No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Current State of Criminological Research in the United States: An Examination of Research Methodologies in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals
Abstract
A recurring concern within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is how to best investigate criminological theory and criminal justice policy. To assess the current state of research, we conducted a content analysis of articles that appeared in seven CCJ journals over a two-year period (2013–2014). We then examined types and frequencies of data sources, analytic techniques, methodological approaches, and subject matters. Findings demonstrate that articles are predominantly employing quantitative methodologies and data where there is no participant contact. From these findings, we discuss the current state of research and how this could be used to guide graduate education, by recommending a variety of subject matters that graduate schools should emphasize in training new academics.
... Although this is not a full review of all criminological research conducted, these mappings deliver valuable insights in the dissemination of criminological research. 4 Woodward et al. (2016) have included the following seven journals in their review: Crime and Delinquency, ...
... This dichotomy is frequently used to classify research methodologies in general. Within the criminological empirical literature, some notable work has been done with comparative analyses that map the current state in criminological research (Holmes & Taggart, 1990;Kleck, Tark, & Bellows, 2006;Tewksbury, Dabney, & Copes, 2010;Tewksbury, DeMichele, & Miller, 2005;Woodward, Webb, Griffin, & Copes, 2016). Ironically, these quantitative mappings show unambiguously that criminological inquiry is dominated by quantitative research, or at least by quantitative publications. ...
... Ironically, these quantitative mappings show unambiguously that criminological inquiry is dominated by quantitative research, or at least by quantitative publications. 3 The recent study of Woodward et al. (2016) shows that 88.8% of the analyzed articles (n=609) published in criminology and criminal justice journals 4 have employed quantitative methodologies. In the comprehensive study of Tewksbury et al. (2010) it was found that approximately a tenth of the journal articles (n=2,493) they included 5 in their analysis were based on qualitative research, however, when they took into account the geographic origin of the journals, they found a remarkable dichotomy. ...
The purpose of this study is to identify the added value of new and emerging data sources in environmental criminology, in comparison to traditional research methodologies and data sources. In this contribution, the state of the art based on recent endeavors regarding conventional research methodologies and data sources is compared to the extent in which big data have been used in environmental criminology to date. By doing this, we contribute to the understanding of the toolkit for research in environmental criminology and set the scene for further exploration of new and emerging data sources. Research in criminology in general often relies on quantitative methodologies and, as data form the basis of this quantitative research, new and emerging data sources provide large opportunities for criminology. Due to the specific characteristics of environmental criminology, this certainly holds for research in this domain. By reviewing the literature it was found that user-generated content, mainly from social network sites, are most commonly used in research in environmental criminology. A selective review of the literature in the broader social sciences shows that an interdisciplinary perspective can provide a helping hand in exploring new and emerging data sources. In conclusion, there are some fundamental methodological questions and avenues for future research, which are considered in this contribution.
... Lynch et al. (2017) found that most green criminological work, which includes the subfield of wildlife crime, is non-quantitative while most research in the CCJ field is predominantly quantitative. For example, Woodward et al. (2016) found that articles published in seven top-tier CCJ journals over two years used quantitative methods 89 % of the time, while literature reviews, critiques, and legal analyses made up just 8 % of articles. ...
... The CCJ field has "a strong reliance on theory testing and quantitative analysis" which "is useful for assessing whether a theory or hypothesis about a subject…is empirically sustainable and worth retaining and developing" (Lynch et al. 2017;186). Most criminological theories focus on a person's predisposition to commit crime (Pires and Guerette 2014), and thus, often use survey methods to theory test (Woodward et al. 2016). Unfortunately, very little survey data, if at all, exists on which factors predispose offenders to commit wildlife offenses specifically. ...
... Based on the growth of interest in wildlife crime research, we expect that the focus of research will change over time; Offenders and law and regulations will dominate early on in the literature, but will later give way to under-studied topics such as the targeted animals and products (i.e. victims, targets), markets, and police and policing, which are naturally less-commonly studied in general criminology (Woodward et al. 2016). ...
Wildlife crime is an emerging topic of study within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ). This study provides the first-ever systematic review of the state of wildlife crime research by CCJ scholars to describe and better understand how it has evolved over time and where the opportunity for expansion exists. Data gathered from a search of the Criminal Justice Abstracts database is analyzed to address ten hypotheses concerning overall trends. Findings show that quantitative studies are rare in the literature with the majority of studies being conceptual or theoretical in nature. Further, the literature is concentrated among researchers, countries, universities, and journals, and that research relies heavily on certain methods, foci, and theories.
... Previous studies seeking to assess the state of research in the field of CCJ have recognized and utilized eight 'elite' journals, using a variety of measures ranging from reputation to impact factors (e.g. Barranco, Jennings, May, & Wells, 2015;Kim & Hawkins, 2013;Sorenson and Pilgrim, 2002;Steiner & Schwartz, 2006;Weir & Orrick, 2013;Woodward, Webb, Griffin, & Copes, 2016). It is common for content analysis of journals to be conducted in order to determine, for example, dominant methodologies (Woodward et al., 2016), scholarly productivity (Steiner & Schwartz, 2006), measures of gender (Cohen & Harvey, 2007), and authorship trends (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011 Every article published in the seven aforementioned journals between 2010 and 2015 was collected and analyzed. ...
... Barranco, Jennings, May, & Wells, 2015;Kim & Hawkins, 2013;Sorenson and Pilgrim, 2002;Steiner & Schwartz, 2006;Weir & Orrick, 2013;Woodward, Webb, Griffin, & Copes, 2016). It is common for content analysis of journals to be conducted in order to determine, for example, dominant methodologies (Woodward et al., 2016), scholarly productivity (Steiner & Schwartz, 2006), measures of gender (Cohen & Harvey, 2007), and authorship trends (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011 Every article published in the seven aforementioned journals between 2010 and 2015 was collected and analyzed. After eliminating non-empirical articles (e.g. ...
... The vast majority of criminological research published in those CCJ journals considered 'elite' involves the use of surveys and secondary data analysis with no subject contact (Woodward et al., 2016). Field research or ethnography that would perhaps more readily allow for the observation of gender as performative, or qualitative interviews that would allow for exploration of gender presentation/expression, are comparatively rare. ...
This study examines how sex and gender are measured and operationalized in studies on criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) through content analysis of peer-reviewed journals. Despite that they are distinct and not always parallel, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably in CCJ research. Moreover, despite increasing recognition that gender-responsive practices are important at every stage of the criminal justice process, gender is almost exclusively measured as a male-female binary, miscategorizing and failing to properly account for those who do not fit in one of those gender identities. There are important implications for the safety of such individuals, as both victims and offenders throughout the criminal justice process, therefore it is essential that we more accurately measure gender in this field. Recommendations for improvement are addressed.
... While there are no known studies specifically focusing on the authorship of legal scholarship published in CCJ journals, there is a body of literature examining articles published in CCJ journals which has findings pertaining to the authorship of CCJ journal articles more generally. Such research has found that multiple authorship is common (Crow & Smykla, 2015;Fisher, Vander Ven, Cobane, Cullen, & Williams, 1998;González-Alcaide, Melero-Fuentes, Aleixandre-Benavent, & Valderrama-Zurián, 2013;Sever, 2005;Tewksbury, Dabney, & Copes, 2010;Tewksbury, DeMichele, & Miller, 2005;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011;Woodward, Webb, Griffin, & Copes, 2016). While sole-authorshipwas once the norm, it is now relatively rare (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011). ...
