NCJ Number
227286
Journal
International Journal of Police Science and Management Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer 2009 Pages: 193-202
Date Published
2009
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This paper compares and contrasts three forms of inferential reasoning: deduction, induction, and abduction, making a case for articulating and developing a role of abduction in the work and training of police officers, similar to Sherlock Holmes methodology in criminal investigations.
Abstract
Abduction is little understood and almost never mentioned in the policing and investigations literature. Abduction is not a commonplace term for investigators to use, or to reflect upon. However, it relates to several of the headings recognized under 'investigative ability'. It is also related to detectives' valuation of 'slow time' that is time to reflect. Investigators should be encouraged to be more aware of their thinking styles, and the ways in which they hypothesize about how offenses took place. Three developments are essential for abduction: (1) respect for 'healthy skepticism' needs to be guaranteed within organizations; (2) the need to be developed with extensive elaboration, explanation, exemplification, and research; and (3) the need to be seen in the context of inferential reasoning about proof as well as investigation. All criminal investigations, and resulting trials, rely upon inferential reasoning (deduction, induction, and abduction). Sherlock Holmes' methodology was abduction which is rarely described, discussed, or researched. Abduction involves interpretative epistemologies which insist that 'facts' cannot be understood independent of how they are observed and understood. This paper explains abductive inferential reasoning, contrasting it with deduction and induction. References