ABSTRACT
To date, there has been little systematic research of investigative analytic reports, and precious few suggestions as to how such advice might be deconstructed and evaluated. Neither the British Psychological Society nor the American Psychological Society has focused specifically on the way in which such reports should be provided. Neither organization has devoted special attention to the ethical, legal or professional issues that such involvement from psychologists has to criminal investigations. Although efforts have been made recently in the UK (Rainbow, NCOF, personal communication) and in Germany (Bundeskriminalamt, 2004) to regulate and quality assure profiling, many organizations’ regulations are in their infancy. A central concern in the provision of such advice involves the extent to which claims are made without adequate scientific support. Indeed, a major criticism of profiling has been the accusation that such advice is often little more than speculation and intuition (Alison and Canter, 1999). While the worst excesses of profiling are unlikely to reemerge in the UK because of more stringent quality-assurance processes, there remains no agreed systematic process for training individuals in constructing, utilizing and evaluating profiling. Moreover, there is little in the way of research into the quality of such reports or the extent to which they rely on supporting evidence.
