Guest editorial: The continued evolution of investigative interviewing research and practice: an editorial introduction

When we were first invited by Dr Dom Willmott (Editor, Journal of Criminal Psychology) to curate this special issue on Contemporary Developments in Investigative Interviewing, our goal was simple: bring together a snapshot of rigorous contemporary research in our field. However, as the manuscripts began to arrive from across the globe, we realized we were seeing a community of researchers and practitioners working on answering the same fundamental question: how do we continue to push the boundaries of knowledge and practice in investigative interviewing while maintaining both human dignity and scientific integrity?The necessity of this special issue is rooted in a world that is increasingly interconnected and, unfortunately, increasingly volatile. Investigative interviewing remains a primary tool for truth-seeking, yet the contexts in which it must operate are rapidly expanding. Digital interviewing environments, transnational investigations, polarized public discourse and heightened scrutiny of investigative legitimacy all pose new challenges for interviewers and institutions alike. While prior research has helped define what ethical and effective interviewing should look like, the present collection of articles grapples with how these principles hold under contemporary pressures.At the same time, the science-to-practice gap remains a persistent challenge. While the past several decades have yielded immense progress in investigative interviewing, this collection of articles acknowledges that the work is far from done. Translating empirical evidence into consistent, real-world practice continues to require sustained effort and collaboration. Researchers and practitioners must continue to collaborate and test the bounds of investigative interviewing. This special issue reflects a shared commitment to narrowing that gap by bringing together research that is both methodologically rigorous and grounded in practical realities and implementation concerns.Bringing together these 22 articles across two volumes has been an exceptional opportunity. We were both surprised and deeply encouraged by the breadth, diversity and high quality of contributions, underscoring the vitality of the investigative interviewing community. To our knowledge, this two-volume collection represents one of the most comprehensive special issues to date devoted to investigative interviewing. Below, we provide an overview of the contributions included in Volumes I and II.The first volume focuses on the internal workings of the interview. That is, the mechanisms of information elicitation and the psychological relationship between interviewer and interviewee. Together, the contributions in this volume examine how interviews function in practice, from their foundational ethos to the cognitive, relational and motivational processes that shape disclosure.We begin with a foundational primer by May et al. (2026) which clarifies what investigative interviewing is – and is not – by articulating three core pillars: open-minded thinking, research-based techniques and a legal and humane approach. This conceptual framework is then examined in practice by Larivière et al. (2026) whose case study of a PEACE-model interview shows how critical evidence can be elicited in a high-stakes homicide investigation without reliance on confession-driven or coercive tactics. Together, these papers establish the normative and applied foundations of investigative interviewing.The technical contributions in Volume I challenge some long-standing assumptions about how we define and evaluate effective information elicitation. Sparacino et al. (2026) compare the cognitive interview (CI) to more structured approaches and show that while the CI reliably increases the quantity of information reported, the precision of that information is more variable than often assumed. Their findings raise important implications for training, performance evaluation and evidentiary assessment. Complementing this focus on measurement and interview outcomes, Mac Giolla et al. (2026) examined the strategic use of subtle topic steering, highlighting the cognitive processes involved and ethical boundaries of guiding disclosure without revealing investigative objectives. Addressing a persistent applied challenge, Deck et al. (2026) explored strategies for eliciting episodic memory in repeated events across professional contexts, underscoring the importance of aligning interview practices with how memory is structured, rather than how investigators might wish it to function. Extending these insights to real-world suspect interviews, Gauvin et al. (2026) showed how question formulation directly shapes the amount and type of investigative relevant information elicited in online sexual offense investigations.Volume I also foregrounds the relational dynamics that shape investigative interviewing and interview outcomes. Weiher et al. (2026) presented evidence that simple acts of reciprocity can meaningfully enhance information provision when tailored to the individual’s needs, while Taylor and Dando (2026) show that eyewitness memory for persons, objects and actions is significantly mediated by both rapport and interview environment, whether face-to-face or virtual. To support the systematic assessment of these interpersonal processes, Brouillard et al. (2026) introduced the Rapport-Pro, a validated tool specifically designed to capture rapport in professional information-gathering contexts.Finally, by shifting the focus from interviewer behavior to the decision-making processes of interviewees themselves. Brimbal et al. (2026) offered a practitioner-informed framework identifying identity-related, relational and instrumental motivations underlying communicative resistance in investigative interviews. Complementing this qualitative perspective, Houston and Russano (2026) provided large-scale experimental evidence demonstrating how interview strategies interact with these motivations to shape cooperation, denial and the risk of false admissions. Together, these contributions emphasize that resistance and cooperation are not merely obstacles to be managed, but psychologically grounded responses that must be understood to conduct effective, ethical and evidence-based investigative interviews.The second