards (Forensic Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Because each graduate program is re-accredited every five

years, the programs may be accredited under different versions of the standards. The eighteen

accredited Masters’ degree programs received their most recent accreditation between the

years of 2012 and 2016 which would have required the use of the 2010 through 2014 standards

(Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Although FEPAC revised the

standards each year, there were minimal changes to the standards between the versions each

graduate program would have used (Appendix C). The Graduate Program Standards in 2010

consisted of seven standards. Over time the standards were realigned and sections contained in

both the undergraduate and graduate standards were shifted to the General Standards for All

Programs (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). This resulted in a

reduction of the Graduate Program Standards to three primary standards. The 2014

Graduate Program Standards consists of three sections: Graduate Admission Requirements,

Curriculum, and Program Director. This study is concerned with standards contained in the

Curriculum section, which provides the minimum criteria graduate programs need to meet to

demonstrate the scientific rigor of their curriculum.

Three minor changes occurred to the Graduate Program Standards section on

Curriculum between the 2010 and 2014 versions. In the 2014 version, the Faculty section

moved from the Graduate Standards to the General Standards. This triggered a re-numbering of

the Graduate Standards which changed Curriculum from Standard 5.3 to 5.2 (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2010; Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The section names stayed the same regardless of the

standard number. The Core Forensic Science Topics section lists the ten core topics that must be

covered in each program; however, FEPAC initially did not define how much instructional time

must be devoted to those topics (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). The additional requirement of “a minimum of ten instructional hours

must be spent on each topic” clarified this (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2011, p. 12). Programs were also instructed to provide the material in multiple

modalities and demonstrate student mastery of the core topics utilizing different assessment

tools (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2011). However,

mastery has not been defined; it is left to each graduate program to define student mastery of

the material based on the level of instruction for each topic. Each graduate program must also

document that the material was covered and assessed in the syllabi

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2013). Within the Research

Standard, FEPAC standards stated that student research must be reviewed by a committee of at

least three individuals (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2010).

The individuals on the committee can “include faculty, forensic practitioners, and others with

specialized knowledge” (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2010,

p. 13). Later FEPAC further defined the composition of the committee for mentoring and

reviewing a student’s research to require at least one of the members to be a full-time faculty

member of the forensic science graduate program (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2011). Additionally, the Research Standard states that the results of the

students’ research must be presented in a public forum. Later this was clarified to disqualify oral

presentations at professional meetings as a public forum (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2011).

The General Curricular Requirements define the basic knowledge and skills that graduate

students should receive throughout the programs’ curricula (Forensic Science Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The topics are part of more than one discipline

and therefore instruction on the topics could occur in more than one class (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Although at least ten instructional

hours must be devoted within the curriculum to each topic, the method of instruction, method

of assessment, and depth of coverage must be defined by each graduate program based on the

objectives of that program (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission,

2014b). The ten core topics consist of crime scene investigation, physical evidence concepts,

law/science interface, ethics and professional responsibilities, quality assurance, analytical

chemistry and instrumental methods of analysis, drug chemistry/toxicology, microscopy and

materials analysis, forensic biology, and pattern evidence (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The standard for discipline specific knowledge and skills are

in the Curriculum Standard on Courses in Specialized Areas. A list of required topics and hours

of instruction is not provided since programs can offer numerous different “specialization,

track(s), and/or concentration(s)” (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b, p. 12). Another required course specified in the Curriculum Standard is

graduate seminar. Material presented should include “published work, original research, and

other relevant topics” (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b,

p. 12). The presenters should be “invited experts, faculty, and/or students” (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12).

As part of the curriculum, each student must conduct an independent research project

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The research topic

should contribute to the forensic science profession and cannot merely be a literature review or

validation study (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The

project must include “original data analysis, interpretation, and falsifiable hypothesis” (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission Glossary, 2014b, p. 9). At least one

fulltime faculty member should provide mentorship to the students while they are conducting

their research (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). At the

completion of their research, students will produce a written report of their work that is of

publishable quality and orally present their work in a public forum excluding professional

meetings (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Graduate

programs must provide the students with guidelines for assessment (Forensic Science Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The assessment of the student’s paper and

presentation will be conducted by a committee with at least three members including the

student’s faculty mentor (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission,

2014b). Other members of the committee can include other faculty members including adjunct

faculty and other members of the forensic science community outside the graduate program

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

Just as accreditation of the graduate forensic science program provides documentation

of the level of scientific rigor in the curriculum, accreditation of crime laboratories demonstrates

to the public the laboratory’s utilization of best practices (National Science

Academies, 2009). Ultimately the curriculum of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science

Programs should be preparing the student to perform their duties as a forensic scientist in an

accredited crime laboratory. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2005, 78% of the

crime laboratories were accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors

(Durose, 2008).

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors

As forensic science laboratories strive to move away from apprentice-based training

models, the need for quality formal education has increased, which the National Academy of

Sciences’ report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States (2009) identified as a key

objective for forensic science education. However, crime laboratories have still been reluctant

to rely upon higher education training due to the high degree of variability between forensic

science higher education curricula (Furton, HSU, & Cole, 1999; NIJ, 2009).

In order to provide a more accurate picture of what knowledge and skills a graduate of a

FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Program possesses, the programs’ curricula need

to align with the crime laboratories’ needs, particularly to laboratories’ accreditation standards.

The alignment between the program and laboratory standards would provide a reference point

for laboratory directors when appraising an applicant’s level of education. Alignment would

provide an accountability mechanism ensuring the FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science

Programs produce graduates with the desired knowledge and skills (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013).

Alignment between objectives, assessment, and standards assures the stakeholders that the

appropriate knowledge and skills are being taught, and they are being assessed at an

appropriate level (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013). Although only FEPAC accredits forensic science

academic programs, there are several agencies available that accredit crime laboratories.

Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which created

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (Robinson, 1996). The purpose of LEAA

was to provide seed grant money to state and municipal governments in order to improve their

criminal justice system and therefore reduce crime (Congressional Budget Office, 1978). The

Forensic Science Foundation, utilizing funds from LEAA, initiated a proficiency testing program in

the 70’s for crime laboratories on a volunteer basis (American Society of Crime Lab Directors,

n.d.). The results of the proficiency tests identified issues with the testing of evidence in the

crime laboratories (American Society of Crime Lab Directors, n.d.). A group of crime laboratory

directors in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation began meeting to discuss a

collaborative effort to improve the quality of crime laboratories (American Society of Crime Lab

Directors, n.d.). In 1974, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was

formed (American Society of Crime Lab Directors, n.d.).

Members of ASCLD were appointed to a committee to consider ways to improve crime

laboratories (American Society of Crime Lab Directors, n.d.). One of the methods they

considered was creation of standards for accreditation of crime laboratories called American

Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) (American

Society of Crime Lab Directors, n.d.). In 1982, ASCLD/LAB accredited eight crime laboratories in

the Illinois State Police laboratory system. Other federal, state, and municipal crime

laboratories as well as international and private crime laboratories have received ASCLD/LAB

accreditation over the years. The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2009 survey established that 83%

of crime laboratories (federal, state, and municipal) were accredited; 74% of the accredited

crime laboratories were accredited by ASCLD/LAB.

The initial ASCLD/LAB accreditation standards were developed by members of the ASCLD

Delegate Assembly (Neuner, 2010). After twenty-two years, ASCLD/LAB began the process to

align their accreditation standards with International Organization for

Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025 (Neuner, 2010).

ISO/IEC standards are developed by a world-wide committee of subject matter experts (Neuner,

2010). Once the standards are drafted, put out for public comment, and accepted, the areas

that are impacted by the standard may develop supplemental requirements for their field in

addition to the standards (Neuner, 2010). The International Laboratory Accreditation

Cooperation (ILAC) published revised supplemental requirements for forensic science

application in 2014 (Neuner, 2010). As ASCLD/LAB’s focus has shifted to international standards,

ASCLD/LAB entered into agreements to recognize accreditation of another crime laboratory that

aligns with ISO/IEC 17025 and ILAC G19 (American Society of Crime Lab Directors, n.d.). In

2016, ASCLD/LAB merged with ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board

(ANAB) (ANAB, 2016).

Conclusions

Following TWGED’s recommendations, the AAFS began the process of implementing

accreditation of forensic science academic programs via the FEPAC (National Institute of Justice,

1999; Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014). The forensic science

community thought accreditation of forensic science degree programs would standardize

curricula among programs (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). Accreditation would ensure a

minimum level of knowledge and skills a graduate of a FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Program would possess (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). Accreditation would also

assure crime laboratory directors of the rigor of the curriculum in the areas of science, law,

quality control, and ethics, allowing the laboratories to spend less time moving a new hire to

competency (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). “Crime laboratories would be the

beneficiaries of a wave of well-educated workers who would elevate the scientific standards of

the field” (National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 228). Although accreditation is thought to be

a “seal of quality to an institution” (National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 228), the Forensic

Science Committee’s report only cited pre-FEPAC studies. The implementation of accreditation

had brought standardization to forensic science programs’ curriculum; however, the Forensic

Science Committee states: “…more information is required on the number of programs that are

available and the depth and breadth of the course offerings” (National Academy of Sciences,

2009, p. 237).

