| Currently the forensic science community has few oversight models to follow and states are left to develop forensic science regulation without knowledge of potential problems, proven successes, or benefits of lessons learned from stakeholders (regulatory agency, laboratory personnel, law enforcement, and judicial system). This qualitative instrumental case study examined, in depth, Texas's transition to forensic science oversight using the lived experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders in the regulation process, namely those who had oversight of the regulation (Texas Forensic Science Commission), those who were regulated (laboratory personnel), and those who potentially benefit from regulation (law enforcement and the judicial system). The goal was to fully explore the regulatory process achieved by Texas and the perceived problems, successes, and lessons learned from the stakeholders' points of view regarding the transition to regulation. Implementing the data source triangulation methodology, in which the three different viewpoints are the data sources, allowed for commonalities and trends to be identified. The patterns were identified through coding the interview question responses then the different stakeholder groups were compared to one another to identify larger trends. Knowing how these three stakeholder groups perceived the transition to regulation assisted in identifying the successes and pitfalls of Texas's transition to forensic science regulation; which, in turn, allowed for lessons learned and a model of regulation of to be developed. The findings revealed that focusing on stakeholder involvement, creating an environment of learning, and tailoring policing to the stakeholders is a necessity in regulation. Texas was able to incorporate these aspects of the theory of regulation by gaining the trust of the stakeholders, ultimately, moving the forensic science discipline in a positive direction. Recommendations include expanding the study to include a larger sample population within Texas and in states that have also implemented regulation. Including states that have failed, in addition to those that have succeeded, will either further confirm findings related to the successes, pitfalls, and lessons learned or bring to light other ones. |
