This quantitative-qualitative study explores the relationships between three dimensions of forensic science misconduct - malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance harms - at the individual (micro) and organizational (meso) systems of analysis. These relationships raise important, unexplored questions about the integrity and efficacy of forensic evidence and the credibility of the forensic expert and organization. The theoretical application relies on an integration of the organizational justice and bad barrel maker perspectives. An online survey explored forensic science professionals' (n = 156) attitudes about and experiences with forensic science misconduct, organizational justice, and credentialing standards. The findings imply malfeasance type misconduct is the most prevalent form of misconduct, yet respondents perceive malfeasance as the least prevalent. Furthermore, correlation analyses express significant relationships between forensic science misconduct at the micro and meso levels of analysis. Results suggest at the micro level, influences and social constructs are more significant than meso level inadequacies, skill sets, and resources. Conversely, attitudes about justice suggest a meso level association, such that as attitudes about justice (meso level) increase, less agreement exists at the influences and social micro levels. Finally, respondents do not favor certification standards that dictate guidelines for testimony, examinations, and hiring.
","abstract_html":"<p>This quantitative-qualitative study explores the relationships between three dimensions of forensic science misconduct - malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance harms - at the individual (micro) and organizational (meso) systems of analysis. These relationships raise important, unexplored questions about the integrity and efficacy of forensic evidence and the credibility of the forensic expert and organization. The theoretical application relies on an integration of the organizational justice and bad barrel maker perspectives. An online survey explored forensic science professionals' (n = 156) attitudes about and experiences with forensic science misconduct, organizational justice, and credentialing standards. The findings imply malfeasance type misconduct is the most prevalent form of misconduct, yet respondents perceive malfeasance as the least prevalent. Furthermore, correlation analyses express significant relationships between forensic science misconduct at the micro and meso levels of analysis. Results suggest at the micro level, influences and social constructs are more significant than meso level inadequacies, skill sets, and resources. Conversely, attitudes about justice suggest a meso level association, such that as attitudes about justice (meso level) increase, less agreement exists at the influences and social micro levels. Finally, respondents do not favor certification standards that dictate guidelines for testimony, examinations, and hiring.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kuzila, Michele M."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts (MA)","degree_level":"Campus Only Thesis","degree_discipline":"Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Marilyn Corsianos, PhD, Chair","Kristine Ajrouch, PhD","Gregg Barak, PhD"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-07-11T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2014-07-11T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:17:06Z","subjects":["forensic sciences","organization","organizational justice","Criminology"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://commons.emich.edu/theses/620","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Marilyn Corsianos, PhD, Chair","Kristine Ajrouch, PhD","Gregg Barak, PhD"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kuzila, Michele M."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2016-01-13T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Campus Only Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts (MA)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["forensic sciences","organization","organizational justice","Criminology"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://commons.emich.edu/theses/620"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This quantitative-qualitative study explores the relationships between three dimensions of forensic science misconduct - malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance harms - at the individual (micro) and organizational (meso) systems of analysis. These relationships raise important, unexplored questions about the integrity and efficacy of forensic evidence and the credibility of the forensic expert and organization. The theoretical application relies on an integration of the organizational justice and bad barrel maker perspectives. An online survey explored forensic science professionals' (n = 156) attitudes about and experiences with forensic science misconduct, organizational justice, and credentialing standards. The findings imply malfeasance type misconduct is the most prevalent form of misconduct, yet respondents perceive malfeasance as the least prevalent. Furthermore, correlation analyses express significant relationships between forensic science misconduct at the micro and meso levels of analysis. Results suggest at the micro level, influences and social constructs are more significant than meso level inadequacies, skill sets, and resources. Conversely, attitudes about justice suggest a meso level association, such that as attitudes about justice (meso level) increase, less agreement exists at the influences and social micro levels. Finally, respondents do not favor certification standards that dictate guidelines for testimony, examinations, and hiring.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Forensic science misconduct: Exploring the role of the individual and the organization"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Marilyn Corsianos, PhD, Chair","Kristine Ajrouch, PhD","Gregg Barak, PhD"],"dc:creator":["Kuzila, Michele M."],"dc:date.available":["2016-01-13T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This quantitative-qualitative study explores the relationships between three dimensions of forensic science misconduct - malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance harms - at the individual (micro) and organizational (meso) systems of analysis. These relationships raise important, unexplored questions about the integrity and efficacy of forensic evidence and the credibility of the forensic expert and organization. The theoretical application relies on an integration of the organizational justice and bad barrel maker perspectives. An online survey explored forensic science professionals' (n = 156) attitudes about and experiences with forensic science misconduct, organizational justice, and credentialing standards. The findings imply malfeasance type misconduct is the most prevalent form of misconduct, yet respondents perceive malfeasance as the least prevalent. Furthermore, correlation analyses express significant relationships between forensic science misconduct at the micro and meso levels of analysis. Results suggest at the micro level, influences and social constructs are more significant than meso level inadequacies, skill sets, and resources. Conversely, attitudes about justice suggest a meso level association, such that as attitudes about justice (meso level) increase, less agreement exists at the influences and social micro levels. Finally, respondents do not favor certification standards that dictate guidelines for testimony, examinations, and hiring.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://commons.emich.edu/theses/620"],"dc:subject":["forensic sciences","organization","organizational justice","Criminology"],"dc:title":["Forensic science misconduct: Exploring the role of the individual and the organization"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Campus Only Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts (MA)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:17:06Z"}