(I've been told by colleagues not to use these big words, but here I go again...) In my personal opinion NFPA 921 is, or should be, considered the Fire Investigation community's "paradigm", as described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. What does that mean? Well, Kuhn suggested that science and scientists operate within a generally agreed upon framework theory that guides how they identify problems and develop experiments and / or solutions to explain the problem. This framework theory, or paradigm, is used by the community to decide what approaches fit; to decide what is appropriate and consistent with a generally accepted body of knowledge. While there are some criticisms of Kuhn's ideas, this concept does seem to apply to our profession.

The idea of an adopted paradigm does not necessarily exclude alternate hypotheses or alternate interpretation of data, so long as it fits within the general paradigm. For example, the Evolutionary Biology community operates under a general paradigm that describes its basic tenets based on the works of Darwin and Wallace; in general that evolution proceeds at a generally slow pace over many generations. But along comes Gould and Eldredge to suggest Punctuated Equilibrium; that provides a little different description of the pace of evolution by suggesting that new species can evolve relatively quickly, followed by a period of stasis. Anyway, the new hypothesis does not violate the "paradigm" since it is still consistent with the general rules of evolution. It does not dramatically change the "rules" of evolution, merely; it provides a variable interpretation of the rules. "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design", however, are considered outside of the paradigm that governs evolutionary biology.

For us, the idea that NFPA 921 should be our paradigm is (I believe) a useful one. It creates an overarching concept that guides our actions in evaluating fire scenes and the data obtained from them. As opposed to a "standard", it does not dictate how we must think, act, interpret and represent data. It provides a framework for what we (the community) will accept as reasonable and consistent, without restricting alternate interpretations that exist within the general framework. The paradigm, as a bounding concept, allows for new research to solve problems using methodologies that are acceptable, but would exclude "wives tales", myths and Ouija board determinations. It may help prevent fallacious accusations of sloppy or shoddy work simply because you did not follow every paragraph of 921 (For example, not doing an iso-damage contour map does not mean that you did not conduct a thorough investigation, even though it is mentioned in 921 - provided your investigation is otherwise consistent with the "paradigm") The paradigm allows for movement within, but constrained by, accepted boundaries. We have formed a general consensus of what those boundaries are (we even voted on them!), however, there is a process in place that will allow for the modification of those boundaries as the limits of our knowledge expand. The paradigm is not unchanging dogma, but can expand and/or contract as verified knowledge changes.

I will now put forth that NFPA 921 be considered the paradigm statement for fire investigations.