The coupling of improv theater and scientific reporting may not seem an obvious choice at first glance, but Forensic Science can learn a lot.

Alan Alda (best known for television show M*A*S*H* ) hosted a PBS show for many years, "Scientific American Frontiers," that highlighted groundbreaking scientific research. As host, Alda traveled to the labs and research sites of scores of scientists to talk to them about their work and its significance - to them and the world. Throughout the show, Alda found that some scientists had a hard time breaking out of "lecture mode" and into an authentic conversation in front of the camera. He found himself relying on his improvisational theater training - a method that focuses on deep listening and building interpersonal connections - to help them share their work in conversational ways that non-scientists could understand. That experience got Alda thinking,

“I really wanted to understand this [research] myself. And that forced them to drop the lecture and really concentrate on me…Why can’t we train scientists to have that relationship with the people they’re communicating with?...Why can’t we train scientists, while we are training them to be scientists, train them to be good communicators?”

In 2009 he helped to found the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, whose mission is to use the fundamental tenets of improvisational theater, coupled with the practices of good communication theory based on social science research, to develop a new type of communication training. Subsequently, this unique blend became known as The Alda Methodⓒ.

When the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Dundee in Scotland recognized “Communication” as one of the central research areas in Forensic Science in need of “positive disruption,” a potential partnership was born. They too were asking how we can train forensic scientists as communicators, and how to use best practice to do so. Bringing science communication research to forensics was the natural next step.

Forensic science exists to be communicated. We are all taught at some point early in our training that the word “forensic” comes from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “in the public, or open court.” The results must be shared openly with the public or the court; the reason forensic science exists is to serve a legal function. More than many scientific disciplines, forensics has a mandate to be translated for people who are not necessarily scientific experts.

In addition, the structure of the adversarial legal system can make the presentation of scientific evidence more like putting on a show than we, as scientists, like to admit, even to ourselves. Although few criminal cases proceed to trial and even fewer use forensic expert testimony, the process of testifying can bear an uncomfortable resemblance to performing and has certainly been known to induce something akin to stage fright.

Enter, improv theater.

The Alda Methodⓒ is not used to turn scientists into actors or stand-up comedians. The forensic science communication training is not about developing a script or teaching you to tell jokes or play a character. Instead, the method guides you to isolate and practice specific skills that research indicates make people more comfortable with and successful at communicating science. The principles of improv readily map onto those of effective science communication.

For example, a core principle of improv, called "Yes, And ..." stipulates that partners must accept each other's reality and build off it to move forward together. You need to understand where the other person is coming from and accept it, even if you do not agree with it. From there, you can find ways to build connections, trust, and start a real conversation.

A good science communication conversation works the same way. As we practice in this communication training, this does not mean agreeing with factual inaccuracies. Instead, the forensic science curriculum aims to help recreate an experience like a cross-examination as a joint conversational build. Instead of an interrogatory gauntlet to survive, the questions are framed as an opportunity to practice meeting your conversational partner where they are, genuinely connecting with them, and contributing to the greater goal of creating something for the audience (e.g. the jury).

Most forensic scientists do not receive extensive communication training. Typically, we may have a moot court exercise at the end of an undergrad or master’s course and then again during our initial on-the-job training. These are usually practice testimony and we get feedback from more senior scientists or attorneys. These can be highly valuable, but are usually infrequent. They rarely include research into how people understand and process novel scientific information, what juries understand, or which models of communication demonstrably make for a successful scientific exchange.

This workshop curriculum on Courtroom Communication for forensic scientists was developed by a team combining our respective experience in forensic science and the Alda Methodⓒ science communication training. Dr. Julie Burrill has a background in forensic DNA and criminal trial consulting, while partner Josh Rice has years of experience in theater, improv, Alda Methodⓒ facilitation and curriculum design. We have deliberately incorporated a moot court exercise familiar to forensic scientists, as well as broken down forensic science communication into basic skills to practice. The program uses exercises for forensic scientists to learn to be adaptable, empathic communicators who share their evidence with the jury using a cognitive framework and vocabulary that will resonate.

The Courtroom Communication program reframes the act of testifying as an opportunity for conversation that will help the jury understand the evidence. To do this, forensic scientists engage with social science research about why and how communication works, develop strategies that will help achieve specific goals, and practice different tactics with peers. We focus on what active listening really looks like, how to build analogies for complex or quantitative concepts, and ways to create connections with the jury. We train forensic scientists to center the experience of the jury and thus reorient their testimony through the lens of “what the jury needs to hear” rather than “what the expert wants to say.”

There are a lot of challenges to good communication baked into the formalized, interrogatory structure of courtroom testimony, but these can be mitigated with the exercise of good science communication practice.

The Alda Center has a history of helping scientists in a huge range of disciplines to reframe their scientific stories, consider their audience, and become more effective communicators. While scientists in all areas should have the opportunity to improve their communication skills, it is critical in forensic science. The data, their interpretation and the contextual meaning must all be communicated throughout the investigative and judicial process - to other scientists, to law enforcement, to social workers, to attorneys, to judges and finally to juries. Decisions that deeply impact peoples’ lives are made at each of these steps. It is incumbent upon the forensic scientists to provide a thorough, accurate, and comprehensible interpretation of scientific data at various stages of the process.

As forensic scientists, we like to consider ourselves neutral in the judicial process. Regardless of who presents our testimony, we are not advocating for either prosecution or defense, but for the science. This training gives scientists the tools to do that more successfully. We are looking forward to sharing this workshop with you at the upcoming ISHI in September 2023.