The genesis and current condition of scientific approaches to defining methods in criminalistics are considered. It is noted that, despite the significant importance for the formation of the methodology of criminalistics science, no separate doctrine of its methods has been created yet. Conversely, scientists offer different definitions and classification constructions of methods of this science. There is not always a justifiable division of criminalistics methods into research methods and methods of practical activity. It is emphasized that the introduction of a single, unified, consistent classification of methods in criminalistics science is a prerequisite for the further effective scientific research in this area of knowledge and the solution of praxeological tasks in the activity of judicial investigative bodies, expert institutions, operational units. Finding out established approaches to the classification of methods in science of criminalistics will contribute to the final formation of the modern scientific criminalistics paradigm.
 In view of the results of the analysis of scientific approaches, it is proposed to divide the methods in forensics into two varieties, using the following terms: 1) methods of criminalistics that means methods of studying the subject of research of this field of knowledge, carrying out scientific research; 2) criminalistics methods, that is, the optimal methods of action of authorized subjects that are the result of the conducted research and recommended for practical use. Methods of criminalistics should be grouped into the following levels: philosophical, general scientific (methods of empirical research, methods of theoretical research, general logical methods), separate scientific (special) (borrowed, transformed, especially criminalistics). In turn, forensic methods can be divided into: methods of collecting, recording and investigating evidence; methods of using forensic and special techniques; methods of conducting individual investigative (search) actions; methods of designing and testing investigators, court, expert versions and construction of forecasting models, etc. The above points out that in the forensic scientific knowledge there is a complex, dynamic, subordinated system of numerous methods of different levels, spheres of action, directions, which are realized taking into account specific conditions and subject of research. At the same time, this system is open and constantly updated with new methods as a result of their development and renewing.
Read full abstract