INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

As demonstrated by the barrage of television shows and other media, forensic science has never been more popular. The field has not seen such an interest in forensics since the 1970s when television shows such as Quincy, MD thrust forensics into the spotlight. In the 1980s interest in forensics seemed to dwindle. However, in the 1990s with the breakthrough of DNA analysis, forensic science once again became one of the most popular fields of study and work. Today forensic shows such as the CSI and Law & Order franchises have sensationalized forensic science and one of its key players, forensic scientists. These shows often depict forensic scientists as laid back, well dressed, stress free super crime fighters who experience enormous job satisfaction (Bassett, 2006; Kruse, 2010; Ramsland, 2009). This glamorization of the forensic scientist has become such a phenomenon that it has begun to impact university curriculums (National Institute of Justice, 2007; Stankiewicz, 2007).

Forensic science curriculums are rapidly being added to university academic agendas across the country as well as abroad. However, a vast majority of these programs lack standardized academic curriculums and are producing graduates who are improperly trained (Desio, Gaensslen & Lee, 1985; National Institute of Justice, 2007; Sykes, Holland, & Shaler; 2006). According to the Council on Forensic Science Education, a great number of students are completing these substandard programs and finding that when they seek employment at crime labs and other law enforcement agencies the agencies are not impressed by the curriculum completed (Council on Forensic Science Education, n.d.; National Institute of Justice, 2007). Recognizing that there is a shortfall in forensic education, forensic science organizations such as the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) have been expeditiously assisting universities with their curriculums to ensure quality forensic education is being provided (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2007; Jones, 2009).

American Academy of Forensic Sciences and other reputable forensic science organizations employ committees that use evaluation and accrediting processes to improve university curriculums (Jones, 2009; National Institute of Justice, 2007). With the help of such consortiums, universities have improved their curriculums and are providing accredited forensic science education programs that will meet the needs of potential students. These improved forensics curriculums will also meet the demand of a workforce seeking qualified individuals who are educationally and not television trained in forensics (National Institute of Justice, 2007; Stankiewicz, 2007). Additionally, strengthening and continuing to add forensic education to the academic curriculum will also minimize the valuable time and expense it costs forensic agencies to train new hires (National Institute of Justice, 2007; National Research Council, 2009). It can often take up to two years of training an individual before a single case can be assigned. If an individual receives a forensic education from an accredited forensic science program then an employer, crime laboratory director, or other hiring body can be more assured that a potential applicant meets the job qualifications (Almirall & Furton, 2003; National Institute of Justice, 2007).

Having university accredited forensic science education programs is a great leap in the quest for quality forensic science education. However, what is immediately needed is the institution of professional forensic training centers as well as advanced educational programs in forensic science ("Science in Court", 2010). Just as bachelors and masters level forensic education programs are becoming commonplace in university curriculums, it is with great hope doctoral forensic science programs will have similar results.

With all the media attention given to forensic science due to television shows such as CSI, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, and Court TV, the public has developed a fascination with forensic science (Dowler, Fleming & Muzzati, 2006; Mann, 2006; Mopas, 2007). The fascination is so great that the shows' creators are having a hard time trying to keep up with demand (Stankiewicz, 2007). These shows commonly depict forensic science, forensic scientists, and the evidence recovered as flawless. These shows also conclude every week with the forensic team always "catching the bad guy". These depictions are somewhat misleading because it gives the nonprofessional the impression that forensic science is infallible and that forensic scientists are glamorous, stress-free, super crime fighters (Bassett, 2006; Minn, 2009; Ramsland, 2009). Often, as with media portrayals, these views are unrealistic when it comes to how crime and the justice system interact (Bassett, 2006; Dowler, Fleming & Muzzati, 2006; Ramsland, 2009; Toobin, 2007). Real issues, such as the potential stress and poor job satisfaction the forensic scientist may experience in their day-to-day quest to solve crime, often do not find their way into the storyline. One reason may be that such things may not capture and retain the attention of the viewers. What many entering the field quickly discover is that forensic science and forensic scientists are not "as seen on TV."

The primary duty of the forensic scientist in a crime laboratory is to conduct day-to-day analysis of evidence while adhering to very stringent laboratory, bureau, nationally or internationally accreditation guidelines as well as various other organizational requirements. To add even more pressure, the forensic scientist must complete such day-to-day evidence analysis in a timely and accurate manner, ensure chain of custody, maintain strict quality control and data management, write the completed report, and testify in court to the completed analysis just to name a few of many miscellaneous duties (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2008; Barbara, 2008). Additional demands forensic scientists often experience with each case include last minute requests for evidence processing, competency and proficiency testing, case backlogs, dealing with investigators or prosecutors, and dealing with many other organizational requirements (California Crime Laboratory Review Task Force, 2009; Houck, 2006; McDonald, 2008; U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). A rigorous load such as this makes working within a crime laboratory anything but glamorous. All of these factors as well as other factors necessary to complete analysis of a case could make for a potentially stressful work environment, which may yield job dissatisfaction.

Background of the Study

The area of police and law enforcement stress and job satisfaction has been the subject of continual research and discussions (Brough & Frame, 2004; Manzoni & Eisner, 2006; Mire, 2005; Sewell,...