Numerous studies and government reports identified the need for a core curriculum and

minimum course requirements. To achieve this TWGED was tasked with creating a model

graduate forensic science curriculum which FEPAC implemented. However, no studies have

adequately examined FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’ curricula since

implementation of the FEPAC Accreditation Standards to identify the consistencies and

inconsistencies among the programs’ curricula.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction

Qualitative research describes data that cannot be easily defined by statistical

procedures or framed within the context of variables (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). It uses the

collection of words and stories to provide meaningful understanding (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

This study will primarily evaluate Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission (FEPAC) Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’ curricula to assess how

the programs implemented the graduate curriculum standards while evaluating the

consistencies and inconsistencies among them. Answering these questions will require a

qualitative research design.

Research Design

Qualitative research explores the meaning people ascribe to objects, phenomenon,

problems, situations, etc. (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). One philosophical framework used to

describe this view of meaning is social constructivism (Creswell, 2009). Social constructivism

says that the meaning individuals construct is subjective to their surroundings (Creswell, 2009;

Patton, 2002). Within the philosophical framework of social constructivism, this study evaluated

the curricula of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs created by the

meaningmaking of the graduate programs’ faculty members due to their interpretation of

required FEPAC Standards. While the FEPAC Standards indicated to graduate programs what

must be included in their curriculum, the standards did not dictate how to fulfill each element of

the standards. Each individual graduate program subjectively determined how it would

incorporate the material into its curriculum based on the meaning the faculty members

constructed. This was influenced by several factors that related to the specific institution such

as where the graduate program is housed within the institution, name of the degree program,

and names of courses.

The purpose of this study was to determine how the graduate forensic science programs

implemented the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standard. The study also sought to understand

the consistencies and inconsistencies in the curricula of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Programs. A qualitative study would best allow for evaluation of “the breadth and

depth” of the FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’ curricula (National

Academy of Sciences, 2009, p.237).

Multiple strategies for inquiry exist. Creswell (2009), Patton (2002), and Bogdan and

Biklen (2007) identified one strategy of inquiry as the case study, which they defined as an

analysis of an information rich setting, an individual, source of documents, or event. This study

conducted a multi-case study using official documents. Official documents, such as the

FEPAC Self Study that each accredited program must generate, were a rich source of data

(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). However, Bogdan and Biklen cautioned that researchers must

examine how they utilize the documents to ensure that “the process of meaning construction …

be examined in each case” (2007, p. 64). This study was a multi-case study because the

curricula of seventeen accredited graduate programs were evaluated. The primary sources of

information were program websites and the Graduate Curriculum section of the FEPAC selfstudy

report. Each FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Program must submit a selfstudy for

accreditation. Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic

Science (TWGED) guidelines and FEPAC standards outline what should be contained in the

curricula; they do not specify how the graduate programs are supposed to provide the

curricula.

Population

The population for this study was seventeen of the eighteen FEPAC Accredited Graduate

Forensic Science Programs listed on FEPAC’s website (Appendix D) (Forensic Science Education

Programs Accreditation Commission, 2016). One accredited graduate program was excluded

from this study because it was a five year combined undergraduate and graduate curriculum

which meant some of the curricular assessment criteria would not be comparable to the other

programs. The other seventeen programs were located at universities in the United States.

FEPAC defined five possible accreditation outcome categories: full accreditation, conditional

accreditation, probation, denial of accreditation, and revocation of accreditation (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2016). The seventeen FEPAC accredited

forensic science graduate programs whose curricula were evaluated had received full

accreditation (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2016).

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected from the Graduate Curriculum Standards of the FEPAC

self-studies and the websites of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs. A

program self-study was required from the programs as part of the FEPAC accreditation process

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The Graduate

Curriculum section of the FEPAC Self-Study for the accredited graduate programs was requested

from FEPAC. The FEPAC administrator reiterated the policy which is on the FEPAC website

(http://www.fepac-edu.org/accreditation), that “All information conveyed through the online

application and self-study system is confidential and assessable to only the user/institution, the

FEPAC Commission, and its designees.” The FEPAC administrator said that the graduate program

directors could provide the requested information. Access to the data was accomplished by

emailing (Appendix E) the accredited graduate programs’ directors (Appendix D) requesting the

Graduate Curriculum Standards section of the self-study reports submitted to FEPAC. To assist

graduate program directors, a Self-Study Data Collection Template (Appendix F) was created in

Microsoft Word so they could simply cut and paste the information from their self-study report

into the file. The Self-Study Data Collection Template document was attached to the email

request. Graduate program directors who had not responded to the email after one week were

contacted by phone to explain the research project and request the data from their FEPAC self-

study.

In addition to the FEPAC Self-Study data, data were gathered from FEPAC Accredited

Graduate Programs’ websites, such as admissions requirements, required coursework for

graduation, name of degree, and where within the institution the graduate degree program is

housed. The graduate programs’ information was recorded on a Website Data Collection

Template (Appendix G).

To maintain confidentiality, graduate programs were randomly assigned a letter of the

alphabet to denote the program in the tables for the information collected from their websites.

Although all information gathered from the graduate programs’ websites was considered public

information, it was not the intent of this study to single out one program over another. To

maintain confidentiality of data gathered from FEPAC Self-Studies, programs were randomly

assigned a letter of the Greek alphabet to denote graduate programs’ responses in their

selfstudies. Since information gathered from the self-studies was not public information, a

different designation was used so any information gathered from the websites could not be

cross-referenced with the self-study data. Several tables were designed based on studies in the

literature and the FEPAC Standards in order to compare numerous aspects of graduate forensic

science curriculum.

The Self-Study Data Collection Template (Appendix F) and the Website Data Collection

Template (Appendix G) were created based on the FEPAC Accreditation Graduate Curriculum

Standards (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

Data Analysis Strategy

Each graduate program had fulfilled the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards in order

to receive full accreditation; however, the manner in which they fulfill it may vary among

programs. This study sought to understand how the graduate programs fulfilled the FEPAC

Standards through the analysis of the programs’ websites and self-study documents. Data were

collected regarding each major section of the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards and placed

into tables. Consistencies, inconsistencies, and trends were analyzed qualitatively noting

patterns and coding data.

Limitations

This study used official documents as its source of data to evaluate the curricula of each

FEPAC Accredited Forensic Science Graduate Programs. Documents can be a rich source of data;

however, some limitations can affect the use of documents (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;

Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Gaining access to the documents can be challenging (Bogdan &

Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Knowing how and why the document was

prepared is necessary to put the document in the correct context (Patton, 2002). However, the

FEPAC self-studies required little contextualization because they were written for an outside

reviewer to make sense of the curricula offered at the graduate programs prior to observing

them (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015).

Another limitation can be determining if the document contains accurate information

(Patton, 2002). The accuracy of the FEPAC self-studies was substantiated by the on-site

reviewers in order for the graduate programs to receive FEPAC accreditation (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). FEPAC specifically states, “An individual

unfamiliar with the program must be able to understand the program's operation, the learning

experiences provided, and the program’s assessment of its effectiveness in educating students”

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 18 July 2015).

Also, graduate programs receive FEPAC accreditation for up to five years (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2015). The seventeen graduate

programs received full accreditation during the last five years, 2012 to 2016 (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2016). The process for accreditation required

programs to use the most recent version of the FEPAC Standards which are revised each year. A

program seeking accreditation in 2017 would complete a self-study in 2016 using the 2015

standards. This meant that different graduate programs used different standards for the

accreditation process. The 2010 through 2014 versions of the FEPAC Standards were compared

(Appendix C). The Curriculum Standard did change its identifier from Standard 5.3 to 5.2 within

the self-study document, but only limited changes occurred to the content of the Curriculum

Standard. These changes were explored in Chapter 2. Additionally, because accreditation was

for up to five years, the graduate programs’ accreditation would be spread out across five years.

This meant some graduate programs’ self-studies would be less recent; therefore, the data in

the self-studies may not have been as accurate a reflection of the curricula because of changes

in the graduate programs over time.

Validity

Validity demonstrates the credibility of the study; that the researcher has taken

measures to insure the trustworthiness of the study (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Shenton, 2004).

This study was based upon established standards from a national organization, FEPAC. The

graduate programs included in this study were accredited by the same national organization,

FEPAC, and were deemed conforming to those standards based upon their full accreditation

status. The data for the FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Program was collected

directly from the university via their website. Data collected from the graduate program had

been previously submitted to FEPAC as part of the accreditation process.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

Introduction

This study examined how the seventeen Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs

implemented the Graduate Curriculum Standards. It also considered the consistencies and

inconsistencies in the curricula among seventeen accredited graduate forensic science

programs. The information regarding programs’ curricula was gathered from the programs

websites and from the Graduate Curriculum Standards section of their FEPAC Accreditation

selfstudy.

