Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Distributed cognition at the crime scene

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The examination of a scene of crime provides both an interesting case study and analogy for consideration of Distributed Cognition. In this paper, Distribution is defined by the number of agents involved in the criminal justice process, and in terms of the relationship between a Crime Scene Examiner and the environment being searched.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This example follows the legal system in England and Wales; while other countries will follow different processes, the point is that several people are involved in the interpretation of evidence.

  2. In order to prevent one drawer obscuring the contents of the next, and in order to prevent the need to close drawers, the experienced criminal is likely to open drawers from the bottom up–but in this scene, we had obviously opened them top down.

References

  • Artman H, Garbis C (1998) Situation awareness as distributed cognition. In: Green TRG, Bannon L, Warren CP, Buckley J (eds) Proceedings of the 9th European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE 9). European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (EACE), Le Chesnay, pp 151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Artman H, Waern Y (1999) Distributed cognition in an emergency co-ordination center. Cogn Technol Work 1:237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber C, Smith P, Cross J, Hunter J, McMaster R (2006a) Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition. Pragmat Cogn 14:357–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber C, Smith P, Panesar S, Yang F, Cross J (2006b) Supporting crime scene investigation. In: Bryan-Kinns N, Blandford A, Curzon P, Nigay L (eds) People and computers XX–engage. Springer, London, pp 103–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang M, Timpka T (2003) Cognitive tools in medical teamwork: the spatial arrangement of patient records. Methods Inf Med 42:331–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby JS (2001) Practices in design concept selection as distributed cognition. Cogn Technol Work 3:140–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark A (2008) Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle AC (1989) The original illustrated Strand Sherlock Holmes. Wordsworth Editions, Ware

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE (1986) Mind over machine. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror I, Harnard S (2009) Cognition distributed: how cognitive technology extends our minds. John Benjamin, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Dror IE, Péron A, Hind S-L, Charlton D (2005) When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top–down processing on matching fingerprints. Appl Cogn Psychol 19:799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flin R, Pender Z, Wujec L, Grant V, Stewart E (2007) Police officers’ assessment of operational situations. Policing Int J Police Strateg Manag 30:310–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flor NV, Hutchins EL (1991) Analyzing distributed cognition in software teams: a case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In: Koenemann-Belliveau J, Moher TG, Robertson SP (eds) Empirical studies of programmers: fourth workshop. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, pp 36–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Furness D, Blandford A (2006) Understanding emergency medical dispatch in terms of distributed cognition: a case study. Ergonomics 49:1174–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting and knowing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsch D (2002) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction. In: Carroll J (ed) Human–computer interaction in the new millennium. Addison-Wesley, New York, pp 75–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Horswell J (2004) The practice of crime scene investigation. CRC Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995a) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995b) How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cogn Sci 19:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E, Klausen T (1998) Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In: Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A (1986) Rapid decision making on the fire ground. Human factors and ergonomics society 30th annual meeting. pp 576–580

  • Nemeth C (2003) How cognitive artefacts support distributed cognition in acute care. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 381–385

  • Ormerod TC, Barrett EC, Taylor PJ (2008) Investigating sensemaking in criminal contexts. In: Schraagen JM, Militello LG, Ormerod T, Lipshitz R (eds) Naturalistic decision making and macro-cognition. Ashgate, Avebury, pp 81–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll J (ed) HCI models, theories and frameworks: towards and interdisciplinary science. Morgan Kauffman, San Francisco, CA, pp 193–223

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H (1975) The meaning of meaning. Language, mind and knowledge: philosophical papers, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers Y (1997) A brief introduction to distributed cognition. http://mcs.open.ac.uk/yr258/papers/dcog/dcog-brief-intro.pdf

  • Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:185–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraagen JM, Leijenhorst H (2001) Searching for evidence: knowledge and search strategies used by forensic scientists. In: Salas E, Klein G (eds) Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. LEA, Mahwah, NJ, pp 263–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Seagull FJ, Plasters C, Xiao Y, Mackenzie CF (2003) Collaborative management of complex coordination systems: operating room schedule coordination. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 1521–1525

  • Smith PA, Baber C, Hunter J, Butler M (2008) Measuring team skills in crime scene examination: exploring ad hoc teams. Ergonomics 51:1463–1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GL, Olson EA (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work reported in this paper was supported by a grant from EPSRC [GR/S85115 MsSAM (Methods to Support Shared Analysis for Mobile Investigators). I am grateful to all of the people who worked with me on this project, and to the Crime Scene Examiners who gave an insight into their work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Baber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baber, C. Distributed cognition at the crime scene. AI & Soc 25, 423–432 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0274-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0274-6

Keywords

Navigation