A Supervisory Approach to Building Ethical Digital Forensic Frameworks through Participatory Action Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm20251179Keywords:
Digital Forensics Ethics, Ethics-oriented Forensics Framework, Supervisory Framewor, Forensic IntegrityAbstract
Introduction: the integrity of digital forensic case handling plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public interest. Breaches in ethical compliance within the forensic process can undermine the credibility of investigations and erode public trust in their outcomes.
Methods: the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach. The research engaged stakeholders from both academic and professional sectors. Data collection was conducted through comprehensive literature reviews and structured stakeholder discussions to ensure the resulting framework reflects both theoretical and practical considerations.
Results: the study introduced the Supervisory Framework to Respect Ethics or we call it SUFREE, a model specifically designed to address ethical oversight in the digital forensic process, specific to conditions in Indonesia. The framework was developed through iterative consultation and validation involving relevant experts, aiming to ensure methodological robustness and applicability within the Indonesian setting.
Conclusion: the SUFREE framework offers a structured, ethics-focused supervisory model expected to enhance the quality, integrity, and professionalism of digital forensic practices in Indonesia, thereby contributing to improved public trust in forensic investigations.
References
1. Bakhtiar HS, Ilyas A, Kholiq A, Bakhtiar HS. The utilisation of scientific crime investigation methods and forensic evidence in the criminal investigation process in Indonesia. Egypt J Forensic Sci [Internet]. 2025;15(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-025-00456-y
2. Ashley DuVal. History of Forensic Psychology [Internet]. https://forensicpsych.umwblogs.org. 2014. Available from: https://forensicpsych.umwblogs.org/research/criminal-justice/fingerprint-analysis/
3. Arshad H, Jantan A Bin, Abiodun OI. Digital forensics: Review of issues in scientific validation of digital evidence. J Inf Process Syst. 2018;14(2):346–76.
4. Krivchenkov A, Misnevs B, Pavlyuk D. Intelligent methods in digital forensics: State of the art [Internet]. Vol. 68, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer International Publishing; 2019. 274–284 p. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12450-2_26
5. Farhan NM, Setiaji B. Indonesian Journal of Computer Science. Indones J Comput Sci [Internet]. 2023;12(2):284–301. Available from: http://ijcs.stmikindonesia.ac.id/ijcs/index.php/ijcs/article/view/3135
6. Setiawan E, Hartiwiningsih H. Optimizing the use of Digital Forensics and Information Technology in Proving Criminal Acts of Electronic Document Forgery in Indonesia. Int J Law, Crime Justice. 2025;2(2):73–86.
7. Hughes N, Karabiyik U. Towards reliable digital forensics investigations through measurement science. WIREs Forensic Sci. 2020;2(4):1–11.
8. Henseler H, van Loenhout S. Educating judges, prosecutors and lawyers in the use of digital forensic experts. DFRWS 2018 EU - Proc 5th Annu DFRWS Eur [Internet]. 2016;24:S76–82. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2018.01.010
9. Arshad H, Jantan A, Omolara E. Evidence collection and forensics on social networks: Research challenges and directions. Digit Investig [Internet]. 2019;28:126–38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2019.02.001
10. Ayangbekun OJ, Bankole OF, Saka BA. Analysis of security mechanisms in Nigeria E-banking platform. Int J Electr Comput Eng. 2014;4(6):837–47.
11. Ariffin KAZ, Ahmad FH. Indicators for maturity and readiness for digital forensic investigation in era of industrial revolution 4.0. Comput Secur [Internet]. 2021;105:102237. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102237
12. Bankole F, Taiwo A, Claims I. An extended digital forensic readiness and maturity model. Forensic Sci Int Digit Investig. 2022;40.