The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings of the data gathered utilizing the

methods outlined in Chapter 3. The chapter is organized into sections based on the FEPAC

Accreditation Standards which include: general curricular requirements, core forensic science

topics, courses in specialized areas, graduate seminar, graduate research, graduate admissions

requirements, and ancillary findings. The findings are presented in tables which illustrate each

graduate program’s curriculum. Curricular data for all accredited graduate programs are

illustrated in summary tables. The data on individual programs will allow stakeholders to see

consistencies and inconsistencies among graduate programs’ curricula, while summary tables

will allow stakeholders to examine how graduate programs’ curricula in general meet the

FEPAC Accreditation Standards.

General Curricular Requirements

The FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on General Curricular Requirements state,

The curriculum shall, at a minimum, ensure that each student:

1. Develop an understanding of the areas of knowledge that are essential to forensic

science;

2. Acquire skills and experience in the application of basic forensic science concepts and

of specialty knowledge to problem solving;

3. Be oriented in professional values, concepts and ethics; and

4. Demonstrate integration of knowledge and skills through a capstone experience, such

as a formal, objective tool, (e.g., the American Board of Criminalistics Forensic Science

Aptitude Test), or other comprehensive examination, thesis, and/or research projects.

The program shall define clear learning objectives for each discrete component of the

curriculum. The program shall have clear procedures for assessing and documenting

each student’s progress toward the fulfillment of these learning objectives and toward

readiness for forensic science practice.

The program shall provide students with the basic knowledge necessary for effective

testimony as an expert witness, and each student shall participate in practical

experiences where they will render expert testimony, e.g., moot court. (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11)

FEPAC defines “the areas of knowledge that are essential to forensic science” (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11) in the Graduate

Curriculum Standards on Core Forensic Science Topics as “crime scene investigation, physical

evidence concepts, law/science interface, ethics and professional responsibilities, quality

assurance, analytical chemistry and instrumental methods of analysis, drug

chemistry/toxicology, microscopy and material analysis, forensic biology, pattern evidence”

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12). However,

several of these areas of knowledge apply across disciplines and therefore can be incorporated

into several courses. TWGED’s report titled Education and Training in Forensic Science: A Guide

for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions, and Students recommended nine

forensic science disciplines that should be included in a graduate program curriculum:

controlled substances (drugs), toxicological specimens (tox), trace evidence (trace), biological

samples (biology), firearms, fingerprints, impression evidence (impressions), question

documents (QD), and crime scene investigation (CSI) (Technical Working Group for Education

and Training in Forensic Science, 2004). Table 1 identifies what disciplines recommended by

TWGED were covered in each program’s curriculum and whether it was a course required for all

students (X), a topic in a required course (P), a course required as part of a concentration/track

(C), or an elective (E). Furthermore, forensic chemistry can encompass controlled substances

(drug), toxicological specimens, and trace evidence in addition to other topics. To address the

possible discrepancy, courses in forensic chemistry (chemistry) were included in Table 1. Also,

the FEPAC Standard specifically requires graduate programs to “provide students with the basic

knowledge for effective testimony as an expert witness” (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11); therefore, courses law/science interface and expert

testimony (law) were included in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the number of graduate programs

that either required a course for all students, a topic in a required course, a course required as

part of a concentration/track, or an elective for each forensic science discipline.

Table 1. Forensic Science Disciplines Covered by Graduate Program Curricula

Prog Drugs Tox Trace Biology Firearms Fingerprints Impressions QD CSI Chemistry Law

Prog - graduate program

+ – required course in the curriculum

C – part of a concentration

E – elective in the curriculum

P – part of a required course

Table 2. Summary of the Forensic Science Disciplines in Graduate Programs’ Curricula

Required

Course in the

Curriculum

Part of a

Concentration

Elective in the

Curriculum

Part of

Required

Course

Total

Drugs

Tox

Trace

Biology

Firearms

Fingerprints

Impressions

CSI

Chemistry

Law 15 0 2 0 17

The majority of the graduate programs incorporated most of the disciplines into their

curriculum. All but two programs offered forensic chemistry whether as a required course or as

part of a concentration. The two programs that did not offer a specific course in forensic

chemistry, did offer drug chemistry and toxicology courses. Thirteen of the graduate programs

offered a course on trace evidence: eight programs required all students to take the course, four

programs required the course as part of a concentration, and one program offered the course as

an elective. All of the graduate programs required forensic biology or DNA technologies as part

of the core curriculum or a concentration. Twelve of the graduate programs offered lectures on

firearms and fingerprints while eleven programs offered lectures on impression evidence as

either an elective or part of a larger course. Only eight programs offered lectures on questioned

documents as either an elective or part of a larger course. Additionally, only eight programs

required a course in crime scene investigation and one program required it as part of a

concentration. For graduate programs that did not appear to offer classes in firearms,

fingerprints, impression evidence, and questioned documents the topics could be part of a

larger course (e.g. criminalistics); however, the topic cannot be clearly identified from the course

description. Fifteen of the programs required students to take at least one course on law or

expert testimony; the remaining two programs offered it as an elective in the curriculum. In

addition to a legal course, seven programs required students to take a course on ethics.

Prior to graduation the students at all graduate programs must complete a capstone

experience (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). FEPAC

defines a capstone experience as “a final assessment designed to help demonstrate that the

graduating student has the knowledge and skills commensurate with the degree awarded”

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014a, p. 2). The Graduate

General Curricular Standards suggest the capstone experience be a formal, objective

comprehensive exam, a thesis, or a research project. All the graduate programs require

graduates to complete some form of independent research project, whether it is part of a thesis

or not, as their capstone experience which stems from the Graduate Standards on

Research; they require all students to complete an independent research project (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Some programs required an

additional assessment, e.g. in-house comprehensive exam, national comprehensive exam (e.g.

Forensic Science Assessment Test (FSAT), or internship, as part of the capstone experience.

Peterson (1977) stated that “Internships are an essential part of the forensic science education

programs and should be given careful attention” (p. 32). Table 3 demonstrates how different

programs satisfy the capstone requirement and if they require student to complete an

internship. Table 4 summarizes the number of graduate programs that require students to

complete a thesis, in-house comprehensive exam, and/or external comprehensive exam for

their capstone experience.

Table 3. Graduate Programs’ Capstone Experience and Internship Requirements

Graduate

Program

Thesis

In-house

Comprehensive

Exam

National

Comprehensive

Exam

Internship

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Non-thesis

Yes

Optional

Non-thesis

Yes

X Yes No No Optional

Table 4. Overall Capstone Experience Requirements for Graduate Programs

Yes

Optional

Thesis

In-House Comprehensive Exam

National Comprehensive Exam 2 13 2

Eight graduate programs required students to complete their independent research

project as part of their thesis requirements. Four graduate programs offered students the choice

of a thesis or a non-thesis track. If the students chose the non-thesis track, then they were

required to complete an independent research project and additional coursework. As part of

the non-thesis option, two programs required students to complete an internship as part of

their research requirements. Also, seven graduate programs required students either to pass an

in-house comprehensive exam or to take a national comprehensive exam in addition to their

research project. Three of the programs required both a thesis and a comprehensive exam.

Although internships do not necessarily satisfy the Standards for Capstone Experience,

the majority of crime laboratory directors prefer applicants to have completed an internship

(Peterson & DeForest, 1977; Higgins & Selavka, 1988; Lingquist, Lin, Jenkins, & Yates, 1994).

Crime laboratory directors noted that internships allowed for decreased time for a new

employee to achieve competency and offered an extended time to evaluate a potential future

new hire (Lindquist, Lin, Jenkins, & Yates, 1994). Table 5 summarizes whether a graduate

program requires a student to complete an internship prior to graduation.

Table 5. Graduate Programs’ Internship Requirement

Yes No Optional Non-thesis

Track*

Internship 3 7 5 2

* Students that chose the non-thesis track were required to complete an internship.

Graduate Programs that required students to complete an internship either did not

require a thesis or the thesis was optional. Three graduate programs allowed students the

option of an internship in addition to the required thesis. Two graduate programs required

students on the non-thesis track to complete an internship as part of the graduate

requirements.

Core Forensic Science Topics

The FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on Core Forensic Science Topics states:

The following topics must be part of the curriculum:

• Crime scene investigation

• Physical evidence concepts

• Law/science interface

• Ethics and professional responsibilities

• Quality assurance

• Analytical chemistry and instrumental methods of analysis

• Drug chemistry/toxicology

• Microscopy and materials analysis

• Forensic biology

• Pattern evidence

The emphasis on each topic should be appropriate in light of the degrees awarded.

However, a minimum of 10 instructional hours must be spent on each topic.

Normally, a topic will involve multiple class meetings and may involve multiple learning

modalities, such as lectures, laboratories, and demonstrations. Evaluation of student

mastery of each topic may be done through a number of modalities, but the topic

material must be specifically addressed in a syllabus and assessed. (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12)

Each graduate program was asked to provide the Graduate Curriculum Standards section

of their FEPAC self-study. Eleven of seventeen programs responded. Of the eleven graduate

programs that responded, three responded to the initial email request (Appendix E).

