Abstract
Using Robert Nisbet’s (1979) The Idea of Progress I examine progress in research and practice in forensic authorship analysis.
I describe the existing research base and examine what makes an authorship analysis more or less reliable. Further to this I describe the recent history of forensic science and the scientific revolution brought about by the invention of DNA evidence. I chart the rise of three major changes in forensic science – the recognition of contextual bias in analysts, the need for validation studies and shift in logic of providing identification evidence. I address the idea of progress in forensic authorship analysis in terms of these three issues with regard to new knowledge about the nature of authorship and methods in stylistics and stylometry.
I propose that the focus needs to shift to validation of protocols for approaching case questions, rather than on validation of systems or general approaches.
I describe the existing research base and examine what makes an authorship analysis more or less reliable. Further to this I describe the recent history of forensic science and the scientific revolution brought about by the invention of DNA evidence. I chart the rise of three major changes in forensic science – the recognition of contextual bias in analysts, the need for validation studies and shift in logic of providing identification evidence. I address the idea of progress in forensic authorship analysis in terms of these three issues with regard to new knowledge about the nature of authorship and methods in stylistics and stylometry.
I propose that the focus needs to shift to validation of protocols for approaching case questions, rather than on validation of systems or general approaches.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Number of pages | 89 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9781108974714 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 22 Apr 2022 |
Publication series
| Name | Cambridge Elements in Forensic Linguistics |
|---|---|
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
Bibliographical note
© Tim Grant 2022This work is in copyright. It is subject to statutory exceptions and to the provisions of
relevant licensing agreements; with the exception of the Creative Commons version
the link for which is provided below, no reproduction of any part of this work may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
An online version of this work is published at doi.org/10.1017/9781108974714 under
a Creative Commons Open Access license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 which permits re-use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes providing
appropriate credit to the original work is given. You may not distribute derivative
works without permission. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecom
mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.