13. Seigfried-Spellar KC, Rogers M, Crimmins DM. Development of A Professional Code of Ethics in Digital Forensics. Annu ADFSL Conf Digit Forensics, Secur Law [Internet]. 2017;9(c):15. Available from: https://commons.erau.edu/adfsl/2017/papers/12
14. Neale C, Kennedy I, Price B, Yu Y, Nuseibeh B. The case for Zero Trust Digital Forensics. Forensic Sci Int Digit Investig [Internet]. 2022;40:301352. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2022.301352
15. NIST. Zero Trust Architecture. Control Priv Use Data Assets. 2022;127–34.
16. Montasari R, Peltola P, Evans D. Integrated computer forensics investigation process model (ICFIPM) for computer crime investigations. Commun Comput Inf Sci. 2015;534:83–95.
17. Horsman G. Framework for Reliable Experimental Design (FRED): A research framework to ensure the dependable interpretation of digital data for digital forensics. Comput Secur [Internet]. 2018;73:294–306. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.11.009
18. Granja FTM, Rafael GDR. Model for digital evidence preservation in criminal research institutions-PREDECI. Int J Electron Secur Digit Forensics. 2017;9(2):150–66.
19. Ferguson RI, Renaud K, Wilford S, Irons A. PRECEPT: a framework for ethical digital forensics investigations. J Intellect Cap. 2020;21(2):257–90.
20. Renaud K, Bongiovanni I, Wilford S, Irons A. PRECEPT-4-Justice: A bias-neutralising framework for digital forensics investigations. Sci Justice [Internet]. 2021;61(5):477–92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.06.003
21. Kumar U, Gaud N, Joshi C. A Framework for Digital Forensic Investigation using Authentication Technique to maintain Evidence Integrity. Int J Comput Appl. 2016;154(6):1–3.
22. Buckles DJ, Chevalier JM. Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge; 2019. 1–474 p.
23. Kember D. Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning. Vol. 9, Quality Assurance in Education. London: Kogan Page; 2000. 54–56 p.
24. Gaskins W, Guy B, Arthur B. Reflections on Implementing Participatory Action Research in Engineering. J Educ Dev. 2023;7(3):18.
25. Eelderink M, Vervoort JM, van Laerhoven F. Using participatory action research to operationalize critical systems thinking in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 2020;25(1).
26. Faizal A, Luthfi A. Comparison Study of NIST SP 800-86 and ISO/IEC 27037 Standards as A Framework for Digital Forensic Evidence Analysis. J Inf Syst Informatics. 2024;6(2):701–18.
27. Sudyana D. Analysis and Evaluation Digital Forensic Investigation Framework Using Iso 27037:2012. Int J Cyber-Security Digit Forensics. 2019;8(1):1–14.
28. Nyman A, Rutberg S, Lilja M, Isaksson G. The Process of Using Participatory Action Research when Trying out an ICT Solution in Home-Based Rehabilitation. Int J Qual Methods. 2022;21:1–8.
29. Iman N, Susanto A, Inggi R. Analisa Perkembangan Digital Forensik dalam Penyelidikan Cybercrime di Indonesia (Systematic Review). J Telekomun dan Komput. 2020;9(3):186.
30. Ramadhani E, Hariyadi D, Nastiti FE. A Bibliometrics Analysis of Digital Forensics Research in Indonesia Based on Scopus Index: 2012-2021. In: 2022 IEEE 7th International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications (ICITDA). 2022. p. 1–6.
31. Jordaan J. Ensuring the Legality of the Digital Forensics Process in South Africa. Int J Comput Appl. 2013;68(23):36–9.
32. A. Rakha N. Cybercrime and the Law: Addressing the Challenges of Digital Forensics in Criminal Investigations. Vol. 16, Mexican Law Review. 2024. 23–54 p.
33. Kent K, Chevalier S, Grance T, Dang H. Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response [Internet]. Vol. 800, The National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2006 [cited 2018 May 25]. p. 3–1. Available from: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-86.pdf
34. Cortinas BF, Contreras-Salinas J, López-Irarragorri F, De La Hoz Granadillo E. Multicriteria Methodology Based on Hierarchical Process Analysis (AHP) for the Selection and Evaluation of Companies in an Entrepreneurial Project Accelerator. In: MOL2NET’21, Conference on Molecular, Biomedical & Computational Science and Engineering, 7th ed. 2021.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Arizona Firdonsyah, Purwanto, Imam Riadi, Mahrus Ali, Ammar Fauzan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