Eight responded to a phone call that explained the research project and requested the data.

The six graduate programs that did not provide data either did not return the researcher’s

phone call, said they would provide it but did not, or were unable to send it at this time.

Of the eleven responses received, ten included a table with the minimum number of

instructional hours they spend on each Core Forensic Science Topic. Table 6 displays the

minimum number of instructional hours for the Core Forensic Science Topics each graduate

program incorporated into its courses. Of the ten programs, most only included instructional

hours for required course, not electives or concentrations. The number of instructional hours

for those graduate programs may in fact be higher with the inclusion of elective courses or

courses in a concentration. This would be especially true for graduate programs that include

instruction in a concentration that is typically part of a core curriculum. The minimum

instructional hours also did not include seminar, research, or thesis courses. Each graduate

program is represented by a Greek letter in Table 6.

Table 6. Core Forensic Science Topics by Graduate Program

PROGRAM’S MINIMUM # OF INSTRUCTIONAL HOURS

γ δ ε θ λ μ

π φ mean SD

Crime scene

investigation

31.4

23.0

Physical

evidence

concepts

14*

110

177

67*

116

64.4

54.8

Law/science

interface

47.8

23.8

Ethics

16*

13*

22.7

14.2

49*

21.9

18.8

Analytical

chemistry

14*

29*

122

43.1

35.3

Drug

chemistry

/toxicology

57*

14*

62*

31.9

21.8

Microscopy &

materials

analysis

38*

42.5

24.1

Forensic

biology

49*

112

17*

53.1

32.6

Pattern 27 12 32* 11 63 130 43 23* 12* 12 36.5 36.9

evidence

* values were rounded

SD – standard deviation

The mean number of instructional hours spent on each core forensic science topic

exceeds the FEPAC required minimum of ten instructional hours. The standard deviations

calculated were high indicating a high degree of variability among graduate programs for the

number of instructional hours spent on the core forensic science topics. The range of

instructional hours spent on each topic varies significantly. This amount of variability was not

unexpected. A graduate program would not spend as much instruction time on ethics or quality

assurance as they would on physical evidence concepts, forensic biology, or analytical chemistry.

Also, if the graduate program’s curriculum did not include concentrations, than the number of

instructional hours would be higher. For graduate programs that require students to choose a

concentration, the overall instructional hours may be significantly less for the core curriculum.

However, if the instructional hours for concentration courses were included in their report, than

the instructional hours would increase but vary depending on the concentration.

Several programs covered the core forensic science topics across multiple courses as well. Table

7 displays the mean, median, and range for the number of instructional hours for each

Core Forensic Science Topics.

Table 7. Core Forensic Science Topics Central Tendencies

MEAN

instructional

hours

STANDARD

DEVIATION

MEDIAN

instructional

hours

RANGE

between

instructional

hours

Crime scene investigation

31.4

23.0

22.5

Physical evidence concepts

64.4

54.8

48.5

167

Law/science interface

47.8

23.8

46.5

Ethics

22.7

14.2

21.9

18.8

Analytical chemistry

43.1

35.3

29.7

112

Drug chemistry /toxicology

31.8

21.8

Microscopy & materials analysis

42.5

24.1

Forensic biology

53.1

32.6

102

Pattern evidence 36.5 36.9 25 119

Courses in Specialized Areas

The FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on Courses in Specialized Areas states:

The curriculum must include graduate-level science courses appropriate to the

specialization, track(s) and/or concentration(s) offered by that institution. For example,

courses covering the topics of molecular biology and population genetics, advanced

analytical chemistry, toxicology, and materials analysis may be appropriate. (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12)

The graduate programs’ curricula in this study were of two possible types: a general

curriculum with electives or a curriculum with concentrations. In the general curriculum with

electives, students completed the same curriculum plus electives of the students’ choice. In a

curriculum with concentrations, students were required to pick a concentration, such as forensic

chemistry, and complete a curriculum focused on that subject. Although students in a

concentration curriculum could take elective courses, they did not take all the same courses as

the other concentrations. Of the seventeen graduate programs reviewed, eight offered a

general forensic science curriculum with electives but no concentrations. Seven graduate

programs required students to decide on one area of concentration for their coursework. One

graduate program allowed students to choose more than one concentration. The type of

curriculum did not correspond to whether the students were required to complete a thesis.

Table 8 displays the areas of specialization possible in different graduate programs. Table 9

illustrates the number of concentrations offered at graduate programs.

Table 8. Specialization within a Program’s Curriculum

Graduate

Program

Credit

Hours

Research

Credit Hours*

Elective

Credit Hours

Thesis

Concentration

# of

Concentrations

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Yes

Optional

Non-thesis

X 42 6 9 Yes No NA

* If the thesis is optional, than the minimum number of research credit hours for either option is

recorded.

Table 9. Number of Concentrations in Graduate Programs’ Curricula

2 3 4

Concentrations Concentrations Concentrations

# of Concentrations 4 3 2

The concentrations fell primarily into two possible areas of specialization: forensic

biology (molecular biology, DNA analysis, biochemistry) and forensic chemistry (toxicology,

drug). Additional areas of specialization include: criminalistics, crime scene, digital,

anthropology, and physical analysis. Although one graduate program allowed students to take

up to four areas of specialization, students were only required to choose one concentration.

Since the different types of curricula offered students different paths for required

courses, table 10 displays the number of total credit hours required, research credit hours

required, and elective credit hours required for the various types of curriculum. For the

graduate program that allowed students to choose more than one concentration, the number of

credit hours and elective credit hours were recorded for one concentration. The two graduate

programs that allowed students to choose the type of curriculum, the number of total credit

hours, research credit hours, and elective credit hours were not included in table 10.

Table 10. Number of Credit Hours, Research Credit Hours, and Elective Credit Hours Required

Type of Curriculum

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Median

Range

Credit Hours

All Curricula

42.7

8.5

General Curriculum

44.7

12.3

Curriculum with

Concentrations

40.7

3.0

Research Credit

Hours

All Curricula

5.7

8.5

General Curriculum

Curriculum with

Concentrations

4.3

2.0

Elective Credit

Hours

All Curricula

6.7

3.5

General Curriculum

7.3

3.7

Curriculum with 5.3 2.6 6 7

Concentrations

In general the graduate programs require students to complete a minimum 42.7 credit

hours of coursework to graduate with the general curriculum requiring an average of 4 credit

hours more than the curriculum with concentrations. However, the high standard deviation for

the means indicate a high degree of variability among graduate programs. The graduate

programs with a general curriculum tend to require students to complete slightly higher number

of research and elective credit hours. The greater number of elective hours would be expected

since the curriculum requires electives instead of concentrations.

Graduate Seminar

The FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on Graduate Seminar states:

A formal seminar, which is a requirement of a course, presented by invited experts,

faculty, and/or students covering topics such as published work, original research, and

other relevant topics must be offered. (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12)

All graduate programs required students to attend seminar in some capacity. The

number of semesters each graduate program required students to attend was evenly divided

between one to four semesters. Three graduate programs did not have a specific seminar course

but did require students to attend specified seminars with attendance as part of their research

grade. Five graduate programs required students to enroll in one seminar course, which was

usually when they were ready to present their research project publicly. Two graduate

programs required students to enroll in two semesters of seminar. Four graduate programs

required students to enroll in three semesters, while three programs required at least four

semesters of seminar courses. Graduate programs that required at least two semesters of

seminar typically included outside speakers on forensic science, professional development, and

research development to assist students. Also those graduate programs required students to

present a topic for a lay audience or literature review to practice their public speaking skills. In a

subsequent semester students presented their independent research or thesis seminar.

Table 11 illustrates the number of semester graduate programs require students to complete.

Table 11. Number of Semesters of Seminar Requirement

Attend 1 Semester 2 Semesters 3 Semesters 4 Semesters

Seminar

Number of 3 5 2 4 3

Graduate

Programs

Graduate Research

The FEPAC Graduate Program Standards on Research states:

Each student is required to complete an independent research project. The research

project shall culminate in a thesis or written report of publishable quality. The academic

program must have written guidelines for the format of the thesis/report and for the

evaluation of the oral presentation.

Each student is required to have a committee of at least three individuals who are

responsible for mentoring the project. One member of the student’s research

committee must be a full-time faculty member of the program. The other two members

can include full or part-time faculty, forensic practitioners and others with specialized

knowledge. At least one member of the committee must be external to the department

sponsoring the research. In addition, each student must present the results of the work

orally, in a public forum, before the committee. Presentations at professional meetings

do not meet this requirement.

The research shall be conducted in an environment conducive to research and scholarly

inquiry, and shall provide the opportunity for faculty and students to contribute to the

knowledge base of forensic science, including research directed at improving the

practice of forensic science. (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b, p. 12)

All graduate programs required students to complete an independent research project,

either as part of a thesis or as directed research. They also required students to write a

research paper of publishable quality and present their research in a public forum.

