Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.

2, (2019)

Lines-of-Inquiry and Sources of Evidence in Work-Based

Research
LEE FERGUSSON1

University of Southern Queensland, Australia

MARCUS HARMES

University of Southern Queensland, Australia

FIONA HAYES

Queensland Police Service, Australia

and

CHRISTOPHER RAHMANN

Queensland Police Service, Australia

There is synergy between the investigative practices of police detectives and social scientists,
including work-based researchers. They both develop lines-of-inquiry and draw on multiple
sources of evidence in order to make inferences about people, trends and phenomena. However,
the principles associated with lines-of-inquiry and sources of evidence have not so far been
examined in relation to work-based research methods, which are often unexplored or ill-defined
in the published literature. We explore this gap by examining the various direct and indirect
lines-of-inquiry and the main sources of primary and secondary evidence used in work-based
research, which is especially relevant because some work-based researchers are also police
detectives. Clearer understanding of these intersections will be useful in emerging professional
contexts where the work-based researcher, the detective, and the social scientist cohere in the
one person and their research project. The case we examined was a Professional Studies
programme at a university in Australia, which has many police detectives doing work-based
research, and from their experience we conclude there is synergy between work-based research
and lines of enquiry.
Specifically, in the context of research methods, we identify seven sources of evidence: 1)
creative, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews; 2) structured interviews; 3) consensus
group methods; 4) surveys; 5) documentation and archives; 6) direct observations and
participant observations; and 7) physical or cultural artefacts, and show their methodological
features related to data and method type, reliability, validity, and types of analysis, along with
their respective advantages and disadvantages. This study thereby unpacks and isolates those
characteristics of work-based research which are relevant to a growing body of literature
related to the messy, co-produced and wicked problems of private companies, government
agencies, and non-government organisations and the research methods used to investigate
them.

85
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Key words: Line-of-inquiry, evidence, research methods, police detectives, work-based

research

Introduction

Forty years ago, Zinnes (1980: 319) coined the term “researchers qua detectives” (researchers
as well as detectives). Since then, the parallels between the investigative work of detective
police officers in solving crime and social scientists in addressing and seeking to understand
human and organizational behaviour have been further noted in the literature. Winks for
example equated the method of a historian to a detective (1969) and the method of a
detective to a historian (2013), noting that being a historian is “like being a detective”: in trying
to “make sense of a series of events…[the historian must] speculate on a number of different
causal relationships, search for as much evidence as possible, and then eliminate all the
hypotheses that were contradicted by the facts, leaving, ideally, the one hypothesis that must
be true” (Winks, 2013: 97). An important precursor to that association had come earlier in
1951 with the acclaimed work of fiction The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, in which a
modern police detective painstakingly reconstructed a case for the innocence of Richard III (d.
1485); her character’s logical deductions, sifting of evidence, analytic reasoning and use of
method testify to a synthesis of history and detection that Winks would later articulate.
Kaminsky, Rosenqvist and Holmstro (2009: 385) correspondingly likened the assessment
phase of nursing to a “detective’s work…asking questions and listening carefully…search[ing]
for clues”, and Smith, Braunack-Mayer, Wittert and Warin (2008: 3) associated the self-
monitoring of men’s health with “sort of like being a detective”. It has been argued, therefore,
that what makes a good detective also makes a good researcher, with success in each
investigative method (including the application of skills such as pattern recognition [Dror &
Cole, 2010]) reliant on an unbiased, systematic, and methodical approach to evidence in order
to uncover facts or the ‘truth’. As Sherlock Holmes famously declared: “Data! Data! Data!...I
can’t make bricks without clay” (Konnikova, 2011).
This research paper concerns itself with two interrelated investigative concepts common
to both work-based researchers and police detectives: 1) line-of-inquiry; and 2) evidence
gathering. However, we acknowledge of course that not all work-based inquiry is identical to
the work of detectives but use detective work to highlight the use of our two concepts. We also
recognize that not all work-based research applies the concepts in identical ways to each other
or as they are described herein. However, the relationship between a line-of-inquiry and
evidence to the general conduct of research can be schematically represented by Figure 1.
In this regard, Yin (2016: 108) has stated that “an apt analogy is to the clinical queries
made by medical doctors. In asking about ailments that patients might have difficulty
describing, the doctors will converse casually with their patients, but the doctors are also
following an established line of inquiry to check the symptoms [i.e., the evidence]. While asking
their questions, the doctors are entertaining the possible ailments that might be relevant”. Like
the medical doctor who wishes to establish the underlying cause of a symptom in Yin’s (2016)
example, a researcher investigates a person, trend or phenomenon (A), and develops a line-of-
inquiry, i.e., a ‘line of questioning’ or a ‘line-of-argument’ (B) associated with the topic of
investigation. The researcher gathers evidence (i.e., raw data) (D) from different sources of
evidence (C) and, on gathering the evidence, analyses (E), explains and interprets (F), and then
draws tentative conclusions or inferences from the evidence (G) in order to better understand
or reveal the ‘truth’ (i.e., to provide answers, conclusions and/or recommendations) about the
person, event or phenomenon (A) under investigation.

86
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Figure 1: The relationship of line-of-inquiry and source of evidence to the investigative process.
The scientific nature of this process has been long recognised in professional literature
(Perkins, 1949: 10). In policing, Berg (1999: 139) described the process represented in Figure 1
as “a scientific and systematic series of activities designed to use varies pieces of information
and evidence to explain the events surrounding a crime, identify a suspect, and link that
suspect to the crime. In this process, police and detectives use fingerprints and other evidence
found at the scene of the crime, computers and other sophisticated technological and chemical
advances, and logical reasoning to solve the crime”. The research steps in Figure 1 can be
identified in Berg’s analysis of police detection, with “a crime” corresponding to (A),
“fingerprints and other evidence” corresponding to (C), and “logical reasoning” corresponding
specifically to (F-G) but also to the entire sequence of steps presented in Figure 1. In Yin’s
example, the doctor might ask (qualitative) questions about symptoms (A) and follow a line-of-
inquiry (B), but she might also recommend other (quantitative) blood tests or an X-ray (C) to
isolate and analyse data (D-E) to help explain the cause of symptoms (i.e., the ailment) (F), on
the basis of which tentative conclusions can be drawn (G) about how best to effectively treat
the underlying health problem (A). Figure 1 thereby locates the fundamental roles lines-of-
inquiry and sources of evidence play in successful investigative outcomes.
Moreover, in the same way that bias can affect the dependability and trustworthiness of
qualitative research findings and conclusions, the possibility of bias based on several possible
causes, including race, is recognised in the literature (Dempsey & Frost, 2007: 215). As such
“biased decision-making in criminal investigations can impede or arrest the progress of justice”
(Fahsing & Ask, 2016: 203). Thus, for the detective-researcher, issues like investigator bias,
stereotyping, selectivity of evidence, presence and potential impacts of compounding
variables, threats to reliability and validity of method, inadequate or inappropriate analytical
techniques, emergence of rival hypotheses, and making false assumptions or generalizations
are relevant to both policing and research in the methodical approach suggested by steps A > G
in Figure 1.
The police interview and the qualitative research interview can be sites of bias and must
be protected against it. Strathern (2014: 261) refers to the ‘scrutability of questions’ and the
strength of data elicited as safeguards in both sites. For example, in the context of policing and
the “human tendency towards selective information search and confirmation bias”, Fahsing
and Ask (2016: 204) have explained the role of abductive logic in developing a line-of-inquiry
and its relation to scientific discovery based on evidence. They note that when “transferred to
an investigative context, the preference for such ‘positive testing strategies’ [i.e., selective
information searching] entails serious implications. Specifically, there is an obvious risk that
investigative actions become too focused on finding incriminating (i.e., confirming) evidence
against a prime suspect, while no efforts are made to find potentially exonerating (i.e.,

