| |

Introduction
A major world problem, widely acknowledged since the terror attacks
of 11th September 2001 and particularly relevant in the light of
current concerns about the quality of the intelligence basis for
decision-making, is that we have become far more effective at amassing
information than at making sense of it. Even when we already possess
the evidence upon which intelligent decisions can be made, we often
fail to identify, locate, marshal and interpret it appropriately.
An over-emphasis on technology is accompanied by inadequate attention
to its limitations, and to the abilities and limitations of human
reasoning powers in interpreting evidence, so that the benefits
that could be gained from a combination of sophisticated technology
and human problem-solving skills go largely unrecognised.
Police procedure and training treat investigation and intelligence
analysis as core activities, yet without subjecting them to any
formal analysis, or considering that they could be susceptible
to scientific study. There is little consideration of how evidence
might best be discovered, analysed and presented to others as part
of a reasoned argument, and no instruction is provided in the fundamental
skills, competencies and intellectual processes required. There
is lack of appreciation that we must first expect to observe evidence
before we can recognize that it is missing. Our principal aim is
to address and rectify some of these inadequacies, both in the
specific context of Police and Intelligence work and more generally.
2. Questioning to Reduce Uncertainty
Investigation and intelligence analysis involve the discovery
and testing of new lines of enquiry, hypotheses, evidence and arguments,
as well as the linking of evidence to hypotheses. Discovery in
its turn involves a number of activities: analysis, synthesis,
questioning, reasoning, and composition and decomposition of facts,
evidence and potential explanations. Unravelling the significant
from the insignificant, assessing the credibility, relevance and
weight of evidence, analysing the validity of conclusions, are
all important for helping us discover new explanations for and
improved understandings of matters of which we are in doubt. While
all these activities involve creative acts, they also stand to
benefit greatly from careful logical attention and analysis. Formal
strategies can enhance our imaginative reasoning capabilities.
Developing such strategies is a central focus of the project.
Questioning – broadly interpreted as a directed search for
evidence – lies at the heart of the process. As appropriate
questions are identified, asked and answered, the level of uncertainty
about hypotheses of concern may be reduced to a degree where new
conclusions and decisions can be made. Seeking and obtaining new
evidence may allow us to eliminate or better discriminate between
currently plausible alternative hypotheses, with implications both
for the conclusions tentatively drawn and for the identification,
pursuit and processing of further lines of enquiry.
Frequently a single question directed towards casting light on
some ultimate proposition could be better replaced by a sequence
of smaller questions. We might never be able to obtain evidence
bearing fully and directly on the ultimate hypothesis, but by taking
smaller investigative steps we may be able to approach steadily
closer to it. Piecemeal and/or sequential enquiry also embody a
valuable degree of elasticity, in that one flawed item of evidence
need not be fatal to the final overall conclusion when the evidence
is considered as a whole.
Questions can be selected, subdivided and sequenced (initially
once and for all, or dynamically in the light of accruing information)
in many ways, of which some will be more fruitful and informative
than others. The logical processes required for such scheduling
and processing will be identified and analysed, their implications
for both formal and informal questioning procedures examined, and
different strategies and forms of questioning explored and compared. |
|