Interestingly, how the graduate programs integrated the research requirements varied a little

from program to program depending on how the graduate seminar standard was implemented.

Most graduate programs included the presentation of the students’ research in the graduate

seminar requirements. Additionally, the process by which students began to investigate their

topic and write their proposal may be included in seminar or in a prospectus course. At least

one graduate program embedded the students’ research as a part of their internship.

Regardless, the seventeen graduate programs all required students to complete an independent

research project that includes a formal paper and public presentation. Table 12 displays each

program’s research requirements.

Table 12. Graduate Research Requirements

Graduate

Program

Thesis

Research

Credit Hours*

Location of Research

Yes

Internal or External

Yes

Internal or External

Yes

Internal

Yes

Internal or External

Optional

Internal

Yes

Internal

Optional

Internal or External

Internal

Yes

Internal

Optional

Internal or External

Yes

Internal

Optional

Internal

Internal or External

X Yes 6 Internal

Eight graduate programs required all students to complete a thesis as part of the

curriculum. Five graduate programs required an independent research project, but with no

thesis option. Four graduate programs offered the option of completing a thesis or a directed

research project. Two of the graduate programs that offered a choice between thesis or

nonthesis, required non-thesis students to complete additional coursework. There is minimal

difference between the number of research hours required for thesis (mean 5.9 research credit

hours) compared to non-thesis programs (mean 5.6 research credit hours). Table 13 displays

the research credit hours for graduate programs that require a thesis, do not require a thesis

(non-thesis), or allow students the option of choosing thesis or non-thesis.

Table 13. Research Credit Hours vs. Thesis

Research Credit Hours*

Thesis

Non-Thesis

Optional

Mean

5.9

5.6

5.5

Standard 2.0 4.2 2.1

Deviation

* If the thesis is optional, than the minimum number of research credit hours for either option is

recorded.

Students conducted their research either at the program’s facilities or at a host agency

such as a state or federal forensic laboratory. Nine programs allowed students to conduct

research at either the program or at a host agency. Eight required students to conduct their

research at the university. There was no relationship between the location students could

conduct their research and whether they were thesis students. Table 14 illustrates the thesis

versus non-thesis options and whether student research could be conducted external to the

university at a host agency.

Table 14. Location of Graduate Research for Thesis Options

Thesis

Location of Research

Yes

Optional

Internal Internal or

External

8 (47%) 5 (29%) 4 (24%) 8 (47%) 9 (53%)

Graduate

Programs

Internal – internal to the university

External – external to the university with an approved host agency

Graduate Admissions Requirements

The FEPAC Graduate Admission Requirements Standard states,

A bachelor’s degree in a forensic or natural science, computer science, computer

electronic or electrical engineering, information systems or information technology (or

its equivalent coursework in a relevant field) shall be required for entrance into the

appropriate graduate forensic science program. Undergraduate work should be

evaluated to determine if the applicant has sufficient scientific or technical background

to successfully complete the graduate program. (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11)

The seventeen accredited graduate programs required prospective students to have a

bachelor’s degree in a forensic or natural science or to have the equivalent coursework;

however, each graduate program had additional admissions requirements to determine

whether the applicant had the background necessary to successfully complete the graduate

program’s curriculum. Table 15 identified the graduate programs’ admissions requirements

including Graduate Record Exam scores (GRE), grade point average (GPA), prerequisite courses

students are required to have taken prior to admissions, the number letters of recommendation

required, and whether a personal essay was required.

Table 15. FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’ Admissions Requirements

Prog

GRE*

GPA

Courses Required Prior to Admission

Ltrs of

Rec

Personal

Essay

yes yes

3.0^

3.0

None

yes

Biology + lab, cellular & molecular biology, chemistry + lab,

organic chemistry, biochemistry

yes

297

3.0

Biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, calculus, physics,

biochemistry, physical chemistry, statistics

yes

3.0

Chemistry, organic chemistry, calculus, physics, biology

yes

3.0

Chemistry: chemistry degree with instrumental analysis

Molecular Biology: biology degree, biochemistry, genetics,

molecular biology and/or molecular genetics, and statistics

and/or population statistics

Toxicology: chemistry or biology degree with instrumental

analysis

yes

300

3.0

Quantitative chemistry, instrumental chemistry, biochemistry,

molecular biology, statistics

yes

300

3.0

Chemistry + lab, organic chemistry + lab, biology + lab, physics,

calculus

yes

300

3.0

Biology + lab, chemistry + lab, organic chemistry + lab, physics +

lab

yes

306

3.0

Biology: biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, statistics

Chemistry: chemistry, organic chemistry

yes

310/

340

3.0

none

yes

3.0

Chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, biology, analytical

chemistry, stats, biochemistry, molecular biology, & genetics

yes

3.0

Chemistry + lab, organic chemistry + lab, biology + lab

yes

3.0

Organic chemistry + lab, biology + lab

yes

3.0

none

yes

298

3.0

Biology + lab, physics + lab, chemistry + lab, organic chemistry +

lab, calculus, statistics

Chemistry: quantitative analysis, instrumental analysis, physical

chemistry

Biochemistry: genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry

yes

3.0^

Instrumental analysis, molecular biology

yes

X yes 3.0^ Chemistry + lab, organic chemistry + lab, instrumental analysis no no

or analytical chemistry + lab

Prog – Graduate Program

* GRE requirements were reported without the writing component or minimum scores for the

verbal and quantitative sections. ^recommended not required

All the graduate programs required some form of a bachelor’s degree in a field of natural

science or the appropriate coursework. Each also considered other requirements for admissions

such as GRE, GPA, and specific undergraduate coursework. One graduate program did not

require GRE scores for admissions. The remaining sixteen graduate programs required

applicants to submit GRE scores when applying to their program. Eight of the sixteen graduate

programs required applicants to take the GRE, but did not have a set minimum score necessary

for admission. These graduate programs considered the overall strength of the applicant based

on all the admissions requirements. The remaining seven graduate programs required

applicants to obtain a minimum score in order to be considered for admission. The minimum

required scores ranged between 297 and 306; four programs even required specific minimums

for each section of the exam. Table 16 illustrates the GRE requirements for the graduate

programs.

Table 16. GRE Requirements for Admission to Graduate Programs

specific score

Graduate 9 (53%) 7 (41%) 1 (6%)

Programs

When evaluating applicants for admission, another consideration was applicants’ overall

undergraduate GPA. Applicants submitted their undergraduate transcripts as part of their

admissions packet to the seventeen accredited graduate programs. Fourteen of the graduate

programs required at least 3.0 GPA on a 4.0 scale. The remaining three graduate programs

GRE

Yes

–

no specific score

Yes

–

considered GPA in conjunction with other admissions requirements when considering the

strength of the applicant. They recommended applicants have a 3.0 GPA in order to strengthen

their overall application; however, they would consider applicants with a GPA less than the

recommended score. Table 17 displays the number of graduate programs recommending or

requiring a 3.0 GPA for admission to the program.

Table 17. GPA Requirement for Admission to Graduate Programs

GPA ->3.0

Required Recommended

Graduate 14 (82%) 3 (16%)

Programs

Additional admissions requirements for several graduate programs included: letters of

recommendation, personal statements or essays, and interviews. Fifteen of seventeen graduate

programs required applicants to provide letters of recommendation. The minimum number of

letters required ranged from one to three, with ten of graduate programs requiring three letters

of recommendation. Table 18 displays the number letters of recommendation required by

graduate programs for admissions.

Table 18. Letters of Recommendation Requirements

Letters of Recommendation

2 (12%)

1 (6%) 4 (23%) 10 (59%)

Programs

In addition, nine of the seventeen graduate programs required applicants to submit a

personal statement regarding why the applicant wanted to pursue a forensic science graduate

Number of Letters

Required

Letters

Letter

Letters

Number of Graduate

degree at that institution. One graduate program went a step further by requiring an interview

as part of the admissions process, while two other graduate programs reserved the option of

conducting an interview with an applicant. Table 19 displays the graduate programs’ personal

essay requirements for admissions.

Table 19. Personal Essay Requirements

Personal Essay

Number of Graduate 11 (65%) 6

(35%) Programs

Graduate programs also assessed the academic strength of the applicant as

demonstrated by the courses they completed in their undergraduate degree as the forensic

science graduate curriculum builds upon the foundation laid by their undergraduate

coursework. There are several reasons for the selection of some of the prerequisite course:

foundational science courses, Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Quality Assurance Standards for

personnel in Forensic DNA testing laboratories (QAS) (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011),

and federal forensic laboratory requirements for chemistry positions. Table 20 identifies the

prerequisite courses for each graduate program and how the courses fit with QAS and chemistry

laboratory requirements.