volume of the special issue shifts the lens outward to examine the broader contexts within which investigative interviewing is conducted, interpreted and implemented. Whereas Volume I focused on the internal mechanics of the interview itself, Volume II situates investigative interviewing as a systemic practice shaped by legal frameworks, socio-cultural environments, institutional realities and an evolving technological and communicative landscape. Taken together, the contributions in this volume highlight how these contextual forces influence interviewer decision-making, interviewee engagement and the translation of interviewing science into practice.Several contributions underscore the vital importance of cultural sensitivity. Hope et al. (2026) drew on focus groups with experienced investigators to explore the challenges and opportunities associated with building rapport in cross-cultural interviews, emphasizing preparation, situational awareness, communication and sensitivity to hierarchy. Complementing this practitioner perspective, Weiss and colleagues (2026) provide rare field-based evidence from South Africa, showing how cultural norms influence eyewitness reporting styles, confidence and interaction with police in real investigative settings. This focus on cross-cultural communication is extended beyond the investigative interview by Drenk et al. (2025), whose case study of witness testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda reveals how cultural dynamics continue to shape questioning and responses within the courtroom. Collectively, these studies reinforce the importance of cultural competence and humility as core investigative skills across the full trajectory of the justice process.Volume II also provides a sobering examination of legal constraints and rights within investigative interviewing. McArthur et al. (2026) offer the first systematic analysis of how Canadian police respond to suspects’ invocations of the right to silence, documenting a wide range of strategies – some consistent with prior research and others newly identified – used to encourage cooperation. Their findings raise important questions regarding legality, ethics and the balance between investigative persistence and procedural safeguards.Beyond formal legal constraints, several papers focus on the lived experience of interviewers operating within institutional environments. Research by Farrugia et al. (2026) explores law enforcement officers’ perspectives on interview evaluation, identifying structural and cultural barriers that limit reflective practice despite their importance in preventing skill decay. Addressing this gap and recognizing the need for ongoing skill maintenance, Gabbert et al. (2026) examine how brief, research-based educational videos can be used to significantly enhance core interviewing competencies like questioning and rapport-building, showing that targeted interventions can meaningfully improve interviewing performance beyond simple practice effects.Further examining the person behind the badge, Porter and Powell (2026) investigate officers’ experiences of post-officer-involved shooting interviews. Their findings suggest that an officer’s ability to provide an accurate account is deeply tied not only to memory and stress, but also to their perceptions of procedural and informational justice throughout the investigative process. Together, these studies highlight the importance of organizational support, evaluation and fairness in sustaining effective and ethical interviewing practice.The final contributions in Volume II turn to how interviewing science is perceived, communicated and adapted in contemporary contexts. Han et al. (2026) investigated how false balance in messaging about interrogation practices can undermine scientific consensus and public trust, even when empirical agreement is strong, underscoring the fragility of evidence-based knowledge in public and legal discourse. Zloteanu and Porter (2026) further examined downstream decision-making by showing how gendered expectations about emotional expression influence credibility judgments, memory accuracy and susceptibility to misinformation in witnesses.Volume II closes with a forward-looking focus on innovation and adoption. Job et al. (2026) apply the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to examine why trained investigators do – or do not – use the NICHD child investigative interview protocol, highlighting the role of perceived usefulness, effort expectancy and facilitating conditions in shaping implementation. Finally, Tomas and Immerzeel (2026) explored the potential use of chatbots in eyewitness interviewing, identifying perceived usefulness, ease of use and anxiety as key psychological determinants of adoption. These studies collectively emphasize that the future of investigative interviewing depends not only on technological advancement, but also on human acceptance, trust and organizational readiness.Together, these two volumes reflect a field that is increasingly self-critical, methodologically sophisticated and attentive to the practical consequences of its work. The contributions underscore that effective investigative interviewing cannot be reduced to isolated techniques or individual interviewer skill. Rather, it emerges from the alignment of evidence-based principles with the realities of law, culture, organizational practice, public understanding and technological change. By bringing together conceptual, empirical, applied and forward-looking research, the two volumes of this special issue illustrate both the progress made in advancing investigative interviewing science and the challenges that remain in translating that science into consistent, ethical and trusted practice. It is our hope that these two volumes will serve as a resource for researchers, practitioners, trainers and policymakers, and will stimulate continued dialogue and collaboration across disciplines, jurisdictions and professional communities.It has been a privilege to serve as Guest Editors for this special issue, and we are grateful to the authors and reviewers whose work and contribution made it possible. We also thank the Journal of Criminal Psychology and Dr Dom Willmott for providing a home for this important dialogue. We hope readers will find these contributions as engaging and impactful and will enjoy reading them as much as we did.