87
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

disconfirming) information”. In such instances, an adversarial criminal trial in which defense

counsel probes and challenges can bring such one-sided cases undone.
Positive testing strategies can also prove disastrous in medicine and other diagnostic
sites, which routinely face challenges associated with false negative and false positive
diagnoses as well as placebo and nocebo effects. And while the literature associated with
‘evidence-based policing’ and its relation to the work of a detective is still emerging (e.g.,
Kalyal, 2019; Telep & Somers, 2019), our goal is to examine the specific characteristics of lines-
of-inquiry and sources of evidence in the methodological approaches of work-based research
because the relationship between these has yet to be explained. Consideration of the synergies
between the practices of police detectives engaged in their work and academic researchers
engaged in theirs will be brought together with examples from work-based learning projects
undertaken by senior police officers. In this way, any boundary between the academic and the
detective becomes uncertain and the detective-as-researcher comes more firmly into view.
In the last 20 years, a number of important pedagogies related to learning and research
at ‘work’ have been advanced. Situated in the world of work more generally, these pedagogies
have collectively been referred to under the umbrella term ‘work-related learning’ (e.g., Allan,
2015), and include approaches such as work-integrated learning (e.g., Jackson, 2015),
workplace learning (e.g., Gherardi, 2009), work-applied learning (e.g., Wall, 2017), work-based
education (e.g., Zanibbi, Munby, Hutchinson, Versnel, & Chin, 2006), and, importantly for the
present study, work-based learning (e.g., Helyer, 2015). For our purposes, we use the term
work-based learning (WBL) to mean a transdisciplinary field of learning which “logically refers
to all and any learning that is situated in the workplace or arises directly out of workplace
concerns” (Lester & Costley, 2010: 562), with our emphasis deliberately placed on workplace
problems and their solutions. Thus, in WBL the researching practitioner is “concerned with the
most compelling and effective real-world ‘maps’ of situations and phenomena rather than with
either purely theoretical or pragmatically simplified representations” (Costley & Lester, 2012:
259).
Such a conceptualisation can be contrasted to the more common (and generic) concept
of workplace learning (WPL), which has so far focused on “retrospective experiential learning”
(Fulton & Hayes, 2017) and “professional practice” (Fulton, Kuit, Sanders, & Smith, 2012) rather
than work-based problems per se. Cacciattolo (2015: 243) for example points out that because
“working is interconnected with learning…workplace learning is the way in which skills are
upgraded and knowledge is acquired at the place of work”, but she fails to mention the all-
important wicked, messy and co-produced situations, problems, challenges, and other
phenomena of work (e.g., Dostal, Cloete, & Járos, 2005; Fergusson, 2019; Head & Alford, 2015)
and the associated investigative methods used to examine them when defining the mission of
WBL. These types of problems have been associated with private organisations, government
agencies, and non-government organisations.
Precise descriptions about the specific research methods used in WBL have only recently
been made. Fergusson, Shallies and Meijer (2019) have identified the centrality of models,
methodic-ness, and mixed methods in WBL and their relation to first principles of scientific
inquiry, but Costley and Abukari (2015: 11) have noted “the links between practitioner
research and research methodologies need further development as this is a key area for
practitioners to enhance their working practices especially at postgraduate and doctorate
level”. Costely and Abukari go on to point out that “research approaches and methodologies
have been an important development in universities [and] qualitative research has been at the
forefront of these initiatives [but] work-based research projects are not an applied version of

88
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

an existing theory” and hence further investigation of work-based research methods is

warranted.
To achieve our goal of identifying the role of lines-of-inquiry and sources of evidence in
work-based research, we have identified the nexus of this study as the WBL and research-
based pedagogy conceived and operationalised from within a University in Australia, with
which we are most familiar. This higher degree by research (HDR) approach to investigating
work is called ‘Professional Studies’ (Fergusson, Allred & Dux, 2018; Fergusson, Allred, Dux &
Muianga, 2018; Fergusson, van der Laan, White, & Balfour, 2019). At the heart of all WBL
pedagogies is reflective practice (e.g., Fergusson, van der Laan & Baker, 2019; Helyer, 2015),
but Professional Studies also features student-centric learning built around personal and
programme learning objectives and a mixed methods approach to researching pragmatic,
work-based wicked problems (Mertens, 2015). Using the postgraduate Professional Studies
programme at USQ as the context for study is particularly appropriate as some of the
researching practitioners within this HDR programme are senior police officers and plain-
clothes detectives. The question we ask, therefore, is: how are lines-of-inquiry and sources of
evidence conceived and applied in work-based research? We approach this task by using
descriptive analyses of white and grey literature from within the Professional Studies
programme and an Australian Police Service, drawing from the authors’ collective experience
with both police detection and WBL research practices.

Lines-of-inquiry

Given the close association of investigative policing and research, lines-of-inquiry form a
central part of both police detection (Fahsing & Ask, 2016) and social science research (Yin,
2016), but sometimes also play a role in medical research (e.g., List, & Gallet, 2001), education
(Nordness, Swain, & Haverkost, 2012), law (van Oorschot, & Mascini, 2018) and engineering
(Chinowsky (2011). An expanded form of the research process presented in Figure 1 can be
seen in Figure 2, in which a line-of-inquiry and sources of evidence have been highlighted and
labelled (B) and (C).
Once the topic of investigation, problem, theory, and research question (RQ) have been
identified (A), the researcher, according to this model, develops a mental framework and a
line-of-inquiry (B). Together these two preliminary approaches (one psychologically tacit and
the other overt) run in parallel for the purposes of developing a research protocol.

89
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Figure 2: Relationship of direct and indirect lines-of-inquiry to sources of primary and

secondary evidence in work-based research.

A mental framework, sometimes called an ‘investigative hypothesis’, is an adjunct to the line-

of-inquiry. As suggested by attribution to the realm of the mental (or even imaginative), a
researcher or police investigator’s inner emotional and intellectual worlds are part of this
framework. The rational ‘hunch’ can be both ‘visceral’ and a reasoned response based on
experience (George Mason School of Law, 2007: 83). Akin to his earlier analogy of the doctor,
Yin (2016: 109) maintains that when solving crimes, a police detective investigates “at two
levels”:

The first involves collecting evidence [i.e., data collection on the basis of a line-of-
inquiry], whereas the second involves simultaneously entertaining their own ideas
about how and why a crime might have occurred. The questions lead to the
detectives’ hunches and theories about crime and may direct their attention to new
evidence whose significance might first have gone unappreciated. The hunches and
theories may be considered the detectives’ mental framework.

