The Investigator’s Purpose is to Get “the Truth”

​

In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, investigate means “to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry.” Practically speaking, investigators make a systematic examination to seek out facts and evidence that help tell a story to get to the truth of a matter.

​

Truth is defined as “the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality.” Whereas, fact is defined as “something that has actual existence”…“an actual occurrence”…“a piece of information presented as having objective reality,” and evidence means “something that furnishes proof.”

​

Therefore, investigate means to determine the reality of a situation through the observance and systematic examination of actual occurrences and objectively verifiable information that supports or proves this reality.

​

But this is just semantical wordplay. The investigator is still no closer to understanding “the reality of a situation” now than they were before this fancy recombination of related words and meanings. Thus, the investigator is left asking the question of the ages: What is [the] truth?

​

What is “the Truth?”

​

Definitionally, truth infers something that is in accord with facts or reality. And facts infer something that actually exists. Thus, to determine whether something accords with reality, we must first confirm that something actually exists. This is where things get cloudy.

​

Friedrich Nietzsche said: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This bold assertion may seem counter-intuitive for some people, but in reality, it’s actually supported by evidence.

​

Take, for example, data. To the lay person, data appears on its face to be precise, clear, and objectively certain (which helps explain why so many people perceive data per se to be true—an absurd assumption that reflects limited understanding of data). However, this appearance is merely an illusion.  

​

Data itself is fundamentally abstruse. It is meaningless without the construction, formulation, and interpretation of it by people who collect it, and people are fundamentally subjective and imperfect beings.

​

In other words, data starts out as meaningless information that only becomes meaningful upon application of meaning to it by people who process this information, and it is meaningful only to the extent and in the way that those people consider it to be meaningful.

​

Thus, in essence the truth only exists to the extent that someone considers it to exist in the manner they consider it to exist in.

​

This is particularly problematic in the field of investigations because an investigator seeks the truth. But if the truth is dependent on the investigator’s manner of processing the information they collect, and the investigator is a person who is subjective and biased, then the truth will inevitably be contaminated by the subjectivity and bias of the investigator who “discovers” it.

​

Investigators Should Question Their Investigation

​

Humans are inherently fallible. There is no such thing as absolutely objective or true when it comes to people. This is impossible because humans are subjective creatures and everything they perceive and interpret is tainted by their subjectivity.

​

Thus, it stands to reason that investigators should go into every investigation with this reality at the front of their mind to produce as accurate results as possible given these limitations.

​

Preconceived notions, cognitive biases, and numerous other subjective factors will always distort any “observance and systematic examination of actual occurrences” the investigator engages in. Consequently, investigators should ask the following questions to reduce the effect of these distorting factors on the systematic examination process.

​

Why am I collecting the information?

 

The investigator should understand what their motivations and intentions are in the information collection, examination, and interpretation process. The way they think about this process will undoubtedly affect what information they collect, what information they don’t collect, and how they examine and interpret the information they collected.

​

This means how the investigator thinks about the whole process determines what information is ultimately produced by this investigative process.   

​

This is particularly important because the information the investigator collects, examines, and interprets is the information that other people see after the fact. Any review of this information by the public, government officials, or private parties is limited to the information provided by the investigator to the reviewing party.

​

Thus, the investigator should consider how they think about the process because their thinking directly affects the accuracy, reliability, and validity of the information produced by their investigation, and this information can have serious consequences for stakeholders involved.

 

How complete is the information?

​

The completeness of information collected is somewhat of a chimera because no information collected is “complete” in the sense of being total or absolute. It’s not only impossible to collect all relevant information (due to limitations mentioned above) but it’s also unfeasible economically speaking. There is simply not enough time or resources available to collect all information involved in or related to a case of interest.

​

Nevertheless, it is possible to ensure that the information collected is as complete as feasibly possible. Again, the investigator should remember that this information will have consequences for the stakeholders involved.

​

How accurate, reliable, and valid is the information?       

​

The accuracy, reliability, and validity of the information depends on the standards, measurements, or methods used to collect it as well as the motivations, intentions, knowledge, and competency of the investigator. Thus, the investigator should ensure the collection process is adequate to ensure the information collected is adequate.

​

Not Perfect, But Better Than Not

​

Although it’s clear at this point that “the truth” is not an absolutely true object but actually a subjective interpretation by the person examining the available information, there are things that the investigator can do to ensure their information is more accurate, reliable, and valid than not.

​

The investigator should take the time and make the effort within reason and to the extent feasibly possible to do so because, that’s right, every investigation has consequences to the stakeholders involved.

​

This is especially relevant in situations where a person stands to lose life, liberty, property, or the opportunity to pursue happiness based on the results of an investigation.

​

In our time now, almost everything is being politicized and this can contaminate the integrity of an investigation. Public policy and social norms can [consciously or subconsciously] influence the motivations and intentions of an investigation and put pressure on the investigator to “discover” certain facts and come to certain conclusions. Thus, it’s critical for the investigator to remain aware not only of their own subjective biases but also of how social biases affect and influence them personally.  

​

If there is to be any “justice” or “equity” or “fairness,” and these are not merely popular bywords being tossed around to sound virtuous and elevate one’s social and moral status, any investigation must be just and equitable and fair.

​

Thus, to get as close to “the truth” as possible, an investigation must determine the reality of a situation through the observance and systematic examination of actual occurrences and objectively verifiable information that supports or proves this reality in the most accurate, reliable, and valid way possible.  

​

Anything more may be impossible but anything less would be unjust, inequitable, and unfair.