... Studies have found that there is variation in the percentage of CCJ journal articles which are sole-authored and the mean number of authors per article across journals (Crow & Smykla, 2015;Sever, 2005;Tewksbury et al., 2005Tewksbury et al., , 2010Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011;Woodward et al., 2016) and methodological approaches (Crow & Smykla, 2015;Fisher et al., 1998;Tewksbury et al., 2005). Of particular relevance to the focus of the present study, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (JCLC), which has a section specifically devoted to legal scholarship, has a very high percentage of sole-authored articles (75.76% during 1999-2000Sever, 2005). ...
... While there is research with findings pertaining to authorship of scholarship published in CCJ journals, prior studies have tended to rely on samples which excluded journals (such as JCLC; see e.g. Crow & Smykla, 2015;Tewksbury et al., 2005;Woodward et al., 2016) and portions of journals (such as the criminal law section of JCLC; see e.g. Tewksbury et al., 2010;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011) likely to include legal scholarship or employed article inclusion criteria which excluded important forms of legal scholarship (such as doctrinal legal research or "court case reviews"; see e.g. ...
This study assesses the authorship of legal scholarship within 20 criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals from 2005 to 2015, examining trends over time and variation across journals in the prevalence of sole-authorship and the mean number of authors and identifying the most prolific authors of legal scholarship published in CCJ journals. The study thus sheds light on the extent of collaboration among CCJ legal scholars and identifies CCJ legal scholars who have remained largely invisible due to their focus on a marginalized subfield.
... Jacques, 2014) buiten het bestek van deze bijdrage valt, kan een beschouwing van onderzoeksmethoden niet om deze tweedeling heen. In voorgaand onderzoek zijn interessante inventarisaties uitgevoerd om de stand van zaken in (empirisch) criminologisch onderzoek in kaart te brengen (Holmes & Taggart, 1990;Kleck et al., 2006;Tewksbury et al., 2005Tewksbury et al., , 2010Woodward et al., 2016). Ironisch genoeg laten deze kwantitatieve overzichten ondubbelzinnig zien dat criminologisch onderzoek wordt gedomineerd door kwantitatief onderzoek, of in ieder geval door kwantitatieve publicaties. ...
... Een tweede nadeel, als gevolg van de afwezigheid van het onderzoek in het dataverzamelingsproces, is dat de onderzoeker niet vanzelfsprekend weet hoe de dataverzameling wordt uitgevoerd, maar dit moet afleiden uit -indien beschikbaar -dataverzamelingsprocedures, technische rapporten of andere beschrijvingen van het verzamelproces (Dale et al., 1988). Dit is problematisch, omdat er fouten of vertekeningen in de gegevens kunnen zitten waar wetenschappers zich niet bewust van zijn en waar dus geen rekening mee wordt gehouden (Woodward et al., 2016). Ten derde bieden secundaire gegevensbronnen in sommige opzichten verouderde informatie. ...
... The first study of criminal justice education using bibliometric tools (then referred to as "alternative methods") was published in 2013, highlighting patterns in citations and topic selection (Jennings, 2013). Since that time, scholars have used increasingly sophisticated tools to map research productivity (Barranco et al, 2022;Woodward et al, 2016), including professional networks (Rice et al., 2011), citation impact (DeJong & St. George, 2018), methods (Woodward et al, 2016) and knowledge dissemination (Fahmy & Young, 2015); but not to evaluate the corpus of educational research. Indeed, it could perhaps be argued that criminal justice education is relatively behind in embracing these research tools, as closely related fields such as social work are replete with systematic and scoping reviews of and in their respective educational literatures (e.g., Cox et al., 2021;Godfrey, 2020;Kourgiantakis et al., 2020). ...
... The first study of criminal justice education using bibliometric tools (then referred to as "alternative methods") was published in 2013, highlighting patterns in citations and topic selection (Jennings, 2013). Since that time, scholars have used increasingly sophisticated tools to map research productivity (Barranco et al, 2022;Woodward et al, 2016), including professional networks (Rice et al., 2011), citation impact (DeJong & St. George, 2018), methods (Woodward et al, 2016) and knowledge dissemination (Fahmy & Young, 2015); but not to evaluate the corpus of educational research. Indeed, it could perhaps be argued that criminal justice education is relatively behind in embracing these research tools, as closely related fields such as social work are replete with systematic and scoping reviews of and in their respective educational literatures (e.g., Cox et al., 2021;Godfrey, 2020;Kourgiantakis et al., 2020). ...
The present study presents a scoping review of research on teaching and learning criminal justice, as it appeared in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education from 2016-2022. The process serves to take stock of the advancements of the field, clarify the need for a shared pedagogical lexicon, identify critical gaps in research and practice, and suggest foundations for future research and practice, including the articulation of a signature pedagogy or pedagogies.
... Examining an academic discipline's scholarship is a valuable endeavor to understand both the norms and the evolution of a field of study (Laub, 2004). In criminology and criminal justice (CCJ), 1 a growing body of literature has emerged exploring a range of issues, including prevailing methodologies (Crow & Smykla, 2013;Woodward et al., 2016), institutional impact (Ahlin, 2020;Kleck & Barnes, 2011;, most influential journals (Barranco et al., 2016;DeJong & St. George, 2018), authorship trends (Cohn et al., 2020;Crow & Smykla, 2015;Savelsberg & Flood, 2004), most cited scholars (Cohn et al., 2020), faculty productivity in doctoral programs (Kleck & Barnes, 2011), publishing as a doctoral student (Kaiser & Pratt, 2016), federal funding (Dowdy, 1994), and concerns over statistical power (Barnes et al., 2020), among others. ...
... The two lead authors then discussed all remaining discrepancies in coding decisions until we reached agreement on the final codes. This exhaustive process maximized the reliability and validity of the content analysis and is consistent with or more rigorous than similar prior research (Copes et al., 2020;Neuendorf, 2017;Woodward et al., 2016). ...
Analysis of scholarship in the physical, biological, and social sciences has discovered that peer-reviewed journals publish a much larger proportion of articles with statistically significant findings compared to articles with null results. Publication bias in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) has received very little attention, however. The current study is an exploratory analysis of research in leading CCJ journals across 2 years to determine the current state of null findings in contemporary CCJ scholarship. Our findings are consistent with studies in other disciplines; null results are rare in leading CCJ journals. We explore the context of our findings, outline the importance of examining publication bias to improve CCJ research and better inform policy, and discuss the limitations of our approach.
... Although the focus of this article is on open science practices in CCJ, we begin by describing the major characteristics of the articles in our sample. We do this to both put our results regarding open science practices in context as well as to provide an updated review (e.g., Kleck et al., 2006;Woodward et al., 2016) of the type of articles present in leading CCJ journals. ...
Objective
Calls for more transparent and replicable scientific practices have been increasing across scientific disciplines over the last decade, often referred to as the open science movement. Open science practices are arguably particularly important in fields like criminology and criminal justice where empirical findings aim to inform public policy and legal practice. Despite favorable views of these practices by criminal justice scholars, limited research has explored how often researchers actually use these open science practices.
Method
The current study measures the reported use of pre-registration, open access, open materials, open data, and open code in leading criminology and criminal justice journals from 2018 to 2022.
Results
Our results reveal limited use of open science practices, particularly pre-registration and open code.
Conclusions
Given these findings, we call for both journals and authors to consider adopting these practices to move toward a more transparent and replicable field.
... As formal system documents that include a wealth of mixedmethod and multisystem information available for analysis, case files, particularly when anchored to a critical interpretive lens, have the potential to fill critical gaps in corrections research. This includes its capacity to understand "risky systems" and translate findings about inequitable response patterns to current policy and practice (Nelson et al., 2014;Woodward et al., 2016). This study provides a methodological blueprint for the novel CCF approach through analyzing inequitable patterns of the legal systems' response through a critical race and gender lens. ...