According to Fahsing and Ask (2016: 218), like researchers in Yin’s examples, detectives have
an “ability to identify relevant investigative hypotheses and formulate appropriate lines of
inquiry”, and once a line-of-inquiry has been identified, the detective-researcher decides on
the appropriate approach to gathering evidence, i.e., Data! Data! Data! or (D) in Figure 2, and
plans how to conduct the search. This stage of investigation involves the development of a
research protocol, which consists of the aims and objectives required to answer the
investigative question(s): what is it I wish to know, and how am I going to go about knowing it?

90
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Thus, the protocol reflects a broad research line-of-inquiry accompanied by a mental

framework, both of which are associated with the research topic, theme, or construct under
investigation (A).
As shown in Figure 2, in work-based research the research protocol can take a number of
forms depending on the type of evidence to be examined. In the case of interviews, consensus
group methods, and surveys, four authoritative sources may be used to inform and guide
questioning. In the case of work-based research, the research protocol may necessitate
consulting stakeholders, experts or colleagues from the same work-base or practice domain
who come together to brainstorm about what questions are likely to elicit the responses
needed to understand the research topic, or could involve convening a focus group or Delphi
group of experts for the same purpose. Similarly, the researcher could identify relevant
questions from the published literature which relate to and extend knowledge about the
research topic or could re-use questions previously posed by other researchers or questions
derived from standardised test instruments which have yielded valuable data on the topic in
the past.
In all cases, these authoritative sources form the basis of inquiry because the practice
results in the generation of ‘grand tour’ questions, i.e., questions the researcher needs in place
in the right order to extract data required to answer (or at least partially answer) the
overarching research question(s) related to the investigation (Leech, 2002). Grand tour
questions serve as the formal architecture of the interview or survey process, cover the main
topics of the interview or survey, form the basis of follow-up questions on more specific
aspects of the research topic, and may represent the lead-off questions in an individual or
group interview or survey. Thus, the line-of-inquiry (B) and mental framework are
operationalised through the research protocol in order to define the various kinds of
information to be elicited from the interview, consensus group, or survey (C). In this approach,
the interviewee, group or survey respondent can also be considered a ‘source of evidence’.
Other sources of evidence may also be investigated, including organisational or policy
documents and archives. These text-based sources again bring together the detective and the
historian. Both will read the textual content through a discursive lens, seeking not only content
from the dead letter on the page but the deeper meaning and emphases beneath the surface
and between the lines. Sometimes what is not said or what has been omitted can be as
meaningful as what is included and archival silences are revealing (Guberek & Hedstrom,
2017). In using these sources, the research protocol requires a critique of the origin, context,
motive, usefulness and perspective of the document’s original author(s), whether the sources
are a continuous running record or discontinuous record, direct and/or participant
observations for which naturalistic and inductive social inquiry are required, and/or physical
and cultural artefacts which require a protocol of identification, collecting and comparing
during interrogation. Archives also provide traces of human behaviour (Canter & Alison, 2003:
162). In the case of police detection, physical artefacts may also be forensically examined.
According to Chinowsky (2011: 3), the “formalization of a line of inquiry requires three
elements: a foundational definition, an operational context and a path forward to guide
researchers within the domain”; in policing and social science research, this “path forward”
results in the formation of either direct or indirect lines-of-inquiry, both of which can be
effective. A direct line-of-inquiry refers to evidence gathering which yields data to support the
‘truth’ of an assertion directly without an intervening inference, whereas an indirect line-of-
inquiry refers to evidence which establishes collateral facts from which the main fact may be
inferred, such as circumstantial or supporting evidence. In policing, Berg (1999: 163) points out
that a detective uses an indirect line-of-inquiry “in an attempt to draw out the truth without

91
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

specifically addressing the literal facts or circumstances of the case….It is a little like sneaking
up on the truth, rather than coming out immediately and asking [about it]. It is also a non-
accusatory style of questioning”. In contrast, direct lines-of-inquiry, according to Berg, “work
best with experienced criminals”, and involve coming straight to the point of the inquiry.
However, in Berg’s example, both indirect and direct lines-of-inquiry use the same source of
evidence (i.e., a suspect, but presumably could also apply to a witness).
As shown in Figure 2, direct or indirect lines-of-inquiry in work-based research are applied
differently from each other. For example, in developing grand tour questions in research,
consulting stakeholders and others as well as conducting consensus group methods to gain
insight into the topic are direct lines-of-inquiry, whereas reviewing literature and standardised
instruments are indirect lines-of-inquiry, allowing the researcher in Berg’s conception to “sneak
up on the truth”. Moreover, all four sources of evidence associated with the development of
grand tour questions and direct and participant observations are direct lines-of-inquiry, while
documentation and archives analyses are considered indirect lines-of-inquiry (because they are
not directly related to the main phenomenon under investigation and are usually of a
secondary or inferential nature) and use of physical and cultural artefacts can reflect either a
direct or indirect line-of-inquiry because the evidence may directly assert ‘truth’ or may be
circumstantial in nature. The output from these direct and indirect approaches is evidence or
raw data (D), which need to be analysed (E), the results of which require explanations,
including considerations of cause (i.e., explanans) and effect (i.e., explanandum) and craft rival
and real-world rival hypotheses (Yin, 2016: 173), and interpretations (i.e., consideration of
relevance and importance of the finding) (F), from which sound inferences can be made (G).
Consider the following example of a line-of-inquiry (B) and its relation a source of
evidence (C) from a current policing Professional Studies work-based research project
embedded within the QPS. Having identified a significant gap in training, the research topic
considers how to develop and implement an effective training programme for police
investigators (A) by asking: What comprises an Investigative Coordinator’s Course for Senior
Investigators of the rank of Detective Sergeant and Detective Senior Sergeant and how might it
be implemented? Two main lines-of-inquiry (B) were then identified: 1) whether current
training programmes adequately address the knowledge, skills and experience required of a
detective (direct and indirect lines-of-inquiry); and 2) emerging investigative strategies
required of a detective (direct line-of-inquiry).
By interviewing stakeholders and colleagues and by interrogating through that discursive
lens policy and training documents for what is said but also what may be omitted or absent,
the researcher can assess current-state training 1) and by interviewing and conducting a focus
group with stakeholders and colleagues, the researcher can gather evidence related to future-
state training 2). These lines-of-inquiry and subsequent evidence (D) can be analysed (E),
explained and interpreted (F), and thereby used to understand current-state and infer future-
state training needs for senior police investigators (G). In this example, work-based research
would then lead to an actual workplace project by providing the evidence necessary to develop
and implement a revised or new Investigative Coordinator’s Course, which can be assessed and
evaluated on the basis of evidence, thereby fulfilling the requirements of (A).

