The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture

Mapping is an evidence synthesis approach that aims to describe what research evidence is available that is relevant to a particular research or policy question. It has emerged as an important way to make evidence available to decision-makers. The CEDIL Methods Working Paper 5, ‘The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture’, describes this approach.

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach is an extension of the Strategic Use of Evidence technique. In the SoS approach, interviewers influence suspects’ strategies to encourage suspects to become more forthcoming with information by challenging discrepancies between their statements and the available evidence, in a non-accusatory manner. Our aim was to test the effectiveness of two variations of the SoS approach, one in which the interviewer responded immediately to any discrepancies with the evidence (Reactive) and one in which the interviewer only responded to severe discrepancies (Selective). We predicted that the SoS approach conditions would be more effective at eliciting new information from mock suspects, compared to direct questioning. In a laboratory experiment, N = 300 mock suspects committed a simulated crime and were interviewed using one of the two versions of the SoS approach or with an interviewing approach that did not involve the presentation of evidence. The Reactive version of the SoS approach was more effective than direct questioning at eliciting new information from mock suspects. The Reactive technique also led participants to change their strategies during the interview. The present experiment provided initial support for the core principles of the SoS approach.

What to Reveal and what to Conceal? An Empirical Examination of Guilty Suspects’ Strategies

With Study 1 (N=140), we aimed to examine how different ways of disclosing evidence during an interview would influence guilty suspects’ perception of interviewer’s prior knowledge and elicit statement-evidence inconsistencies. We predicted that interviews with evidence disclosed would elicit low statement-evidence inconsistencies whereas interviews where evidence was not disclosed would result in high statement-evidence inconsistencies. The outcome did not support our predictions. Guilty suspects revealed crime-related information about non-critical themes and withheld information regarding critical themes irrespective of evidence disclosure. We explored this unexpected finding in Study 2 (N=216), which was designed to understand if guilty suspects would reveal information regarding themes of the crime that are not incriminating (not critical) in comparison to themes that were incriminating (critical) as observed in Study 1. We used the evidence disclosure tactics of Study 1 in Study 2 and also measured how these influence their perception of interviewer’s knowledge. The outcome replicated findings from Study 1 that guilty suspects reveal or withhold information based on the cost of disclosing the information. This is a novel finding in the Strategic Use of Evidence literature.

Lessons Learned from the Cambodia Enterprise Infirmary Guidelines development process

Women of reproductive age in Cambodia, and many other developing countries, comprise a large part of factories’ workforce. Integrating family planning and reproductive health information and services into factories can improve workers’ health and help countries achieve FP2020 commitments. This case study looks at the process of how the Cambodian Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training launched, as formal policy, a set of workplace health infirmary guidelines for enterprises. What made this policy process unique for Cambodia—and what can be replicated by health advocates elsewhere—is that a group of organizations typically focused on public health policy successfully engaged on labor policy with a labor ministry. This case study describes the policy process, which was underpinned by the strategic use of evidence in decision-making and has been hailed by government, donors, civil society and industry as a success. The learnings presented in this case study should be useful to health advocates, labor advocates, and program designers.

Building a Case

This chapter explores the role of scientifically-grounded interviewing approaches in criminal investigations and prosecution. It develops a “case construction” perspective, in which the effectiveness of interviewing techniques can be evaluated based on their usefulness for accurately distinguishing between innocent and guilty suspects and for providing evidence that is useful for prosecuting a guilty defendant. The chapter reviews the psychological literature of deception detection, interviewing, and interrogation, viewed through the lens of case construction. Special focus is given to the Strategic Use of Evidence technique, an empirically supported and theoretically based interviewing technique that has shown promise for is use in constructing a case.