Current criminology and corrections research is limited in its ability to fully conceptualize and analyze inequities in the legal systems’ response to young people, particularly those with multiple marginalized identities. This article presents a novel methodological framework—the Critical Case File (CCF) approach—to advance methodological innovations in criminal and juvenile legal system research. Specifically, the CCF approach leverages the rich multisystem information available within case file data and analyzes it through a critical lens to examine (a) the structural factors (e.g., economic and housing precarity) undergirding legal system contact and (b) how the legal system responds to these structural factors to perpetuate the well-documented disparities that exist across the legal continuum. In this article, we present the CCF approach, which systematizes best practices for capturing the breadth of information available within case files. We first propose a six-step methodological process to describe how information from legal system-impacted people’s case files can be extracted, analyzed, and disseminated with an equity-oriented lens. We then exemplify how the CCF approach differentiates from other methods typically used in social science and criminology research. Practice and policy implications are presented to demonstrate the ways that the CCF approach can leverage case file data to generate novel, meaningful, and data-driven solutions that illuminate structural factors that may drive and exacerbate legal system contact and delineate the potential of research–practice–policy partnerships to reduce structural disparities.
... When categorizing surveys, experiments, and interviews as non-silencing research methods, their findings mean that less than half of the studies (43.7%) used silencing research methods (Deckert, 2015). From a similar, more recent study (Woodward et al., 2016) it can be gathered that, overall, only 28.8% of contemporary criminological research published in elite mainstream journals use silencing research methods (Deckert, forthcoming). In short, between 28.8 and 43.7% (average 36%) of criminological studies published in elite mainstream journals use silencing research methods. ...
... In doctoral programs today, we train our doctoral students to routinely produce empirical articles at what would have been considered an astonishing rate just twenty years ago (Clear, 2001;Frost et al., 2007). This pressure to publish so prolifically encourages doctoral training that prioritizes analyzing existing datasets over collecting original data (Woodward et al., 2016). On the upside, we are creating a future generation of scholars with quantitative skills far more sophisticated than our own. ...
Who is going to do the work of criminal justice reform? Recognizing the capacity limits of even the most reform-minded academic criminologists, this article argues that widespread research training is crucial to the future of criminal justice reform efforts. To influence criminal justice reform in the short-term, and to bring about the systemic change in criminal justice in the long-term, we should be training all of our students, not just doctoral students, in the art and science of research. The multi-generational research team and social science lab model, is offered as a particularly promising model for mentoring the next generation of reform-minded undergraduate and graduate students. The role of mentoring, the value of original data collection, and the importance of developing a capacity to write for broad audiences in students at all levels are emphasized as crucial to effective research training for criminal justice reform.
... Over 50 years ago, Austin Turk (1966) explained a criminal label does not equate to who someone is or what they have done and called upon criminologists to construct theories that center both the individual and their context in order to holistically understand "criminality." Since this solicitation, however, we have witnessed increased use of criminological perspectives that ignore structural racism and systemic violence (Cohen 1998;Sian 2017;Woodward et al. 2016). Most researchers' critical gaze remains hyper-focused on the individual as "criminal" and examines engagement in illegalized behaviors through the prism of individual decision-making and psychological deficit or pathology without examining the structural facilitators of social conflict (Turk 1966). ...
Many leading criminological theories problematically focus on individuals and communities as criminal rather than implicating structures and systems that perpetuate harm. We offer a nine-step protocol to invert and redefine three predominant deficits-based criminological theories. Our inversion method produced punitive provocation theory, critical environmental adaptation theory, and socio-structural induction theory, as theoretical inversions of deterrence, social disorganization, and self-control theory. We suggest different measurement options for each new inverted theory, including a focus on the structural antecedents of crime such as racial/ethnic discrimination, exclusion, surveillance practices, and divestment from communities. To ameliorate under-theorizing and create a more equitable and less harmful society, we urge theorists, researchers, and practitioners to adopt a more inclusive, critical, and reflexive approach to understanding human behavior.
... The purpose is to provide detailed descriptive context for understanding and potentially addressing the firearm violence problem. In general, advancements in quantitative criminal justice research methods have placed a greater emphasis on studies using sophisticated modeling (Blumstein, 2010;Kleck et al., 2006;Woodward et al., 2016). While these complex statistical approaches are obviously valuable, scholars have suggested many problems in studies using sophisticated modeling to examine fatal force (GBD, 2021;Klinger & Slocum, 2017;Nix et al., 2017). ...
This study provides a crime script analysis of fatal police shootings in New York from 2013 to 2020. This work examines incident rates and subject demographics, as well as the initial situation context, subject-officer encounter, and incident conclusion stages of fatal police shootings. Findings identify an average of 19 incidents per year (N = 152). Subjects were most commonly male, aged 26–35, and Black. Situations initiating police presence often involved violent crimes, mental health/welfare checks, and domestic disputes. During the subject-officer encounter, subjects were often armed with a weapon, and half were armed with a firearm. Despite these potentially dangerous weapons, incidents rarely concluded with non-subject deaths or victim injuries. A discussion of findings highlights implications for understanding and addressing fatal police shootings including curbing illegal gun obtainment, pairing officers with crisis intervention teams and mental health workers, using less-lethal devices, and strengthening officer field tactics.
... Criminology and criminal justice research have undergone a paradigmatic shift in the last decades, toward an increasingly predominant use of data and quantitative methods (Woodward et al., 2016). As anticipated, contextual factors boosted the popularity and use of quantitative techniques for studying crime, leading to a massive amount of literature that relies on methods imported from applied mathematics, statistics, and computer science. ...
Machine Learning for Criminology and Crime Research: At the Crossroads reviews the roots of the intersection between machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), and research on crime; examines the current state of the art in this area of scholarly inquiry; and discusses future perspectives that may emerge from this relationship.
As machine learning and AI approaches become increasingly pervasive, it is critical for criminology and crime research to reflect on the ways in which these paradigms could reshape the study of crime. In response, this book seeks to stimulate this discussion. The opening part is framed through a historical lens, with the first chapter dedicated to the origins of the relationship between AI and research on crime, refuting the "novelty narrative" that often surrounds this debate. The second presents a compact overview of the history of AI, further providing a nontechnical primer on machine learning. The following chapter reviews some of the most important trends in computational criminology and quantitatively characterizing publication patterns at the intersection of AI and criminology, through a network science approach. This book also looks to the future, proposing two goals and four pathways to increase the positive societal impact of algorithmic systems in research on crime. The sixth chapter provides a survey of the methods emerging from the integration of machine learning and causal inference, showcasing their promise for answering a range of critical questions.
With its transdisciplinary approach, Machine Learning for Criminology and Crime Research is important reading for scholars and students in criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and economics, as well as AI, data sciences and statistics, and computer science.
... The fields of criminology and criminal justice continue rely heavily on secondary sources of data for measuring crime and the substantive and theoretical mechanisms thought to impact it (Nelson, Wooditch, and Gabbidon 2014;Woodward, Webb, Griffen, and Copes 2016). Secondary data are relatively easy to access in terms of both cost and time, they have been rigorously employed in theory testing, and can provide adequate detail for many research questions. ...
Amidst the proliferation of community-and place-based, several innovative measurement tools have become more readily available for criminological and criminal justice researchers. The current study illustrates the utility of two novel data sources –Google transportation data and municipal infrastructure files –as a means of extending studies focusedon racial and ethnic segregation’s effect on crime to include critical insights from environmental criminology regarding neighborhood boundary permeability. In doing so, we utilize data from over 120 block groups in Little Rock, Arkansas that include measures of Black isolation and boundary permeability: walk times to adjacent neighborhoods and thru streets captured in city infrastructure files. Our findings reveal that both segregation and neighborhood boundary permeability affect crime independently and net of key structural and spatial covariates, but that boundary permeability conditions the effect of segregation on crime. We conclude by discussing how the integration of newer and under-utilized measurement tools advances long-standing research on segregation and crime by operationalizing key theoretical concepts that have remained difficult to include using more standard secondary databases.