Sources of evidence

Choosing the right source of evidence (C) is fully dependent on the problem to be addressed
and RQ to be answered (A) and the appropriate line-of-inquiry adopted by the researcher to
answer it (B). For example, in the work-based case cited above, it appears entirely appropriate

92
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

that the researcher directly elicit the opinions of stakeholders and colleagues and indirectly
analyse policy documents in order to answer the RQ rather than examine physical and cultural
artefacts.
It is not within the scope of this paper to identify and explain all the sources of evidence
available to a researcher when examining work-based phenomena. We have therefore
identified the seven main sources of evidence which in the literature and through experience
within the Professional Studies programme have been associated with work-based research.
These sources are: 1) creative, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews; 2) structured
interviews; 3) consensus group methods; 4) surveys; 5) documentation and archives; 6) direct
observations and participant observations; and 7) physical or cultural artefacts, shown as (C) in
Figure 2 and discussed in more detail below.
1. Creative, Unstructured, and Semi-Structured Interviews. As a source of evidence,
short- and long-form interviews are a core technique in work-based research. Several
variations of non-structured interviews have been identified, including ethical integrity, life
history, situational, patterned behaviour description, creative, unstructured, and semi-
structured, of which the last three types will be highlighted.
According to Mason (2010), creative interviews involve “exploration of verbal and non-
verbal dimensions—material, spatial, environmental, non-human, embodied, sentient and
sensory—and their intersection”. Creative interviews can be useful when the researcher wishes
to learn about operational “processes, nuances, richness, meanings, experiences, dynamics,
connections, and complexity” and are often associated with ‘why’ and ‘how’ research
questions or nuanced understandings of ‘what’. To paraphrase Mason (2010), researchers who
are interested in actors’ perspectives and experiences, in situational and embodied knowledge,
knowledge which is contextual and particular, and knowledge as constructed and created not
simply collected, find creative interviews of value. As a result, creative interviews result in an
understanding of processes ‘in the round’ rather than the logic of theoretical constructs but are
based on a line-of-inquiry and research protocol.
Unstructured interviews (Zhang, & Wildemuth, 2009), sometimes called ‘discovery
interviews’ or ‘non-directive interviews’, are also exploratory in nature and may occur with or
without the researcher devising questions prior to the interview (i.e., will use an implicit line-
of-inquiry and research protocol but may not use grand tour questions). Being conversationally
based on the interviewee’s responses, unstructured interviews proceed like a friendly, non-
threatening conversation because each interviewee is asked a different series of questions
depending on where the conversation leads. Hence, it is the interviewee who decides what is
and is not important in an unstructured interview.
In policing, these types of interviews are referred to as ‘cognitive interviews’ (Fisher,
Milne, & Bull, 2011) and have been found most effective when interviewing cooperative
witnesses, victims or suspects. This method focuses on the interviewee and their narrative and
locates the interviewee as the active party in the interview process, a process designed around
the so-called PEACE model (Brooks, Snook, & Bull, 2015). In simple terms, the interviewee
knows why s/he is being interviewed and is afforded the opportunity to provide all the
information s/he sees as relevant via an uninterrupted narrative. Contextual reinstatement is
encouraged where the interviewee recalls the incident (often chronologically, in a before,
during and after format).
Police investigators are taught that this is the best way to obtain a more thorough,
reliable and accurate account of a crime rather than using a Q&A format. After the free
narrative, questioning can (and often does) continue with the interviewer identifying specific
topics to probe and discuss. Thus, cognitive interviews are described as being like a funnel,

93
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

with open questions at the top and direct, closed questions at the bottom, with questioning
progressing from open to closed if and as required. As well as witness/victim versions and
suspects admitting offences, the method is also useful for suspects denying allegations. For
example, if a robbery happened yesterday and the suspect denies the offence, a cognitive
interview of their movements and interactions yesterday will provide details investigators can
used to corroborate or disprove the suspect’s version of events as opposed to a simple (and
closed-ended) denial.
The most common interview in work-based research is semi-structured (Kallio, Pietilä,
Johnson, & Kangasniemi, 2016). Semi-structured interviews form the dominant type in both
qualitative and mixed methods research. In this approach, the relationship between
interviewer and interviewee is a social one and the interview is not tightly scripted but open-
ended; the researcher has an explicit line-of-inquiry and follows a research protocol and grand
tour, but the questions posed may differ according to the context and setting of each
interviewee. Being open-ended, questions are deemed important but are also designed to elicit
responses which do not pre-empt the interviewee or beg the question and encourage use of
their own words. Semi-structured interviews thus seek out the details of experience and ask
interviewees to reconstruct and explain their experience in their own words. Thus, researchers
using semi-structured techniques seek to understand the interviewee’s world, including
understanding the meaning of their words and phrases. In research of gender and diversity in
Australian Federal policing, an example of an unstructured question would be: tell me about
your experience as a police officer, but a semi-structured one would be: what are your views
about female police officers and their role in the Australian Federal Police?
Some quantitative researchers maintain these three approaches lack the reliability and
precision of a structured interview, while qualitative researchers maintain the comparison is a
meaningless one because data from unstructured interviews are not designed to be
generalisable but can still be trustworthy.
2. Structured Interviews. We have separated structured interviews from the preceding
three types because they are confirmatory in nature, typically use categorical questions, and
are mostly quantitative. Structured interviews are conducted using carefully scripted,
repeatable, closed-ended questions according to a proscribed list of grand tour questions
(Rowley, 2012). In structured interviews, the researcher adopts the formal role of ‘interviewer’
and tries to adopt a uniform behaviour and demeanour when interviewing different
interviewees. Such interviews are typically part of a survey or poll and may seek to draw
qualitative and/or quantitative data from a representative sample of interviewees. As a
consequence, structured techniques tend to focus on core dimensions or constructs and limit
responses to those dimensions or constructs that have been predefined by the researcher (i.e.,
questions are closed-ended and answers often single-word, sometimes only allowing
categorical answers), including word usage, phrases and hence meaning. Structured interviews
are therefore confirmatory in nature, and it is the interviewer who decides what is and is not
important.
Data derived from such interviews are said by some researchers to yield more reliable
and valid data, especially in clinical, forensic or investigative contexts, not least because they
follow rigid rules and can be analysed statistically and generalised to the larger population
(Craig, 2005: 38). In this sense, structured interviews can be treated quantitatively and may
form the quantitative aspect of an exploratory, explanatory, concurrent, or embedded mixed
method design while being supplemented with other qualitative techniques. In the study of
gender and diversity in policing for example, a structured interview question would be: do you
think the Australian Federal Police should employ more women? In police