Table 20. Required Prerequisite Courses

Prog # of # of Chem Organic Addi- Bio- Biology Molec- Genetics Physics Stats

QAS Chem Chem tional chem ular

courses credit Chem Biology

hours

Yes

20+

16+

+++

X 0 16 + + ++

Prog – Graduate Program

Chem – chemistry

Stats - statistics

* Graduate program has different prerequisite courses based on concentration

+ - Completed course in that topic required by graduate program prior to admission. Additional

“+” signs indicate multiple courses required for that topic.

FEPAC Accredited Undergraduate Forensic Science Programs’ curricula required students

to successfully complete one semester of biology with an associated laboratory, two semesters

of chemistry with associated laboratories, two semesters of organic chemistry with associated

laboratories, and two semesters of physics with associated laboratories (Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). These are also similar to the courses

that most natural science degrees require for completion. Of the seventeen FEPAC Accredited

Graduate Forensic Science Programs, three did not specify that they required any prerequisite

courses for admission. Only five graduate programs required all four natural science courses be

completed before admission. There were four graduate programs that only required three of

the four courses; all four of these graduate programs did not require physics. Table 21 displays

the total number of graduate programs that require a particular course for admission.

Table 21. Graduate Programs Required Prerequisite Course Total Numbers

Required Prerequisite Courses Number of Graduate

Programs that Require Course

Chemistry

Organic Chemistry

Additional Chemistry

Biochemsitry

Biology

Molecular Biology

Genetics

Physics

Statistics 6

The FBI QAS required personnel in forensic DNA testing laboratories to have successfully

completed courses at the undergraduate level in biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and

statistics (Federal Bureau Investigation, 2011). Four of the seventeen FEPAC Accredited Graduate

Forensic Science Programs required students to have completed the FBI QAS DNA analyst-

required courses prior to admission. Nine graduate programs did not require applicants to have

completed any of the courses required by the FBI QAS prior to admittance to the graduate

program. The FBI QAS states that a DNA analyst can complete all these courses at the

undergraduate level; however, a DNA technical leader must have a master’s degree and have

complete at least one of the courses at the graduate level (Federal Bureau investigation, 2011).

A student who completed all the courses prior to enrollment in a graduate program would need

to complete one of the courses at the graduate level in order to be eligible for promotion to

technical leader. Table 22 displays the number of QAS required courses that the graduate

programs require. The three graduate programs that had different requirements for the

different concentrations offered were included in the totals independently.

Table 22. QAS Required Prerequisite Courses by Graduate Program Concentration

Number of QAS Required Courses

0 courses 1 courses 2 courses 3 courses 4 courses

Number of Graduate 13 3 1 2 3

Programs by

Concentration*

* There were 22 sets of admissions requirements when including concentrations with different

admissions requirements for the same graduate program.

Many federal laboratories such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) require applicants for employment in chemistry positions to have 30

semester credit hours of chemistry courses at either the undergraduate or graduate level.

Generally, a chemistry course consists of three credit hours of lecture and one credit hour of

laboratory which translates into four credit hours per semester per course. Based on this, the

nine programs that require applicants to have one year of chemistry and one year of organic

chemistry were requiring sixteen chemistry credit hours for admission. Five graduate programs

required an additional higher level chemistry course which meant the applicants accepted to

their program have a minimum of twenty credit hours of chemistry completed. One graduate

program required applicants to the chemistry concentration to have already completed

twentyeight credit hours of chemistry prior to admission. Biochemistry credit hours were not

included in the total number of chemistry credit hours. Table 23 displays the number of

chemistry credit hours that concentrations in graduate programs require for admissions.

Table 23. Prerequisite Chemistry Credit Hours for Admissions by Concentration

Number of Chemistry Credit Hours

<16 credit hours 16 credit hours >16 credit hours

Number of Graduate 8 10 4

Programs by

Concentration*

* There were 22 sets of admissions requirements when including concentrations with different

admissions requirements for the same graduate

Ancillary Findings

Previous studies noted that many forensic science programs were merely a criminal

justice curriculum with a forensic science class or internship (Quarino & Bretell, 2009). Of the

seventeen FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs reviewed, only two were

housed in the College of Criminal Justice’s Department of Forensic Science. Eleven graduate

programs were in some form of a College of Science, such as College of Arts and Sciences. The

remaining four programs were in various colleges, such as College of Pharmacy. The majority of

the FEPAC accredited programs are in science or healthcare related colleges, rather than

criminal justice.

FEPAC Standards require undergraduate and graduate programs to incorporate

Professional Involvement, specifically interaction with forensic science laboratories and

organizations (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The

interactions can include student internships, training, coordinated research, or advisory

positions (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). Several of

the graduate programs have close affiliations with other organizations that are integral to their

curriculum. Some of the affiliated institutions provide institutional and educational support

such as: Fredric Rieders Family Renaissance Foundation Facility, International Forensic

Research Institute, NMS Labs, Center for Improvised Explosives, Southeast Texas Applied

Forensic Science Facility, and Institute for Forensic Research, Training, and Innovation. Other

programs have close affiliations with state crime laboratories such as: Michigan State Police

Forensic Science Division, Virginia Department of Forensic Science Central Laboratory, and

West Virginia State Police Forensic Laboratory. Bode Cellmark Forensics provides a Fellowship

Program to one program that allows a student from that program to work at Bode Cellmark

Forensics while earning their degree. Opportunities such as crime laboratory internships and

fellowships allow students to gain valuable practical experience while completing their degrees.

Summary of Findings

Although there are differences between how the FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Programs fulfill the Graduate Curriculum Standards, there are limited if any

inconsistencies between the graduate programs’ curricula. Although FEPAC defined “the area of

knowledge that are essential to forensic science” (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11) in the Core Forensic Science Topics; the TWGED model

graduate curriculum’s list of foundational forensic science disciplines was the basis for analysis

of the courses offered for each program. The programs incorporated the majority of the

forensic science disciplines listed plus a few others such as law/science interface or expert

testimony as required by FEPAC (Forensic Science Education Program Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b).

Eleven graduate programs provided their response to the FEPAC’s Graduate Curriculum

Standards which was used to analyze the number of instructional hours each program reports

for the Core Forensic Science Topics. The graduate programs met or exceeded the minimum

number of instructional hours mandated by the FEPAC Accreditation Standards. Many of the

graduate programs only reported the number of instructional hours for their core coursework;

however, the students possibly receive increased number of hours with the incorporation of the

concentration and elective courses.

All seventeen graduate programs required students to complete an independent

research project which satisfies the capstone experience and graduate research standards. This

was accomplished through different avenues such as thesis, internship, or directed research.

Most of the graduate programs utilized the students’ public presentation of their research as

part of their seminar requirement.

The seventeen accredited graduate programs met and exceeded the Graduate

Curriculum Standards in different but not inconsistent ways, including the graduate program’s

overall curriculum structure such as thesis, non-thesis, general curriculum, or

concentrationbased curriculum.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter begins with a review of the purpose of the study, the methods used, and a

summary of the findings. Following this, the conclusions for the major and ancillary findings will

be presented which will address the study’s research questions. The chapter concludes with

suggestions for further studies.

Introduction

In their report, Forensic Sciences: Review of Status and Needs (1999), the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) identified training of laboratory personnel as a significant need in the

forensic science community. To address this need, the committee recommended a system of

accreditation be instituted to ensure that forensic science education can meet the training

needs for forensic science laboratory personnel (National Institute of Justice, 1999). Based on

this recommendation the NIJ in conjunction with other organizations formed the Technical

Working Group on Education and Training in Forensic Science (TWGED) “to establish best

practices for training and education in forensic science” (National Academy of Sciences, 2009,

p. 3). The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) created the Forensic Science

Accreditation Commission (FEPAC) to implement a system of accreditation based on the

recommendations of TWGED (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

FEPAC accredited the first programs in 2004 (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b).

In 2009 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) stated that “training should move

beyond apprentice-like transmittal of practices to education based on scientifically valid

principles” (National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 26). To facilitate this they recommended

the improvement and development of graduate forensic education programs (National Academy

of Sciences, 2009). They did not advocate for apprenticeships to be replaced entirely but rather

founded upon formal education at the undergraduate and graduate level. Several studies

indicated that crime laboratory directors found forensic science education to be highly

inconsistent among the different programs (Peterson & DeForest, 1977; Hooker, 1984; Higgins &

Selavka, 1988; Siegel, 1988; Furton, Hsu, & Cole, 1999). However, the studies cited in the NAS’s

report to substantiate the inconsistencies in forensic science education were conducted prior to

the implementation of FEPAC Accreditation.

Purpose of the Study

No studies have been conducted since the institution of FEPAC Accreditation Standards

to determine to what extent consistency exists among FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic

Science Programs’ curricula. This study sought to determine how FEPAC Accredited Graduate

Forensic Science Programs fulfill the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards and evaluate the

consistencies and inconsistencies among FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science

Programs.