... Turk called upon criminologists to integrate theories that examine the individual and their context to understand "criminality." In the last several decades we have witnessed increased use of post-positivist criminological perspectives that ignore structural racism and systemic violence (Cohen 1988;Sian 2017;Woodward et al. 2016). ...
p>We offer a method to invert and redefine three predominant criminological theories from deficit-based to strength-based theories of crime. Using a nine-step protocol, we devised procedures on how to perform theoretical inversions, which include critically assessing the original framework of an identified theory, assuming an opposite frame, listing the original propositions, and applying an opposing frame to revise the original theory’s proposition. Our inversion method produced punitive provocation theory, critical environmental adaptation theory, and socio-structural induction theory, as theoretical inversions of deterrence, social disorganization, and self-control theories. We suggest different measurement options for these new inverted theories, including a focus on the structural antecedents of crime such as racial/ethnic discrimination, exclusion, surveillance practices, and divestment from communities. To ameliorate under-theorizing and create a more equitable and less harmful society, we urge theorists, researchers, and practitioners to adopt a more inclusive, critical, and reflexive approach to understanding human behavior.</p
... Any commentators may argue that a qualitative approach needs to be given more focus so that concerns such as civic discontent can be properly tackled. Woodward, Webb, Griffin, and Copes (2016) point to the fact that quantitative approaches require less time and are often dependent on "secondary information" (341). Quantitative approaches make it simpler and quicker to perform analysis. ...
In his book, Out-of-Control Criminal Justice, the Author, Daniel P. Mears provides readers a comprehensive look at the criminal justice system and the need for a system-based approach to criminal justice reform. The book offers a summary of the latest issues in the criminal justice system and the advancement of criminal justice reform. A description of mechanisms and the existence of device problems is given by the author. He describes protection, fairness, transparency, and efficacy as the four primary priorities of the criminal justice system. The book outlines how the new strategy of criminal justice struggles to adequately meet such aims. Mears discusses how an approach to structure enhancement solutions will better meet the aims of the criminal justice system. The first chapter of the book explains the criminal justice reform challenges and the inability to achieve the targets attributed to system problems. The reviewer discusses framework concerns aligned with the
... These frequencies were similar when comparing articles that mentioned funding based on top ranked journal articles and top cited articles. Co-authorship has been identified as a growing trend in CCJ articles (Roche et al. 2019;Tewksbury and Mustaine 2011;Woodward et al. 2016). We found that the mean number of authors for the qualitative articles comprising our full analysis sample was 2.4 and the median was 2. In addition, 70.5% of articles included in our sample included co-authored studies. ...
With the growth of qualitative research within the fields of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) it is important to examine discipline standards and expectations of how to collect and analyze qualitative data and to present research findings. Our aim here is to assess qualitative research published in 17 top CCJ journals during the period of 2010 to 2019. We found that the number of qualitative articles published in these years increased over the previous two decades; however, the relative percentage of all articles remained relatively stable. During this period, 11.3% of all articles in the 17 CCJ journals used qualitative methods. In addition, we provide general patterns related to methodology and to presentation of findings. The results give insights into discipline standards and expectations and points to substantive areas that are under-studied (e.g., victims) and to issues relating to methodological transparency.
... Criminological research largely relies on surveys or administrative data to study people involved in the criminal justice system, either as clients or as staff (Kleck et al., 2006;Woodward et al., 2016). Most often, researchers categorize these people as subjects, samples, or datarather than partners and collaborators. ...
... Most of the studies cited above conform to this methodological format. It is important to note, however, that active offender research need not be reliant on qualitative methods to be of value, and its strong association with this approach likely has limited its application in the field of criminology (see Tewksbury et al. 2010), given its decidedly quantitative bent (see Bushway & Weisburd 2006, Woodward et al. 2016. That said, although offenders' assessments about their offending-particularly their recollections of what they were thinking, feeling, and doing at the criminal moment-is highly amenable to qualitative work, it is important to note that the value of active offender research lies not in a given methodology but rather in its ability to provide individual-and situation-level data about offenders and their offending, particularly the offending moment, or what Jack Katz (1988) refers to as the foreground of crime (see also Groves & Lynch 1990). ...
Active offender research relies on the collection of data from noninstitutionalized criminals and has made significant contributions to our understanding of the etiology of serious crime. This review covers its history as well as its methodological, scientific, and ethical pitfalls and advantages. Because study subjects are currently and freely engaging in crime at the time of data collection , their memories, attitudes, and feelings about their criminality and specific criminal events are rich, detailed, and accurate. Contemporary approaches to active offender research employ systematized formats for data collection and analysis that improve the validity of findings and help illuminate the foreground of crime. Although active offender research has traditionally relied on qualitative techniques, we outline the potential for it to make contributions via mixed methods, experiments, and emerging computational and technological approaches, such as virtual reality simulation studies and agent-based modeling.
... Most of the studies cited above conform to this methodological format. It is important to note, however, that active offender research need not be reliant on qualitative methods to be of value, and its strong association with this approach likely has limited its application in the field of criminology (see Tewksbury et al. 2010), given its decidedly quantitative bent (see Bushway & Weisburd 2006, Woodward et al. 2016. That said, although offenders' assessments about their offending-particularly their recollections of what they were thinking, feeling, and doing at the criminal moment-is highly amenable to qualitative work, it is important to note that the value of active offender research lies not in a given methodology but rather in its ability to provide individual-and situation-level data about offenders and their offending, particularly the offending moment, or what Jack Katz (1988) refers to as the foreground of crime (see also Groves & Lynch 1990). ...
Active offender research relies on the collection of data from noninstitutionalized criminals and has made significant contributions to our understanding of the etiology of serious crime. This review covers its history as well as its methodological, scientific, and ethical pitfalls and advantages. Because study subjects are currently and freely engaging in crime at the time of data collection, their memories, attitudes, and feelings about their criminality and specific criminal events are rich, detailed, and accurate. Contemporary approaches to active offender research employ systematized formats for data collection and analysis that improve the validity of findings and help illuminate the foreground of crime. Although active offender research has traditionally relied on qualitative techniques, we outline the potential for it to make contributions via mixed methods, experiments, and emerging computational and technological approaches, such as virtual reality simulation studies and agent-based modeling.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Criminology, Volume 3 is January 13, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... Some critics might suggest that more emphasis needs to be placed upon a qualitative approach, so that problems like public dissatisfaction can be adequately addressed. Woodward, Webb, Griffin, and Copes (2016) highlight the fact that quantitative methods are less time consuming and often rely on "secondary data" (341). Quantitative methods make conducting research easier and faster. ...
... Despite this, the discipline of criminology has often become detached from the subject matter. The majority of self-report research comes from structured questionnaires and is quantified for statistical analysis (Woodward et al. 2016). Even research based on ethnographic methods can be detached. ...
... These frequencies were similar when comparing articles that mentioned funding based on top ranked journal articles and top cited articles. Co-authorship has been identified as a growing trend in CCJ articles (Roche et al. 2019;Tewksbury and Mustaine 2011;Woodward et al. 2016). We found that the mean number of authors for the qualitative articles comprising our full analysis sample was 2.4 and the median was 2. In addition, 70.5% of articles included in our sample included co-authored studies. ...