94
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

interrogations, ‘conversational management’ is closely aligned with structured interviews and

the stereotypical ‘interrogation’ style of interview. Such an approach is preferred when dealing
with uncooperative suspects and witnesses. Conversational management is a direct
interviewing technique which uses a closed-ended style that does not provide significant
opportunity for the interviewee to provide a free narrative; hence, responses are a definitive
yes or no. The focus of these interviews is on the interviewer’s questions and the interviewee is
but a passive participant.
3. Consensus Group Methods. Consensus group methods include focus groups, Delphi
groups, and nominal groups. A focus group is a source of evidence based on data collected by
the researcher from a small group of key informants having similar attributes, experience or
work-based focus (Longhurst, 2003). In a focus group, the researcher leads the group
discussion in a non-directed manner but using grand tour questions, with the objective of
identifying the “perspectives of the people in the group with as minimal influence by the
researcher as possible (Yin, 2016: 336).
In a similar way, a Delphi group allows the researcher to gather evidence from a group of
experts according to the following stages: “identifying a research problem, selecting
participants, developing a questionnaire of statements, conducting anonymous iterative postal
or email questionnaire rounds, collecting individual and group feedback between rounds and
summarizing the findings. This process is repeated until the best possible level of consensus is
reached, or until a predetermined number of rounds have been completed. Participants never
meet or interact directly in the classically-described Delphi method” (Humphrey-Murto, Varpio,
Gonsalves, & Wood, 2017: 15), which is an intriguing parallel to correct police and legal
procedure in which witnesses would not be allowed to interact. Nominal groups share several
features of focus and Delphi groups, but a nominal group “is a structured face-to-face
interaction usually involving 5-12 participants (Humphrey-Murto et al., 2017: 15).
4. Surveys. Using categorical, ordinal and/or ranked questions, surveys are a common
source of explanatory evidence in work-based research (e.g. Lester & Costley, 2010; Swail &
Kampits, 2004) because they yield inferentially analysable quantitative data said to represent
larger general and working populations (Nardi, 2018). Work-based researchers use surveys
when they wish to obtain or develop an understanding of the lived experiences of other people
and the meaning they make of those experiences, typically as part of a larger programme of
investigating organisations, workplaces, social phenomena, practice domains, and work more
generally. Surveys can also explain relationships between people, and can examine how we
know, learn, educate, and develop as human beings, but important questions associated with
the relationship between probability and non-probability samples and between response rates
to representativeness of populations using survey techniques have also been discussed
(Cornesse & Bosnjak, 2018). In an embedded, mixed methods study of workplace health, safety
and wellness for example, a work-based researcher in Professional Studies included a leader’s
360-degree survey tool, specifically a Life Styles Inventory (LSI), to collect and distinguish
responses to 240 inventory items and measure 12 thinking patterns or styles and their
effectiveness.
5. Documentation and Archives. The examination and interrogation of documents and
archives is particularly well suited to work-based research because they allow for the analysis
of content created locally or collaboratively by organisations, governments and/or people in
work environments. For a historian, archives comprise their ‘primary sources’ but in work-
based research documents and archives typically supplement other primary sources of
evidence, and may include memoranda, letters, diaries, administrative documents (such as
proposals, progress reports or policy documents), public-use files (such as census and other

95
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

statistical data made available by state or federal governments), maps and charts, in-house
commissioned survey data, formal studies or evaluations of work environments, and articles
which have appeared in industry-related or mass media. As such, diversity of data rather than
uniformity prevails in type, frequency and availability. For example, a recent Professional
Studies’ programme of research on psychological well-being, which asked: What are the
current psychological support mechanisms provided to the Australian Police Officers after an
officer-involved shooting, required a systematic analysis of internal documents associated with
so-called ‘post-incident occurrence reports’.
However, Yin (2016: 117) cautions the researcher to “be careful to ascertain the
conditions under which [a document or archive was] produced, as well as its accuracy.
Sometimes, the archival records can be highly quantitative, but numbers alone should not
automatically be considered a sign of accuracy”. Work-based research can, however, uncover
an understanding of an institution’s or government’s social or organisational life based on what
has actually occurred rather than on a set a priori assumptions about what the researcher
thinks might have occurred. While it is tempting to consider an archival source as akin to an
‘eye witness’ or for information ‘hot from the archive’ to have a distinctive authority or
immediacy, a further note of caution: archives and documents are fundamentally different
from other sources of data. The researcher will determine how many interviews and of what
type or what type of survey they will conduct; archives and documents, on the other hand,
exist in types and quantities beyond the control of the researcher, can be incomplete by
accident or deliberate destruction, and can be discontinuous or continuous. For example, a
researcher wishing to use records to understand the longer history of Indigenous interactions
with police in Australia would find the records have been lost (Richards, 2008).
6. Direct Observations and Participant Observations. Wildemuth (2009a, 2009b) has
described the nature and relationship of direct and participant observations. In case study
research, as in work-based research, Yin (2016: 121) explains that because research “takes
place in the real-world setting of the case, you are creating an opportunity for direct
observation. Assuming that the phenomena of interest have not been purely historical, some
relevant social or environmental conditions will be available for observation. Such observations
serve as yet another source [of evidence, and] can range from formal to casual data collection
activities” based on a line-of-inquiry and research protocol.
Yin (2016: 122) goes on to point out that “observational evidence is often useful in
providing additional information about the topic being studied…observations about the group
in action can yield invaluable data to complement interviews with individual group members
[or a consensus group]…observations can add new dimensions for understanding the actual
uses of a new technology or of a new curriculum and any problems encountered”. Such was
the case for a recent Professional Studies’ project which used direct observation to assess the
time taken by the Australian police officers to access data via a new mobile intelligence
dissemination product. Participant observations go further by allowing the researcher to
participate in phenomena as a staff member or key decision maker in an organisational setting
not merely being a passive observer of them. However, as noted in Table 2, this source of
evidence as with all others is not without limitations.
7. Physical and Cultural Artefacts. Perhaps used more extensively in police investigations
and forensic anthropology than in work-based research, physical and cultural artefacts can be a
valuable source of evidence. Also called ‘real evidence’ or ‘material evidence’, an artefact in a
work-based context can include a “technological device, a tool or instrument, a work of art, or
some other physical evidence. Such artefacts may be collected or observed…” (Yin, 2016: 125)
and can also be accidentally discovered. Yin (2016: 125) goes on to note that while artefacts