Conclusions

Historically, forensic science programs developed in relative isolation without a set of

curricular standards for guidance (Peterson & DeForest, 1977). They had interaction with

nearby crime laboratories but they experienced limited to no interaction at a national level

(Peterson & DeForest, 1977). The curricula created at the programs may have generally been in

response to the needs of the neighboring laboratory; however, different crime laboratories have

different needs (Hooker, 1984). Logically, the various forensic science programs would have

created different curricula to address those needs.

To address the concerns of the crime laboratories regarding the lack of a core forensic

science curriculum, the TWGED was formed “to establish best practices for training and

education in forensic science” which led to the formation of FEPAC (National Institute of Justice,

2004, p. 3). In 2004 FEPAC accredited the first forensic science education programs (Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). FEPAC provided standards to

guide forensic science curriculum and ensure a measure of uniformity across programs

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b).

Limited studies have been conducted to evaluate forensic science education since the

implementation of FEPAC accreditation. Tregar and Proni (2010) surveyed undergraduate and

graduate forensic science programs. Of the twelve graduate programs that responded to their

survey, only one was FEPAC accredited (Tregar & Proni, 2010). Springer and Melino (2011)

evaluated the degree and educational requirements for employment at crime laboratories and

concluded they had not changed; crime laboratories in 2008 still preferred an undergraduate

degree in chemistry.

This study addressed two research questions: RQ1 - How are the accredited graduate

forensic science programs implementing the Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission Graduate Curriculum Standards? RQ2 - What are the consistencies

and inconsistencies in curriculum across Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs? The answers to the two research

questions were intertwined. By evaluating Graduate Forensic Science Programs’ FEPAC

Accreditation Graduate Curriculum Standards from their self-study reports and program

websites, this study’s findings demonstrated the conclusions to these questions.

RQ1 - How are the accredited graduate forensic science programs implementing the Forensic

Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission Graduate Curriculum Standards?

Major Findings

After reviewing the seventeen FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs’

course offerings and course descriptions, three conclusions were reached. The graduate

programs all cover the natural science areas of forensic science, such as forensic chemistry and

forensic biology, and legal issues (expert testimony, moot court) in the core course

requirements, concentrations, or electives. However, only limited course time was spent

covering the areas of fingerprints, firearms, questioned documents, impression evidence, and

crime scene investigation. Lindquist, Liu, Jenkins, and Yates (1994) found that crime directors

considered these topics useful for a new hire and should be included in the curriculum.

Historically, these areas have not required forensic scientists to have a degree; however, that has

changed (Technical Working Group for Education and Training in Forensic Science, 2004).

Catch-all courses such as Survey of Forensic Science and Advanced Criminalistics, demonstrated

the greatest inconsistency among graduate programs in this study. Course descriptions listed

different topics covered by different programs in the same titled course or the course

description offered no indication as to the content of the course. Survey courses are

recommended by TWGED in an undergraduate curriculum; however, a discipline specific

curriculum is recommended for a graduate curriculum (Technical Working Group for Education

and Training in Forensic Science, 2004).

All students completed at least one capstone experience in the seventeen graduate

programs in this study; some programs required more than one capstone experience. An

independent research project was the primary capstone experience that all seventeen graduate

programs require. This was due to the FEPAC Research Standards that all accredited graduate

programs are required to include in their curriculum (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b). The research requirement manifested itself in the

curriculum with different names and in differing ways. Over half of the graduate programs

utilized a traditional thesis for students’ independent research. Other graduate programs in this

study utilized directed research or internship. One program embedded non-thesis students’

research project in their internship requirements, so research was not listed as a specific course.

Lindquist, Liu, Jenkins, and Yates (1994) surveyed crime laboratory directors who recommended

students, especially in the areas of fingerprints, firearms, questioned documents, and

impression evidence, complete an internship of a median length of 200 hours. Additionally, a

few programs in this study required students to either take an in-house comprehensive exam or

a national comprehensive exam. Presley, Haas, and Quarino (2009) recommended that

programs utilize an external exam rather than an in-house comprehensive exam as an unbiased

means to assess student achievement. The combination of the two capstone experiences by

graduate programs in this study assessed both skills/abilities

(research) and knowledge (exam).

The differences in curricula afforded a means of meeting the wide variety of laboratory

needs identified by Hooker (1984) if the graduate programs in the literature provided the same

foundational core forensic science topics. The seventeen graduate programs reviewed in this

study covered the core forensic science topics identified in the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum

Standards. Additionally, graduate programs’ curricular design allowed for some programs to

cover certain topics in greater depth. The graduate programs’ design was either a general

curriculum where all students took the same courses plus electives, or the programs required

students to take a few foundational courses and then follow a track or concentration-specific

curriculum. A few graduate programs in this study offered both types of curricula depending on

whether the student chose a thesis option or a non-thesis option.

Another means of addressing a variety of needs in the crime laboratories (Hooker, 1984),

was the use of Graduate Seminar courses. All seventeen graduate programs in this study

required students to attend seminars throughout their coursework. The seminars included

professional development presentations, outside guest speakers from various forensic

disciplines, and student presentations of their independent research. Additionally, all seventeen

graduate programs required students to complete an independent research project in some

form. The FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards defined the composition of the research

committee to guide and assess the student; however, the graduate program defined the

parameters of the research project. Research as a part of the curriculum teaches practical

aspects of forensic science such as problem solving and troubleshooting, particularly because

experiments do not always go as planned (Higgins, 1986).

The FEPAC Graduate Admission Requirements Standards required perspective students

to have a natural science degree or equivalent coursework; however, they did not define what

that coursework should be (Forensic Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b). All

seventeen graduate programs required perspective students to have a natural science degree

and specific coursework to apply for admission. However, there was some variation between

programs as to what prerequisite courses were required for admissions. The preferred

coursework for programs in this study followed three possible tracks: chemistry/trace track,

biochemistry/DNA track, and firearms/document/fingerprint track. Within the tracks, the

recommended courses include general chemistry, organic chemistry, analytical chemistry, and

biology. In general, the required courses aligned with the results of a survey Almirall and

Furton (2003) conducted with crime laboratory directors regarding what courses the crime

laboratory directors preferred new hires to have completed. The courses recommended by the

crime laboratory directors were the same courses that many graduate programs of this study

required applicants to have completed. The required prerequisite courses for the different

programs also followed the courses required for employment in a DNA position based on the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Quality Assurance Standards for personnel in Forensic DNA

testing laboratories (FBI QAS) and a chemistry position based on the FBI and the Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) chemistry job requirements (Federal Bureau investigation, 2011).

Ancillary Findings

Curriculum includes not only the courses but other areas such as admissions and

research. Some of these areas are addressed in FEPAC’s Graduate Curriculum Standards while

other related areas are included in other parts of the FEPAC standards, such as Graduate

Admissions. One area, Professional Involvement, directly impacts the curriculum by

strengthening the relationship between the graduate program and the forensic science

laboratories including professional organizations. At least eight graduate programs of this study

have a formal, close relationship with a professional organization or forensic laboratory. The

other nine may also have relationships with professional organizations or forensic laboratories,

but it could not be determined from the program’s website or the Graduate Curriculum

Standards section of their FEPAC self-study.

The FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards on Core Forensic Science Topics required that

“a topic … may involve multiple learning modalities,” and “student mastery of each topic”

should be assessed through multiple means (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 12). The General Curricular Requirements also state that

students should “acquire skills and experience in the application of basic forensic science

concepts and of specialty knowledge to problem solving” (Forensic Science Education Programs

Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11). Active learning pedagogies such as problem-based

and project-based learning allow students to actively engage with the material (Ozel, 2009).

This provides students with another learning modality that goes beyond the lecture and

laboratory model. Problem-based learning allows students to utilize real world problems to

promote critical thinking, problem solving, and metacognition (Smith, 2014). Graduate

programs of this study incorporated different pedagogical ideas into their curriculum that

promote active learning, in areas such as a mock crime scene analysis and moot court.

RQ2 - What are the consistencies and inconsistencies in curriculum across Forensic Science

Education Programs Accreditation Commission Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs?

The FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs exhibited consistency in their

implementation of the Graduate Curriculum Standards. The programs exhibited differences

(distinguishing characteristics) in how they fulfilled the different standards, but they agreed on

the foundational curriculum (Differences, n.d.). When the curricula were analyzed at a

foundational level what seemed like inconsistencies (lack of agreement) turned out to be merely

distinguishing characteristics (differences) such as the name of the course, or whether electives

are included in the estimation of the number of instructional hours that are devoted to the core

curriculum topics (Differences, n.d.; Inconsistencies, n.d.).

The FEPAC Standards for Core Forensic Science Topics required graduate programs to

include in the curriculum a minimum of ten instructional hours for each of the ten forensic

science topics listed in the standard (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation

Commission, 2014b). Ten graduate programs provided a table from their FEPAC Self-Study that

indicated how many instructional hours were included in various courses in their curriculum.