Decades of research have recognized the phenomenon of repeat victimization and its policy relevance. Although there are continuing efforts to explain the theoretical underpinnings of repeat victimization, there are still measurement-related issues that limit our understanding of the topic and ability to inform interventions, including varying operational definitions, data constraints, and sampling and nonsampling error. In this article, we review theoretical advances in the literature over the past decade, propose operationalizations that can foster greater consistency across studies, comprehensively assess the data constraints around commonly used public data sources to study repeat victimization, and empirically demonstrate how one of these constraints—missing data—can be considered. Recommendations for future research in the area of repeat victimization are provided.
A decade ago, research empirically established that there is a dearth of criminological research on “Indigenous peoples in the criminal legal context of settler-colonial societies” published in elite criminology journals and that the scarce number of published studies primarily employs “silencing research methods” although mainstream criminologists generally prefer non-silencing research methods. Since the hyperincarceration of Indigenous peoples continues and publications on the topic remain scarce, this study set out to verify whether anything has changed over the past decade (2011–2020) with regard to the use of silencing research methods. The findings reveal that when criminologists address the topic Indigenous peoples in the criminal legal context of settler-colonial societies, the use of non-silencing research methods has increased overall, but it is not yet on par with their general use by criminologists and when compared to their use with other hyperincarcerated populations, i.e., African and Hispanic Americans. Also, Indigenous people in the United States face increased silencing. The study concludes that small, non-linear inroads have been made toward ending the discriminatory use of non-silencing research methods with the understanding that the use of such methods alone is insufficient for research to be considered non-silencing or even decolonising.
In this chapter, we provide an insight into the literature characteristics of the empirical research that was found on police decision-making by means of a scoping review. More specifically, we focus on the publication characteristics (type and language of publication, common journals and keywords), timing of the studies published, the geographical distribution of these studies, the type of research and research methods used to study police decision-making and the evolution of police decision-making over time (e.g. shifts in topics or research methods used). Perhaps not surprisingly, more than half of the studies included in the shortlist were conducted in the United States and were quantitative in nature. Although a variety of research methods were used, the use of secondary data, interviews and observations were most common. Furthermore, we found that domestic violence and sexual offenses were the most frequently studied crime types. Arrest and use of force were the most commonly studied decisions. Situational characteristics and civilian characteristics were most frequently included in empirical research, whereas neighborhood characteristics were least common. The most regular factor is the civilians’ ethnicity, race or skin color.
The academic field of Convict Criminology (CC) started in the mid-1990s. In general, CC argues that the insights and experiences of currently and formerly incarcerated men and women are typically ignored in scholarly research and policy making circles. Since its founding a considerable amount of scholarly activity connected to this school, movement, and network occurred. Although CC scholars have reviewed the CC literature and activities, none have performed a rigorous content analysis of the scholarship in this field. This approach is important to understand who has written this work, their background, the venues where this academic writing has been published, the content of this work, and the impact of this literature. More importantly this type of analysis may provide a better sense of what kinds of future research on CC, or using the CC approach, should be conducted. Specifically, this study presents the results of a content analysis of 79 pieces of scholarship on CC published between 2001 and August 2022. The conclusion points out areas where continued scholarship using the Convict Criminology framework may be conducted.
Amidst the proliferation of community- and place-based, several innovative measurement tools have become more readily available for criminological and criminal justice researchers. The current study illustrates the utility of two novel data sources – Google transportation data and municipal infrastructure files – as a means of extending studies focused on racial and ethnic segregation’s effect on crime to include critical insights from environmental criminology regarding neighborhood boundary permeability. In doing so, we utilize data from over 120 block groups in Little Rock, Arkansas that include measures of Black isolation and boundary permeability: walk times to adjacent neighborhoods and thru streets captured in city infrastructure files. Our findings reveal that both segregation and neighborhood boundary permeability affect crime independently and net of key structural and spatial covariates, but that boundary permeability conditions the effect of segregation on crime. We conclude by discussing how the integration of newer and under-utilized measurement tools advances long-standing research on segregation and crime by operationalizing key theoretical concepts that have remained difficult to include using more standard secondary databases
Purpose
This article provides an overview of the latest empirical research regarding police decision-making in Belgium from 2000 to 2021 in terms of methodology and general findings (e.g. types and year of publication, topics studied). Recommendations are given concerning police research and the development of a research agenda.
Design/methodology/approach
Fourteen separate and limited scoping reviews regarding police decision-making topics were carried out by students in criminology and law. All scoping reviews followed the same procedure.
Findings
Seventy-nine unique publications are included in the analyses. These show that police violence is most frequently studied, whereas violence against the police was only included in one publication. Empirical research on bodycams and (social) media was not found. Most of the studies followed a quantitative research design, mainly by means of secondary data analysis.
Research limitations/implications
The scoping reviews are limited in scope and were carried out by different students, potentially leading to variable interpretations and selections. Additionally, the conclusions are partly the result of the developed review protocols (e.g. keywords, databases).
Originality/value
This article combines 14 different scoping reviews, following the same procedure, on subtopics regarding police decision-making and thus enabling comparison of the literature found in a consistent way.
Prior research suggests there are inconsistencies between the UCR and other National-level crime data sources. Less research has tested whether similar inconsistencies exist between UCR and State annual crime reports. The current study compared 48 U.S. State’s Part I offense counts to the FBI’s UCR’s Part I offense counts for the years 2000–2018. Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences for specific Part I offense counts as reported by individual States and the UCR. Percentage differences further indicated that the magnitudes of differences were substantively meaningful. Pairwise correlations indicated strong linear associations and convergence between State and UCR Part I offenses Nationally, but convergence diminished when assessing individual States. Frequency and percentage differences were treated as dependent variables in multivariate models. Results from OLS regressions suggest certain State-level factors significantly predict the observed differences between State and UCR reported Part I offenses. These results reveal that inconsistencies exist between two official data sources which have the same origin.
A crisis of confidence has struck the behavioral and social sciences. A key factor driving the crisis is the low levels of statistical power in many studies. Low power is problematic because it leads to increased rates of false-negative results, inflated false-discovery rates, and over-estimates of effect sizes. To determine whether these issues impact criminology, we computed estimates of statistical power by drawing 322 mean effect sizes and 271 average sample sizes from 81 meta-analyses. The results indicated criminological studies, on average, have a moderate level of power (mean = 0.605), but there is variability. This variability is observed across general studies as well as those designed to test interventions. Studies using macro-level data tend to have lower power than studies using individual-level data. To avoid a crisis of confidence, criminologists must not ignore statistical power and should be skeptical of large effects found in studies with small samples.
This article presents findings from an ongoing study of the integration of women and non-white scholarship into the discipline of criminology and criminal justice. The most-cited women and non-white scholars in six major American journals were determined for 1986–2005 to investigate (1) if the dissemination of published research findings in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is affected by gender and race/ethnicity and (2) if changes in scholarly influence of women and non-white scholars in CCJ over 20 years exists. A number of explanations are suggested to account for gender and racial differentials in citation rates.
Previous research assessing the productivity of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars has sought to determine the overall most productive scholars based on various measures (e.g. total articles published, total cites, and articles per year). While such lists may be important for those who rank high, they may be best used to establish benchmarks for the discipline. To date, research examining the stars in CCJ has focused on overall stars. The aim of the current research is to highlight the most productive scholars (in CCJ doctoral programs), but to do so based on academic rank. As such, our sample is more inclusive than others that have assessed highly productive scholars in the field. By disaggregating productivity measures by academic ranks, it is possible to determine rising stars in the discipline as well as top stars overall. Additionally, and we think more importantly, such rankings give insights into the state of the discipline.
