Part 2 - Formal Vs Informal Communication and Confusing Language
| Site: | OpenLearn Create |
| Course: | Digital Detectives: Understanding Communication in Digital Forensic Evidence |
| Book: | Part 2 - Formal Vs Informal Communication and Confusing Language |
| Printed by: | Guest user |
| Date: | Thursday, 10 September 2026, 9:10 PM |
1. Formal vs Informal Communication
Clarus found that communication between forensic and investigative practitioners happens through both formal and informal pathways, and that both can help and both can create risk for bias and miscommunication.
Formal communication may be standardised, traceable, and required by procedure, but that does not mean it is always perfectly clear. Information in a report or request may still be incomplete, overly broad, or shaped by assumptions. Informal communication can help people solve problems and clarify what is needed, but it can also pass on irrelevant details, personal opinions, or contextual narratives that influence interpretation without being properly recorded.
Miscommunication can occur in both formal and informal communication. Information may be misunderstood, incomplete, overly technical, ambiguous, or interpreted differently by people with different professional backgrounds. In digital forensic investigations, even small misunderstandings can affect requests, expectations, decision-making, and the interpretation of findings. Understanding where these risks arise is an important step towards improving communication across the investigation process.
2. Confusing Language and Terminology
Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.
3. Understanding System Bias
Examples of System Bias from the Research
Clarus identifies a number of structural features that can contribute to system bias. It is important to highlight that these do not guarantee unfair outcomes, but they increase vulnerability.
One example is organisational pressure. High workload, time constraints, urgent cases, and large volumes of digital data can push practitioners towards speed over reflection. Under these conditions, there is a greater risk that people focus only on what seems most immediately useful and overlook alternative lines of inquiry or the limitations of a result. Cognitive load, uncertainty, and pressure for rapid results can increase reliance on shortcuts and thereby make biased judgement more likely.
Another example is hierarchy. In strongly hierarchical environments, people lower down the structure may feel less able to challenge assumptions, question the framing of a case, or push back against expectations from senior staff. Clarus also notes that familiarity between staff from different units, legislative requirements, and workplace culture can either encourage or discourage open communication. For example, legal obligations relating to confidentiality, disclosure, data protection, or evidential procedures may shape what information can be shared, when it can be shared, and with whom. If the system makes it difficult for relevant expertise to be heard, it becomes easier for narrow interpretations to take hold.
Language is another important example. Misalignment in terminology, oversimplification of technical concepts, or overstatement of what digital evidence can show may all shape how evidence is understood. The same term can be understood differently across functions, and that simplifying evidence for non-experts can carry epistemic risks if nuance, uncertainty, or limitations disappear along the way. Tools and infrastructure also matter. Different software may present the same data differently, and weak infrastructure may shape what gets prioritised, retained, or shared, not on the basis of evidential value but because of practical constraints.
What matters here is that these are not marginal issues. They are built into the ordinary working environment. That is why Clarus treats them as systemic rather than incidental or due to mistakes of individuals.
Move to the next page by clicking the arrow on the top right to move to the next page in this section.
4. Digital Detectives
Returning to Digital Detectives
Earlier in the course, you followed the beginning of the investigation in Clarusia and saw how digital evidence moved between different people and stages of the case.
We are now going to return to the investigation. As the case develops, investigators and forensic practitioners have more information to work with, but they are also making decisions under increasing pressure.
As you read pages 16–20, pay attention to the information being shared, the assumptions being made, and the factors that might influence how different people interpret the evidence.
Keep these moments in mind as we explore bias and the different influences on judgement and decision-making throughout this module.
This is the end of Part 2. From the drop-down menu on the left of the screen, select Module C Part 3.