96
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

may have less “potential relevance” in some cases, “when relevant, the artifacts can be an
important component in the overall…study”. Such is the case in a current Professional Studies’
project on the development of a new Operational Skills and Tactics (OST) facility for which a
postgraduate student is required to visit Australian and international police and military
training centres to gather data on construction techniques and operational designs.
The methodological features of each source of evidence are presented in Table 1. These
include the type of data yielded by the source (i.e., primary or secondary data), the research
method type, whether the source can be tested for reliability and validity in the case of
quantitative data or assessed for dependability and trustworthiness in the case of qualitative
data and thus whether generalisations may be drawn from the data, and the types of analysis
generally associated with each source of evidence.
As shown by Fergusson, Shallies and Meier (2019), work-based research may embrace
either quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches, and typically views phenomena
through a Pragmatist or Constructivist lens. Thus, each source of evidence yields either primary
data (i.e., data collected by the researcher from first-hand sources, such as an interview) or
secondary data (i.e., data collected previously by someone else, such as data located in
government policy documents), the researcher applies a research method which is either
qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods, which yields data which are either
reliable/dependable or valid/trustworthy to be analysed using a variety of different analytical
techniques.
Take the case of data from a semi-structured interview. Data result from a direct line-of-
inquiry with a primary source, are either gathered via a qualitative or mixed methods research
approach, are dependable, trustworthy, are, to use Yin’s (2016: 37-38) phraseology, analytically
generalisable but not statistically generalisable, and can be analysed using a variety of
techniques, including thematic, saliency and basic content analysis. In contrast, data derived
from a physical artefact might result from an indirect line-of-inquiry with a secondary source,
may be gathered via a quantitative approach, may be reliable and valid depending on the
characteristics of the artefact, and may be analysed using direct observation, forensic analysis
and/or logical reasoning.
Qualitative and some mixed methods work-based researchers do not use instruments
with established reliability and validity metrics. However, like their quantitative cousins, they
too must show how their findings are credible and confirmable, and where applicable
transferrable and generalisable. Like reliability in quantitative research methods, in Table 1
‘dependability’ means the stability of data over time and over conditions, and the extent to
which qualitative or mixed methods research can be repeated by others resulting in findings
that are consistent (Golafshani, 2003). In naturalistic settings, work-based researchers
recognise that reality is socially constructed and constantly changing, and that dependability of
method originates from reliably capturing the changing conditions of the work settings; these
can occur through a variety of means but include stepwise replication and inquiry audit.
Table 1: Sources of evidence and their methodological features.

97
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Source of Type of Type of Reliability Validity Type of

Evidence Data Method Analysis

1. Creative, Primary Qualitative; Dependable Trustworthy; Thematic; salilency;

Unstructured, mixed analytically basic content;
and Semi- methods generalisable, interpretive content;
Structured but not qualitative content;
Interviews statistically discourse; dimensional,
generalisable situational; categorical;
or contextualising
2. Structured Primary Qualitative; Reliable; Valid; Statistical analyses,
Interviews quantitative; dependable trustworthy; including descriptive
mixed analytically and and inferential;
methods statistically thematic; salilency;
generalisable basic content;
interpretive content;
qualitative content;
discourse; dimensional,
situational; categorical;
or contextualising
3. Consensus Primary Qualitative; Dependable Trustworthy; Thematic; salilency;
Group Methods mixed analytically basic content;
methods generalisable, interpretive content;
but not qualitative content;
statistically discourse; dimensional,
generalisable situational; categorical;
or contextualising
4. Surveys Primary Quantitative; Reliable Valid; Statistical analyses,
mixed analytically and including descriptive
methods statistically and inferential
generalisable
5. Secondary Qualitative; Dependable Trustworthy; Thematic; salilency;
Documentation mixed analytically basic content;
and Archives methods generalisable, interpretive content;
but not qualitative content;
statistically discourse; dimensional,
generalisable; situational; categorical;
continous or or contextualising
non-continous;
partial or
complete
6. Direct Primary Qualitative; Dependable Trustworthy; Thematic; salilency;
Observations mixed analytically discourse; dimensional,
and Participant methods generalisable, situational; categorical;
Observations but not or contextualising
statistically
generalisable
7. Physical and Primary or Quantitative; Reliable or Valid; Direct observation;
Cultural Secondary qualitative; dependable trustworthy, forensic analysis; logical
Artefacts mixed analytically reasoning
methods generalisable
but not
statistically
generalisable
Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of sources of evidence in work-based research.

98
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Source of Evidence Advantages Disadvantages

1. Creative, § Can uncover and probe key evidence, § Bias can occur due to poorly articulated
Unstructured, and despite lack of questions or clear line- questions and underdeveloped mental
Semi-Structured of-inquiry framework
Interviews § Can provide insight into, and § Inaccuracies in evidence can occur due to
explanations of, a phenomenon, as response bias of interviewees
well as the personal opinions of § Inaccuracies in evidence can occur due to
participants poor recall of interviewees
§ Non-threatening technique § Interviewees may say what the
§ Creative interviews can involve interviewer wants to hear, resulting in
observations and explorations of misleading conclusions about evidence
verbal and non-verbal dimensions and § In creative and unstructured interviews,
their intersection(s) it is the interviewee who decides where
§ Unstructured interviews are flexible the interview will lead, and hence a
because questions can be adapted and limited ability for the researcher to
changed according to answers develop a line-of-inquiry
received § Lack of reliability due to unstructured
§ Semi-structured interviews can focus nature of some interview techniques
directly on research topic and § Easy to mislead interviewer with false or
moderately strong lines-of-inquiry concocted evidence
§ Can explain ‘why’ and ‘how’ as well as § Responses are difficult to test for
‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ reliability
§ Creative and unstructured interviews § Interviewers often lack the skills needed
are exploratory in nature; semi- to conduct creative and unstructured
structured interviews can be both interviews, including the ability to
exploratory and confirmatory establish rapport and knowing when to
probe
2. Structured § Can focus directly on research topic § Blindspots can miss key evidence
Interviews and line-of-inquiry because of predetermined mental
§ Can provide explanations for evidence framework and/or line-of-inquiry
§ Can examine a strong line-of-inquiry § Responses may not reflect the general
§ Can generally explain ‘what’, ‘where’, population or working population
‘when’ and ‘who’ rather than ‘why’ or § Lack of generalisability if participants are
‘how’ incorrectly selected or too few in number
§ Assure anonymity § Responses limited to numeric findings
§ Easy to replicate and lack detail due to closed-endedness
§ Responses can be tested for reliability of questions
and validity § Lack flexibility, and new, unscripted or
§ Relatively quick to carry out off-the-cuff questions or lines-of-inquiry
§ Confirmatory in nature cannot be asked, and a strict interview
schedule must be followed
3. Consensus Group § Evidence can represent the opinion of § Bias due to poorly articulated questions
Methods a group of individuals who have had a § Response bias due to peer pressure
common experience or hold a § Inaccuracies due to poor recall of group
common view participants
§ Gains in efficiency when ‘interviewing’ § Group members say what interviewer
a group rather than multiple wants to hear or what s/he thinks the
individuals group wants to hear resulting in faulty
§ Moderately strong lines-of-inquiry can evidence
be pursued § Group think
§ Individuals may express themselves § Evidence can be tainted if interviewer/
more freely and accurately when moderator is not experienced in working
speaking within a group with groups
§ Can explain ‘why’ and ‘how’ as well as § Superficial evidence; loss of deep
‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ evidence
§ Exporatory and confirmatory in nature § Difficult to maintain anonymity in a
99
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