Theoretical explanations, systemic response, and policy work on offenders and specific crime types are the backbone of criminal justice curricula in the United States. However, a similar breadth and depth of education on crime victims appear to be lacking in traditional criminal justice curricula, despite voluminous research on victims of crime. In this exploratory study, the authors conducted a content analysis of 679 programs from the Academy of Criminal Justice (ACJS) website directory. Departmental and course-level variables were included in the analysis. Results indicate that while more than half of the programs have faculty with expressed interests in victimization, only 11% of programs studied required coursework on crime victims and/or victimization. Implications of the results are discussed.
In a recent article published in Criminology, Burt and Simons (2014) claimed that the statistical violations of the classical twin design render heritability studies useless. Claiming quantitative genetics is “fatally flawed” and describing the results generated from these models as “preposterous,” Burt and Simons took the unprecedented step to call for abandoning heritability studies and their constituent findings. We show that their call for an “end to heritability studies” was premature, misleading, and entirely without merit. Specifically, we trace the history of behavioral genetics and show that 1) the Burt and Simons critique dates back 40 years and has been subject to a broad array of empirical investigations, 2) the violation of assumptions in twin models does not invalidate their results, and 3) Burt and Simons created a distorted and highly misleading portrait of behavioral genetics and those who use quantitative genetic approaches.
This article investigates the number of publications of thousands of members of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) in hundreds of journals listed in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index (CJPI). Publications in 2004–2005 of ASC members in 2005, and publications in 2010–2011 of ASC members in 2011, were investigated. Only ASC members who were considered to be “at risk” of publishing in Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) journals were included. About one-third of ASC members published at least one CJPI article in 2004–2005, but this increased to one-half by 2010–2011. The number of articles published per year by those who published any articles also increased, from 1.0 in 2004–2005 to 1.4 in 2010–2011. The number of articles published in the 26 most central CCJ journals also increased, by about 75%. The most-published scholars in the first time period were Alex R. Piquero, Brian K. Payne, Francis T. Cullen, David W. Webb, and Julian V. Roberts; the most-published scholars in the second time period were Alex R. Piquero, Kevin M. Beaver, Wesley G. Jennings, George E. Higgins, and Matthew J. Delisi. Alex R. Piquero was the most prolific publisher on all measures in both time periods. Female scholars were more likely to appear among the most-published scholars in the second time period.
This investigation addresses the question of whether the establishment of
intellectual boundaries between criminology and criminal justice are the
result of substantive methodological and theoretical differences. To provide
an outline of the contours of criminal justice and criminology, we performed
a descriptive content analysis of 1,877 peer reviewed articles published
in the field’s top journals over the period of 1951–2008. Three
primary results emerged. First, criminology and criminal justice articles are
appearing in separate journals. Second, criminology articles were significantly
more likely to utilize theory, although criminal justice articles are
closing the gap as of recent. Third, criminology and criminal justice articles
showed few significant methodological differences until 1981. Since then,
relative to criminal justice, criminology articles are more quantitative,
more multivariate, more analytical, and more micro-level focused. Implications
for the convergence and divergence of theories and methodologies are
discussed.
There is a need to explore trends in data use by researchers in criminology to assess the limitations of the knowledge base in the discipline. The current study explores the use of data published in three top criminology journals over a 10-year period to review: (1) data types (primary, secondary, or both), (2) the age of the data, and (3) whether scholars using data at least a decade old mention it as a limitation. The study found that the time dimension of data varied by publication source. A heavy reliance on secondary data was observed across all journals. Studies using only secondary data tended to have older data on average when compared to other data types. A majority of articles using data at least a decade old did not mention it is a shortcoming. The paper concludes by discussing advantages and disadvantages of relying on secondary data within the discipline of criminology.
Unfortunately, the nature versus nurture debate continues in criminology. Over the past five years there has been a surge of studies in criminology estimating the heritability of crime and related outcomes, which invariably report sizeable heritability estimates (~50%) and minimal to non-existent effects of the so-called shared environment. Reports of such high heritabilities for complex social behaviors such as crime are surprising, and findings indicating minimal shared environmental influences (usually interpreted to include parenting and community factors) seem implausible given decades of criminological research demonstrating their importance. Importantly, however, the models on which these estimates are based have fatal flaws for complex social behaviors such as crime. Moreover, the very goal of heritability studies—partitioning the effects of nature versus nurture—is misguided given the bidirectional, interactional relationship between genes, cells, organisms, and environments. The present study provides a critique of heritability study methods and assumptions to illuminate the dubious foundations of heritability estimates and questions the rationale and utility of partitioning genetic and environmental effects. After critiquing the major models, namely twin and adoption studies, from both the classical and recently emergent postgenomic paradigms, we call for an end to heritability studies given their flaws and their rather limited value for advancing knowledge on the etiology of crime. We then present what we perceive to be a more useful biosocial research agenda that is consonant with and informed by recent advances in our understanding of gene function and developmental plasticity. We conclude by noting that at the current state of knowledge social explanations of crime are not undermined by genetic or biological findings, but rather the more we learn about genes and biology, the more consequential the environment becomes.
Articles published in seven leading criminology and criminal justice journals were coded with regard to the research methods used, focusing on the general research designs, data-gathering methods, and statistical analysis techniques employed. The results indicated that survey research was by far the dominant mode of acquiring criminological information, that cross-sectional nonexperimental designs still predominated, and that multivariate statistical methods were the norm. The findings could aid criminology and criminal justice faculty in devising graduate methods curricula that reflected the state-of-the-art as currently practiced by criminological researchers.
Research methods selection is perhaps the longest‐standing ongoing social science debate. While it is widely acknowledged that quantitative strategies dominate academic fields concerned with crime, this basic assumption has rarely been scrutinized. This paper examines all articles published in five leading criminal justice journals during a five‐year period to determine the frequency which various methods are employed, as well as methodological preferences across author gender, academic rank, and by author credit. Findings confirm a quantitative bias that is not necessarily categorically representative of the criminal justice sciences. Rather, methods selection varies according to individual journal and author characteristics. The related issue of methodological training bias and the implications for scholarship are considered.
Despite qualitative research having much to offer to the understanding and prevention of crime, academic research in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is primarily quantitative. The relatively limited amount of ethnographic research in the field contributes to difficulties in understanding what represents sound ethnographic designs and the most appropriate ways to present such information. The current study examines the relative frequency with which ethnographic research appears in CCJ journals, and more importantly, the content of these articles. We find that less than 4% of all research published in 15 top CCJ journals use ethnographic methods. We present patterns about the methodological (e.g., sample size, type of data collection, and characteristics of participants) and stylistic (writing style, discussion of coding, and policy recommendations) content of these articles. We conclude with implications for our findings and point to substantive areas of research that may need more attention.
Most criminologists would agree that the discipline favors quantitative methodologies over qualitative ones. The present study seeks to revisit and expand past assessments on the prominence of qualitative research appearing in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) publication outlets. Our inquiry is divided into two parts. First we consider the frequency with which empirical studies based upon qualitative methods and analyses were published in top CCJ journals from 2004 to 2008. Second, we add a new avenue of inquiry to the discussion by assessing the frequency with which qualitative methods and analyses are being used in doctoral dissertations produced within the US CCJ PhD programs during the same five‐year timeframe. Overall, our findings support the claim that qualitative research continues to represent only a small proportion of published research in the field. We seek to contextualize this empirical observation within the existing debate on the role of methods and theory in CCJ scholarship.
Recently, scholars have sought to learn more about scholarly activity within the fields of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ). Research in this area has examined which departments have the most productive faculty, which scholars are the most productive, and which journals are the most prestigious. However, no study of which we are aware has determined what journals criminologists are most likely to cite in their scholarly research. In this study, we rank the most influential journals by the number of times those journals were cited between 2009 and 2013 in Criminology, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly. Our analyses suggest that Criminology is clearly the most influential CCJ journal in terms of citations, while the American Sociological Review, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and the American Journal of Sociology remain influential in CCJ as well.
