Specific Studies in the Structure of General Criminalistic Theory

Abstract

Conceptual approaches to formation and application of certain criminalistic doctrines (theories) as scientific constructions forming the basis of criminalisctic general theory structure and developing the level of theoretical and methodological basis of this science are considered. The author's opinion of Specific Criminalisctic Doctrine (Theory) concept is offered and proposals are made regarding systematization of specific criminalisctic studies, their place in the structure of the criminalistic general theory. It is proposed to allocate two blocks in the structure of the general theory: 1) criminalistic science based essentials including specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) of general scientific level about object, subject, methods, scope of research, system, nature, conceptual apparatus and criminalistic categories (Criminalistic language), its interscientific relations and place in the system of knowledge, development history and the present state; 2) criminalistic theories (doctrines) of a separate scientific level relating to research of patterns that are part of the research subject of criminalistics reveal its essence and specifics. It is emphasized that regularity nature exploring each of specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) determines the order of their ordering in the structure of general theory. Thus between subjects of general criminalistic theory and specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) there are relations of subordination of the whole and part. It is noted that modern system of specific criminalistic doctrines (theories) is dynamic and its improvement is conditioned by the needs of judicial and investigative practice, by the development of related knowledge branches, by the general theory and the most specific criminalistic doctrines, by the relation change and relationships between them. Criteria that should correspond to a specific criminalistic doctrine (theory) are defined. In particular, attention was drawn to the fact that each specific criminalistic doctrine (theory) should have object, subject and research method, reveal its content and nature of relations with other doctrines (theories), define the purpose, tasks, functions and place in criminalistic system, be formed on a certain scientific hypothesis, have necessary empirical basis, as well as the corresponding degree of consolidation determining the possibility of identifying certain regularities expanding and clarifying the subject of criminalistic science in general. Controversial issues regarding this problem are separated; optimizing scientific development ways in this field of knowledge are outlined.

Methodological Problems of the Conceptual Framework Development for Innovation Studies in Forensic Science

“…As is known, any scientific theory can be recognised as such only when not only its theoretical foundations are conceptually formed and substantiated, but also its framework of concepts and categories is developed [9]. Therefore, to develop innovation studies in forensic science into a separate forensic theory, it is important to develop concepts and categories of this theory, in particular, such as forensic innovation, innovative forensic product, their functions, classification, stages of innovation process, factors determining the development and use of such innovations and innovative products, etc.…”