group
§ Groups can be dominated by one or two
strong personalities, thereby tainting the
group’s evidence
4. Surveys § Evidence reflects the attitudes, § Responses may not reflect the general
preferences, and opinions of a large population or the working population
number of participants § Lack of generalisability if sample
§ Rigorous technique with systematic incorrectly selected or too few in number
design, implementation, and analytical § Participants in work-based environments
properties may be suffering ‘survey fatigue’ and
§ Generalisable to both the working thus not take the questionnaire seriously
population and the general population § Closed questions and limitations placed
(i.e., high external validity) on answers may bias responses
§ Can yield descriptive, behavioural, § Allow only for limited or narrow lines-of
and/or preferential information inquiry
§ Generally explain ‘what’, ‘where’, § Responses limited to numeric findings
‘when’ and ‘who’ rather than ‘why’ or
‘how’
§ Confirmatory in nature
5. Documentation § Evidence can be reviewed repeatedly § Can be difficult to find and retrieve
and Archives § Evidence can contain the exact names, evidence
references, and details of a person, § Biased selectivity of evidence if the
phenomenon or event collection of documents is incomplete,
§ Can broadly cover a long period of which is highly possible
time, many events, and many settings § Potential unknown or unrecognised
§ Precise evidence (and in the case of reporting bias due to evidence having
archives, may usually be quantitative) been tainted by undeclared bias of
§ Can explain ‘why’ and ‘how’ as well as original document author
‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ § Access may be deliberately withheld for
§ Confirmatory in nature privacy, confidentiality, or other reasons
§ Access may be technically difficult in
some circumstances
6. Direct § Can cover actions and phenomena in § Time-consuming
Observations and real time and in real-world settings § Broad evidentiary coverage is difficult
Participant § Can cover the context of a research without a team of observers
Observations topic and its participants § Actions and events may proceed
§ Insightful into interpersonal behaviour differently to normal because
and motives participants know they are being
§ Can locate researcher at the heart of observed
an event or phenomenon § A significant number of hours are
§ Unobtrusive measures required by human observers to gather
§ Can explain ‘why’ and ‘how’ as well as meaningful evidence
‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ § Potential bias due to participant-
§ Exploratory in nature observer’s manipulation of events or
evidence
7. Physical and § Evidence can be reviewed repeatedly § Limited selection options when choosing
Cultural Artefacts § Evidence can contain the exact names artefacts
and details of a past person, § Physical artefacts may be unavailable to
phenomenon or event the investigator
§ Provide insight into cultural and § Interpretation of relevance or meaning
anthropological features of people, a of physical artefacts can be difficult and
place or phenomenon time-consuming
§ Provide insight into technical § May require technical or interpretive
operations and applications expertise beyond the generalist
§ Provide a variety of stakeholders with researcher
the opportunity to compare and § May be tampered with, concealed, or
debate the meaning and nature of destroyed (knowing that it may be
evidence wanted for research or a judicial
100
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

§ Allow direct measurement, counting proceeding, or is being sought by law

and/or testing enforcement officers)
§ Provide ‘hard’ evidence, which tells its § Access may be deliberately withheld for
own story privacy, confidentiality, or other reasons
§ Generally explain ‘what’, ‘where’, § Access may be technically difficult in
‘when’, and ‘who’ rather than ‘why’ or some circumstances
‘how’
§ Confirmatory in nature

Similarly, ‘trustworthiness’ is associated with validity in quantitative research (Pitney, 2004),

and includes consideration of credibility (levels of confidence in the ‘truth’ and accuracy of
findings), confirmability (degrees of neutrality in the findings, and how the researcher
controlled for bias and personal motivations), and transferability (how the work-based
researcher demonstrates findings are applicable to other work-based contexts). Nevertheless,
each of the seven sources of evidence have advantages and disadvantages, and these have
been detailed in Table 2, which has been expanded from Yin (2016: 114).

Conclusion

Sherlock Holmes’ cry of ‘Data! Data! Data!’ continues to echo through social science research
and detective work. It may even be amplified, and analogies broadened. The case a lawyer
presents in an adversarial trial intended to convince beyond a reasonable doubt relies on
corroboration, cross-matching and checking evidence, and the mental construction of a bigger
picture (Sagor, 2010: 109). The nurse, the medical doctor, and the historian are among those
who systemically ask questions and use lines-of-inquiry and multiple sources of evidence in
order to understand people, trends and phenomena. Similarly, Zinnes (1980: 339), who
identified parallels between detective police investigations and research 40 years ago, stated
“the difference between great detectives and poor ones lies ultimately in the ability to make
the creative leap from the evidence to the full picture. But surely, assembling as many clues as
possible in as coherent a way as possible provides the best possible base from which to make
such leaps”.
The fields that a detective may work across, from the instinctive to the systematic, draw
upon the many different types of evidence discussed in this paper. Lines-of-inquiry and
evidence gathering have been explored using USQ’s Professional Studies HDR programme as
the site of an intersection between policing and the scholarly academy. The increasing number
of senior police officers enrolling in this programme have made it a timely necessity to give
sustained consideration to where and how lines-of-inquiry and sources of evidence, notably
the main sources of primary and secondary evidence used in work-based research, interact. In
discussing the possible sources of evidence in work-based research examples have been
provided from current professional development-based research projects undertaken by
senior police officers which rely upon the systematic use of these sources, although these
reflections are salient beyond one university programme.
In the context of policing, it can be concluded that “describing detective work as a
science is seen as increasingly relevant with the growing influence of forensic science and
investigative psychology (e.g., interviewing and criminal profiling). This approach removes the
mystery around detective work and offers an opportunity to take on a more evidence-based
approach, grounded in science, to the development of detectives” (Westera, Kebbell, Milne, &
Green, 2016: 2). This observation however may also run in the opposite direction: social
science researchers may also benefit from an association with and invocation of the evidential

101
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

rigour of detection, where the data elicited must withstand rigorous scrutiny and testing.
The data presented by this paper represents one example of how practitioners bring
knowledge, skills and expertise to the sphere of WBL and research in a higher education
context. However, what we have attempted to show in the example of police detectives, there
is not only an advantage to the in-depth knowledge, skills and expertise insiders bring to
higher education, but a valuable additional synergy facilitated through this approach to
learning. For work-based learners in a variety of fields this paper thus represents a working
example of how synergy can be created in WBL and within a specific profession, but also
points to relevance for a wider range of researchers in other fields of investigation.