This article validates the necessity of adjusting for the design effects in disproportionate stratified sampling designs through the use of sample weights. Using data from the 1958 Birth Cohort study, we demonstrate that complex sampling designs introduce sampling error and even sampling bias into sample data. Such sample data are a poor representation of population parameters. These design effects can be addressed through the application of sample weights.
Department heads are unique academic positions which can bridge the worlds of faculty and administration. As such, they are sometimes in the unique position where their perceptions and experiences can have real-world impact in the realm of assessing a colleague’s work, tweaking departmental policies of promotion and advancement, and mentoring. While faculty members of all levels have opinions of collaboration, department heads are the leaders who can actually act upon those perceptions, yet these perceptions have not been examined. This study addresses this gap in a survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology department heads (n = 73). The survey varied authorship order, journal prestige, medium of journal, and also examined co-author prestige. In addition, 12 years of 20 criminal justice journals were coded for solo-authored publications. Results demonstrated differential publication trends between top tier and lower tiered journals, and that department heads attributed these trends as a combination of increasing social research networks and more pragmatic concerns. Of particular interest, is the differential value respondents placed on solo-authored work and collaborative work even when taking into consideration prestige of the journal.
Most studies investigating individual achievement in criminology and criminal justice equate total publications with scholarly productivity. The current study sought to broaden the definition of scholarly productivity by incorporating empirical indices of the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity and applying these indices to both total and first author publications. Analyses performed using publication and citation data from the top 100 criminology and criminal justice scholars over the past 5 years revealed that the total number of publications was no substitute for an integrated (quantity and quality) assessment. Results further indicated that averaging across the total publication and first author integrated models seemed to provide the fairest and most balanced assessment of scholarly productivity. It was also noted that compared to non-theoreticians, theoreticians were more likely to publish first author articles and fared significantly better when evaluated against the first author integrated model than when evaluated against the total publications integrated model. Use of these models to assess scholarly productivity in criminology, criminal justice, and other fields may be warranted.
Perceptions of the collaborative research trend and personal rationales for authorship collaboration were examined in a sample (n = 542) of Criminal Justice and Criminology faculty members. Collaboration was pervasive across the sample with approximately half reporting that collaboration was involved in a majority of their published works. Generally, collaboration is perceived to be a combination of social research networks and more pragmatic concerns (ease of collaboration and increasingly diminishing time to do research due to university obligations). Results are disaggregated by academic rank, research orientation, and collaboration involvement. Preliminary evidence of a “culture of collaboration” is presented and discussed.
Criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) as an academic discipline has experienced an increase in the focus on various aspects of academic productivity in recent years. Much of the extant literature examining journal article authorship has focused on various measures of the publication productivity of specific authors but not on the characteristics of the authors themselves. The current study expands upon previous work by examining several author characteristics across different journal types and research methodologies, with a particular focus on how gender relates to these issues. The findings reveal several interesting differences with regard to gender, academic rank, and university affiliation. Among these findings is evidence that although males are more likely to author CCJ articles regardless of journal type, females are more likely to be lead authors in regional journal articles and more likely to publish with other female authors. Regional journals are also the publication outlet of choice for students and assistant professors in the beginning of their careers. The findings also provide evidence of important differences in author rank, academic affiliation, methodology, and publication outlet for articles authored by females.
The emphasis on quantitative research over qualitative research in criminal justice has encountered strong criticism; yet it has endured. One dimension of its persistence concerns the organization of doctoral programs in the field. In this article I examine the extent and rationality of the quantitative emphasis within these programs. Course requirements in quantitative methods, relative to those in qualitative methods, are explored as indicators of this emphasis. I find support for the claim that doctoral education in criminal justice has gone beyond mere emphasis on quantitative methods, and has become a detrimental preoccupation. In addition to supplementing the ongoing critique of this emphasis, I consider the possibility of moderating it.
The scientific standing of criminal justice and criminology has been an issue of sometimes heated debate among academics with varying research orientations. In an effort to help delineate the methodological development of the two fields, this study compares seven dimensions of research methods employed in the 966 articles published in Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Justice Quarterly during the period from 1976 through 1988. The findings show that Criminology papers tend to focus on crime causation, social control, and delinquency. This journal also places a strong emphasis on inductive empiricism; such research typically uses correlational research designs, cross-sectional data, and multivariate statistics. Studies in the criminal justice journals use similar methods but emphasize law enforcement (Journal of Criminal Justice), courts (Justice Quarterly), and corrections. An analysis over time shows a general increase in empirical works that examine relationships among variables and use multivariate statistics. It is argued that the overall pattern of findings reflects the relative age and development of the fields.
This research on criminal justice programs and curricula in 1999–2000 is a follow-up to Southerland's study of baccalaureate programs in 1988–89, published in the Spring 1991 issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education . A national overview and regional differences are presented. Positive and negative changes are highlighted, and recommendations for improvement are included. The findings are evaluated in light of the ACJS Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Education and the broader context of general trends in higher education.
The status of baccalaureate criminal justice education is examined by using a stratified random sample of all criminal justice programs in the United States. The study was designed and conducted to provide an empirical basis for evaluating current baccalaureate degree criminal justice programs in the nation and within and among the regions. The curricula of the sample programs are examined and compared by region. The specific course requirements in the sample baccalaureate curricula and the criminal justice courses offered by the sample programs during academic year 1987–1988 are examined. The current status of the baccalaureate criminal justice curriculum in the nation is discussed.
Employing a content analysis of sociology, political science, and criminology and criminal justice journals from 1964 to 1996, we explored trends in authorship. The data revealed that multiple authorship is now a common form of journal scholarship in the social sciences and is especially prevalent in criminology and criminal justice journals. The analysis showed that the dominant form of authorship among females is collaboration with at least one male. It also appears that multiple authorship is less widespread for theoretical articles and more common among empirical articles using more sophisticated quantitative techniques.
This article critiques DiCristina's (1977) JCJE article concerning the quantitative emphasis in criminal justice curriculums. I argue that he (1) overlooked one of the more profound merits associated with quantitative research when he proposed that both methods should receive equal attention, (2) underestimated the contribution quantitative methods have made to policy, and (3) confused theoretical problems with methodological problems when he evaluated the connection between quantitative methodology and crime control policy.
Without the explanatory power of general theoretical principles, criminal justice educators are limited to subjectively describing the structure and function of our systems of criminal justice rather than explaining why these systems behave the way they do. Because of this, criminal justice lacks integrity as a legitimate academic discipline that seeks to meet the objectives of a liberal arts education. This paper explores the establishment of ideology as a first principle of criminal justice, derived from political philosophy and sociological theory. We examine ways to build upon this principle as a means of teaching criminal justice within the guise of the liberal arts tradition by guiding students toward a deeper understanding of the nature of our criminal justice systems and their place in larger society.
The development of knowledge is important for criminology and criminal justice. Two predominant types of methods are available for criminologists' to use--quantitative and qualitative methods. The value, appropriateness and necessity of using qualitative methods is discussed. Because of the unique contributions - depth of understandings being primary -- that qualitative methods can provide it is argued that such approaches should be used more frequently, be more frequently and strongly valued and seen as unique, often superior approaches to the creation of criminological and criminal justice knowledge. Qualitative research, one of the two primary approaches to the conduct of social science research, is a superior means for conducting meaningful research in criminology and criminal justice. The numerous advantages of qualitative methods provide a depth of understanding of crime, criminals and justice system operations and processing that far exceeds that offered by detached, statistical analyses. Because of the differences in the data, how data is collected and analyzed, and what the data and analyses are able to tell us about our subjects of study, the knowledge gained through qualitative investigations is more informative, richer and offers enhanced understandings compared to that which can be obtained via quantitative research. The superiority of qualitative research arises from the core differences in what qualitative and quantitative research are, and what they are able to contribute to bodies of knowledge. At the core, qualitative research focuses on the meanings, traits and defining characteristics of
The development of knowledge is important for criminology and criminal justice. Two predominant types of methods are available for criminologists' to use--quantitative and qualitative methods. A debate is presently taking place in the literature as to which of these methods is the proper method to provide knowledge in criminology and criminal justice. The present study outlines the key issues for both methods and suggests that a criminologist' research questions and hypotheses should be used to determine the proper method.