The standard deviation for the average number of instructional hours graduate programs

included was high indicating an increased amount of variability among programs. The amount

of variability could be due to interpretation of the standard. Some graduate programs indicated

that they only included instructional hours from core courses in the curriculum; courses in a

concentration or electives were not included. However, some programs did include

concentration and elective courses. Graduate Programs with lower number of instructional

hours in the core forensic science topics may increase the number of instructional hours by

including concentration courses and electives. The FEPAC Standards on Core Forensic

Science Topics and FEPAC’s (2015) publication titled Guidance on Preparing the FEPAC SelfStudy

indicated that graduate programs may include instructional hours from concentrations.

The graduate programs have implemented the FEPAC Graduate Standards on seminar

and on research; however, the implementations appear to intertwine among the programs

which could appear to be inconsistent. Many graduate programs implemented clearly defined

seminar courses and research courses. Some graduate programs have included the seminar

requirement in the research course assessment, while other programs have included the

research proposal process in the seminar courses. The difference in the minimum number of

credit hours of research among programs may provide an inaccurate picture of how much time

a graduate spent on research.

On the surface the graduate programs of this study appear very inconsistent. However,

when the curricular design and pedagogy are stripped away, the accredited graduate programs

offer a consistent, rigorous scientific foundation in the core forensic science disciplines as

outlined in the FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards. Based on the findings of this evaluation

of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs, there are characteristic differences

among the curricula of the graduate programs; however, they do not translate into a lack of

agreement. Peterson and DeForest found that crime laboratory directors were not satisfied

with the caliber of graduate forensic science programs in 1977. This dissatisfaction summarized

the primary reason for the implementation of FEPAC Accreditation Standards, to measure “the

quality of forensic science educational programs” (National Institute of Justice, 2007, p. 2).

Discussion and Implications

Unlike the natural science degree curricula, forensic science graduate programs must

educate students in multiple areas of science and teach the application of that knowledge of

forensic science to the investigation of crime (Allen, 2012). This task requires a wide variety of

topics and disciplines to be included in a graduate forensic science curriculum which can lead to

differences among graduate programs.

The diversity of curricula may be in part due to graduate programs’ relationships with

neighboring crime laboratories. This study identified several graduate programs that have close

relationships with state crime laboratories, professional organizations, and forensic science

foundations. Hooker (1984) surveyed crime laboratory directors regarding what courses they

would include in a graduate forensic science program. Crime laboratory directors

recommended a wide variety of courses and topics to be included in the curricula, which

indicated that different crime laboratories experienced different needs (Hooker, 1984). The

educational needs of the crime laboratories may have led them to reach out to the neighboring

forensic science program to add courses or topics to the curriculum. The needs of the

neighboring crime laboratory would not have been the same; therefore, the courses

incorporated into the curriculum would not have been the same.

Different types of graduate programs’ curricula will produce different types of graduates

that may be better prepared for various types of employment. General curriculum graduate

programs may produce graduates with more breadth of knowledge and skills. This type of

graduate would be prepared to function in an administrative capacity in a crime laboratory, such

as a laboratory director or quality assurance manager, because of their diverse knowledge.

Graduate programs that employ a curriculum with concentrations may produce graduates with

a greater depth of knowledge in a specific discipline in forensic science, such as forensic

chemistry. A graduate from these programs may be better suited for research, in addition to

casework, because of their specific depth of knowledge on the topic. The profession has many

differing needs and a single curriculum cannot produce graduates for all those needs. A single

curriculum also does not allow for innovation and creativity, which is necessary to propel the

profession forward. Because students learn by different modalities, teaching requires the use of

different teaching methods and design. The graduate program curricula must be built on a

foundation of rigorous science, but there needs to be unique characteristics to the programs in

order to meet the needs of the profession.

The number of instructional hours Graduate Programs spent on the Core Forensic

Science Topics varied significantly among graduate programs. Some of the variability may have

arisen from what courses graduate programs included when identifying the number of

instructional hours for each topic. A few graduate programs included courses from the

concentrations or electives in the curriculum, while other programs may not have. However,

the information necessary to identify the variability is confidential and not available to

stakeholders.

In some graduate programs the implementation of the Graduate Seminar and Graduate

Research Standards appeared to overlap. Many graduate programs had clearly defined seminar

and research courses; however, some programs did not. Graduate programs may have included

the seminar requirements as part of the research course assessment, while other programs

included the research development and proposal in the seminar course. Because of the

differences in the implementation of the Seminar and Research Standards, it may appear that a

graduate at one graduate program has completed more hours of research than a graduate of a

different program. When a crime laboratory director is evaluating the knowledge and skills of

an applicant, this could cause some directors to make an erroneous assumption regarding the

amount of research an applicant has completed.

Undergraduate forensic science programs should “provide a basic foundation in the

scientific and laboratory problem-solving skills necessary success in a modern forensic

laboratory” (Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 7). This

can be accomplished through natural science courses and forensic science survey courses.

Graduate forensic science programs “provide advanced education in the scientific and

laboratory problem-solving skills necessary for success in a modern forensic laboratory”

(Forensic Science Education Programs Accreditation Commission, 2014b, p. 11). The graduate

curriculum should include discipline specific courses (National Institute of Justice, 2004).

Courses such as Criminalistics may not cover the same material at different programs. Course

descriptions indicated that different graduate programs covered different topics or instruments

in similarly titled courses. Some course descriptions were too vague to offer guidance to crime

laboratory directors evaluating an applicant’s knowledge and skills.

The FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs provide similar curricula that

are discipline specific with a rigorous, scientific foundation. This study should provide program

directors of FEPAC Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs an idea of where their

graduate program stands in relation to other accredited graduate programs. The study might

also assist graduate program directors in identifying gaps in their curriculum by indicating how

their program may appear to crime laboratory directors unfamiliar with their curriculum.

Questions to be answered by the graduate program directors may include: Are the course

descriptions detailed enough for crime laboratory directors to identify the knowledge and skills

a graduate from their program may possess? Do the research hours reflect the work completed

by a graduate of that program?

Recommendations for Further Research

The analysis of the accredited graduate programs’ curricula could only go so far with

information gathered off their websites and FEPAC Self-Study’s Graduate Curriculum Standards.

Future research should seek to further flesh out the curricula by gathering documents from the

graduate programs such as course syllabi, conducting interviews with the program director or

their designee, and administering surveys. Analysis of the courses within each curriculum was

based on the course description; however, course syllabi and discussions with the course

instructor would provide deeper, meaningful information on actual content of the course. This

would allow for a greater analysis of consistencies and inconsistencies among courses at FEPAC

Accredited Graduate Forensic Science Programs. A deeper analysis of students’ independent

research requirement would also be of benefit.

An interesting pedagogical idea was described in the course description of a crime scene

practicum course from one of the graduate programs. In this course students participate in

multiple mock crime scenes, but with a twist. Each student has the opportunity to serve as the

crime scene leader with their classmates performing as their crime scene team members. The

leader assigns responsibilities to the members of their teams such as photography, sketching,

evidence collection, etc. The team leader collects all the reports from their team and compiles

the case report to be used for a moot court. Although the faculty set up the crimes scenes, they

are not present for the processing of the scene by the student. The professors do conduct the

moot court based on the scene they created. Mock crime scenes are an excellent example of

problem-based learning. Each crime scene that students encounter presents a new problem to

solve. It is probable that more graduate programs have innovative pedagogical ideas that other

programs might benefit from learning about.

The FEPAC Graduate Curriculum Standards require graduate programs to cover the

essential forensic science knowledge. This essential knowledge could be defined by the Core

Forensic Science Topics listed later in the standards; however, the topics do not necessarily

represent the needs of the crime laboratories. A study between the knowledge, skills, and

abilities personnel in an accredited forensic science laboratory need and the knowledge, skills,

and abilities a graduate can gain from an accredited graduate forensic science program, can

identify any gaps between the two and allow academic leaders to strategize how to close that

gap. Additionally, the information gathered can be used to create a Body of Knowledge for the

Forensic Science field.

Accreditation provides evidence of what students have learned. This is used to

demonstrate to stakeholders the quality of the graduate program and assist programs with

improvement to their curricula (Ewell, 2008).There are two paradigms for accreditation:

improvement and accountability (Ewell, 2008). Accreditation should not only demonstrate that

a program meets certain standards but also improve or enhance teaching and learning in that

program (Ewell, 2008). The question becomes, do the FEPAC standards provide a balance

between the two paradigms? Programmatic accreditation tends to gravitate to the

accountability paradigm (Ewell, 2008). As “keepers of a profession”, the accreditors seek to

ensure the programs have met the “minimum professional standards of instruction and

graduate performance” (Ewell, 2008; p. 119). This aligns with the original call for the creation of

FEPAC Standards, to ensure consistency in forensic science education (National Institute of

Justice, 1999). This study’s findings supports the conclusion that on a curricular level graduate

forensic science education is consistent without stripping programs of their unique

characteristics. The natural evolution and growth for graduate forensic science programs may

include the evaluation of the FEPAC Standards in toto to explore how to utilize the FEPAC

Standards to further enhance teaching and learning in the programs which would ultimately

strengthen the forensic science profession.

Students also viewed