References

Allan, D. (2015). Conceptualising work learning: Exploring the educational discourse on work-
based, work-related, and workplace learning. Work Based Learning e-Journal
International, 5(1), 1-20.
Berg, B. L. (1999). Policing in modern society. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Cacciattolo, K. (2015). Defining workplace learning. European Scientific Journal, 1, 243-250.
Canter, D., & Alison, L. J. (2003). Converting evidence into data: The use of law enforcement
archives as unobtrusive measurement. The Qualitative Report, 8(2), 151-176.
Chinowsky, P. (2011). Engineering project organization: Defining a line of inquiry and a path
forward. The Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 3-10. doi:
10.1080/21573727.2010.549611
Cornesse, C., & Bosnjak, M. (2018). Is there an association between survey characteristics and
representativeness? A meta-analysis. Survey Research Methods, 12(1), 1-13.
Costley, C., & Abukari, A. (2015). The impact of work-based research projects at postgraduate
level. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-006
Costley, C., & Lester, S. (2012) Work-based doctorates: Professional extension at the highest
levels. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 257-269, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.503344
Craig, R. J. (2008). The clinical process of interviewing. In R. J. Craig (Ed.), Clinical and diagnostic
interviewing (pp. 21-41). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2009). Situational and patterned behavior description interviews: A
comparison of their validity, correlates, and perceived fairness. Human Performance, 16(1),
25-47 doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_2
Dempsey, J., & Frost, L. (2007). An introduction to policing. Boston, MA: Cengage.
Dostal, E., Cloete, A., & Járos, G. (2005). Biomatrix: A systems approach to organisational and
societal change (3rd ed.). No location: BiomatrixWeb.
Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in ‘blind’ justice: Expert perception, judgment, and
visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161-
167.
Fahsing, I., & Ask, K. (2016). The making of an expert detective: The role of experience in
English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 22(3), 203-223. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1077249
Fergusson, L. (2019). The nature of work-related problems: Messy, co-produced and wicked.
Journal of Work-Applied Learning, doi: 10.1108/JWAM-08-2019-0024.
Fergusson, L., Allred, T., & Dux, T. (2018). Work-based learning and research for mid-career
professionals: Professional studies in Australia. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and
Lifelong Learning, 14, 1-17. doi: 10.28945/3930

102
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Fergusson, L., Allred, T., Dux, T., & Muianga, H. (2018). Work-based learning and research for
mid-career professionals: Two project examples from Australia. Interdisciplinary Journal of
e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 14, 19-40. doi: 10.28945/3959
Fergusson, L., Shallies, B., & Meier, G. (2019). The scientific nature of work-based learning and
research: An introduction to first principles. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based
Learning, doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-05-2019-0060.
Fergusson, L., van der Laan, L., & Baker, S. (2019). Reflective practice and work-based research:
A description of micro- and macro-reflective cycles. Reflective Practice, 20(2), 289-303. doi:
10.1080/14623943.2019.1591945
Fergusson, L., van der Laan, L., White, C., & Balfour, J. (2019). The ethos and transformational
nature of professional studies: A study of student experience in Australia. Higher Education,
Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(4), 695-711. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-01-2019-0006
Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 20, 16. doi: 10.1177/0963721410396826
Fulton, J., & Hayes, C. (2017). Evaluating retrospective experiential learning as process in
scholarship on a work based professional doctorate. Journal of Learning Development in
Higher Education, 11, 1-24.
Fulton, J., Kuit, J., Sanders, G., & Smith, P. (2012). The role of the professional doctorate in
developing professional practice. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 130-139.
George Mason School of Law. (2007). Rational hunches and policing. Washington, DC: Author.
Gherardi, S. (2009). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.
Guberek, T., & Hedstrom, M. (2017. On or off the record? Detecting patterns of silence about
death in Guatemala’s National Police Archive. Archival Science, 17(1), 27-54.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and
management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Helyer, R. (2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based
learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15-27.
Humphrey-Murto, S., Varpio, L., Gonsalves, C., & Wood, T. J. (2017). Using consensus group
methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Medical
Teacher, 39(1), 14-19.
Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and
best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350-367.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological
review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Kalyal, H. (2019): “Well, there’s a more scientific way to do it!”: Factors influencing receptivity
to evidence-based practices in police organizations. Police Practice and Research, 3(1), 1-
15. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2019.1608548
Kaminsky, E., Rosenqvist, U., & Holmstro, I. (2009). Telenurses’ understanding of work:
Detective or educator? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 382-390. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2008.04877.x
Konnikova, M. (2011). Lessons from Sherlock Holmes: Don’t try to make bricks without clay.
Scientific American. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-dont-try-to-make-bricks-without-clay/
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS: Political

103
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Science & Politics, 35(4), 665-668.

Lester, S., & Costley, C. (2010). Work-based learning at higher education level: Value, practice
and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561-575. doi:
10.1080/03075070903216635
List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between
actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20(3), 241-
254.
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key Methods in
Geography, 3, 143-156.
Mason, J. (2010). What is creative interviewing? Manchester, UK: ESRC Centre of Research
Methods, University of Manchester.
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Mixed methods and wicked problems. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 9(1), 3-6.
Nardi, P. M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Nordness, P. D., Swain, K. D., & Haverkost, A. (2012). A screening matrix for an initial line of
inquiry. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(4), 245-251.
Perkins, R.M. (1949). Elements of police science. Sunderland, UK: Foundation Press.
Pitney, W. A. (2004). Strategies for establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research. Athletic
Therapy Today, 9(1), 26-28.
Richards, J. (2008). The secret war: A true history of Queensland’s native police. St Lucia,
Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3/4),
260-271.
Sagor, R. (2010). The action research guidebook: A four-stage process for educators and school
teams. Melbourne, Victoria: Corwin Books.
Smith, J. A., Braunack-Mayer, A., Wittert, G., & Warin, M. (2008). ‘It’s sort of like being a
detective’: Understanding how Australian men self-monitor their health prior to seeking
help. BMC Health Medical Research, 8(56), 1-10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-56
Snook, B., Brooks, D., & Bull, R. (2015). A lesson on interrogations from detainees predicting
self-reported confessions and cooperation. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 20(10), 1-18.
doi: 10.1177/0093854815604179
Strathern, M. (2014). Epilogue: Expectations, auto-narrative, and beyond. In J. Skinner (Ed.),
The interview: An ethnographic approach (pp. 261-266). London, UK: A&C Black.
Swail, W. S., & Kampits, E. (2004). Work-based learning and higher education: A research
perspective. Washington, DC: Educational Policy Institute, Inc.
Telep, C. W., & Somers, L. J. (2019). Examining police officer definitions of evidence-based
policing: Are we speaking the same language? Policing and Society: A Journal of Policy and
Practice, 29(2), 171-187. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2017.1373775
Tey, J. (1951). The daughter of time. London, UK: Peter Davies.
Wall, T. (2017). Exploring the impact of reflective and work applied approaches. Journal of
Work-Applied Management, 9(2), 90-94. doi: 10.1108/JWAM-10-2017-0028
Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., Milne, B., & Green, T. (2016). Towards a more effective
detective. Policing and Society, 26(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2014.912647
Wildemuth, B. M. (2009a). Direct observation. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social
research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 209-218). Santa
Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

104
Work Based Learning e-Journal, Vol. 8, No.2, (2019)

Wildemuth, B. M. (2009b). Participant observation. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of

social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 219-227). Santa
Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Winks, R. W. (Ed.) (1969). The historian as detective: Essays on evidence. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Winks, R. W. (Ed.) (2013). The detective as historian: History and art in historical crime fiction.
Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd edition). New York, NY: The
Guildford Press.
Zanibbi, M., Munby, H., Hutchinson, N. L., Versnel, J., & Chin, P. (2006). Exemplary practice in
work-based education: A validation study. Journal of Vocational Education and
Training, 58(1), 65-81.
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Unstructured interviews. In B. M. Wildemuth
(Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science
(pp. 222-231). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Zinnes, D. A. (1980). Three puzzles in search of a researcher: Presidential address. International
Studies Quarterly, 24(3), 315-342.

105