This article explores the quantitative/qualitative divide in the fields of criminology and criminal justice. The article reports findings from a study of: (1) quantitative and qualitative methods used in a sample of journal articles published in top-tier and lower-tier academic journals; (2) doctoral methods and statistics curricula; and (3) journal editor perceptions about the quantitative/qualitative divide. The study found a large gap between the use of quantitative and qualitative methods in published research that reported empirical findings. The content analysis of Ph.D. curricula suggests that the qualitative/quantitative divide in published research is a logical extension of a similar divide in the teaching of methods in doctoral programs. The interviews with journal editors suggest that they are generally receptive to qualitatively oriented research; however, these journal editors also identified several important barriers that contribute to the ongoing divide in published criminology and criminal justice research. Implications are discussed.
This study examines the mean number of authors of criminology and criminal justice articles as well as the percentage of solo‐authored articles across 14 criminology and criminal justice journals. Data are from 11,870 journal articles over 44 years. Findings show that solo‐authored papers have declined from nearly three‐quarters of all articles in the late 1960s to just more than one‐quarter at the end of the first decade of the twenty‐first century. Mean number of authors per article has increased from 1.3 in the late 1960s to 2.5 currently. Data are presented across years and for individual journals.
Within criminal justice/criminology exists a host of available research methods that generally default along qualitative and quantitative lines. Studying crime and justice phenomena, then, generally involves choosing one approach or the other. Although this binary tradition of qualitative vs. quantitative has predominated, our field’s methodological infrastructure has recently demonstrated a willingness to adopt more inclusive practices. The purpose of this study is to discuss the nascent yet probable transformation of re‐orienting our field toward a new paradigm of inclusiveness that acknowledges the use of mixed methods research as being both legitimate and beneficial. This paper examines the role methodological exclusivism has had in delaying an appreciation of both paradigms as credible in their own right and even compatible under certain circumstances. In addition, this effort uncovers the increasingly yet little recognized presence of mixed methods research in our field and illuminates that this approach can be used to conduct rigorous multi‐dimensional research.
This study offers an alternative to the available ranking studies of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars by identifying the most prolific sole and lead authors who published their work in eight elite CCJ journals during the first decade of the twenty‐first century. The findings suggest that individual ranks vary based on the measure used (e.g., frequency vs. standardized rate). Consistent with previous research, we found that a small number of scholars publishing in top journals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the published work.
An increasing debate over whether criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) should be viewed as an independent academic area has evolved over the past 20 years. Some scholars have argued that CCJ is best understood as a subfield of sociology, while others have proposed it deserves independent status. This paper provides a brief history of this debate and offers key rubrics used by recent scholars to evaluate CCJ’s standing within academia. By assessing data such as graduation statistics, program placement, faculty degree area, and scholarly productivity, we contrast CCJ with sociology. Our findings offer strong support for the position that CCJ is no longer a minor specialization within sociology, but rather a robust, growing, and increasingly independent academic area.
This paper presents a method for delivering a graduate seminar in qualitative methods specific to criminology/criminal justice with a goal of providing a course that is balanced between classic readings and time in the field. We provide an overview of the course structure, a sample reading list, and the means to carry out an in‐class fieldwork project over the course of a single semester, including research topics that have a proven track record for first‐time fieldworkers. Also discussed are bureaucratic challenges to fieldwork, physical and mental challenges, and potential dangers of fieldwork.
Criminal justice education has a checkered past, but a potentially very bright future. That past and that future, with the present sandwiched in between, are laid out here. My prime goal is to pose an agenda for teaching and learning about crime, law and justice in the 21st century. This is an agenda that seeks to insure quality, while dramatically expanding the scope and depth of criminal justice education.
Recently there has been a vigorous dialogue over the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) academic standards pertaining to the role of JDs within criminal justice academic programs. It is a next logical step to open a discussion on a related aspect of the ACJS standards: “doctorates in a closely related field.” This discussion should center on how “closely” the “closely related fields” should be. This article examines the relationship between an education in sociology and criminology/criminal justice programs respectively by comparing the general curricular requirements, undergraduate and graduate, in a selection of sociology and criminology and criminal justice programs. This analysis indicates that there is a great deal of similarity within the sociology curricula, which contain sociologically oriented classes and criminology/criminal justice curricula, which contain criminologically oriented courses, but there is little overlap in course offerings across these two academic areas. Specifically, sociology graduates are not exposed to a meaningful number of criminology/criminal justice classes.
Research methods are perhaps the most difficult subject matter to teach in the graduate criminal justice curricula. This is in part due to the mix of practitioners and aspiring researchers in most criminal justice graduate departments, leading many instructors to question whether their own coverage is in line with the needs of their graduate students as well as the coverage of other instructors. Also complicating matters is that research methods textbooks are not geared specifically for the graduate level, and thus may neglect topics that are necessary for today's criminal justice graduate students. The present study addresses these concerns by providing an analysis of 11 current criminal justice research methods textbooks, as well as a survey of 36 instructors of graduate criminal justice and criminology research methods classes. Both the texts and instructors are found to place a strong focus on quantitative methods, while the textbooks tend to place a greater emphasis on qualitative methods than the instructors. Moreover, both the texts and instructors neglect topics crucial to today's criminal justice graduate student, including grant writing, article writing and critiquing, and standards for collaborative research efforts.
In this short essay I attempt to summarize my view of qualitative research and delineate a few of the challenges that qualitative researchers working in the field of criminal justice face. I reflect and draw upon my past research to demonstrate my opportunities and challenges in the hope that others can learn from my experiences and mistakes. While qualitative criminal justice researchers have much to be wary of in terms of institutional review boards, increased publication pressures, and highly quantitative journals and departments, there is, nevertheless, hope for the future.
Qualitative research methods in criminology have been supplanted in recent years by advanced statistical inquiries into various quantitative data sources. There is, however, an emerging body of qualitative analyses using data generated from various sources available on‐line. As the Internet and computer‐mediated communications (CMCs), such as email and instant messaging, are rapidly adopted by all manner of criminals and deviants, it is critical that qualitative criminologists recognize how this data may be examined in order to understand social phenomena. This article considers the utility of the Internet, websites, and various forms of CMCs as a source for traditional qualitative criminology inquiry. Each type is addressed in detail, along with the unique methodological and ethical concerns present in Internet‐based explorations.
The current analysis builds on the works of Fabianic [J. Crim. Justice 9 (1981) 247.] and Sorensen [J. Crim. Justice 22 (1994) 535.], examining the institutional affiliations of authors in the top eight criminology and criminal justice journals during the years 1995 through 1999. University of Cincinnati ranked first and University of Maryland second on this measure of productivity. Institutions housing doctoral programs in criminal justice dominated the top rankings, suggesting that criminal justice may finally be maturing as a discipline.
This study extended the work of Sorensen and Pilgrim (2002) by examining the institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals in the subsequent five-year period after their study. Additionally, this study replicated Fabianic's (2002) study, by assessing the average publications of the faculty at the most productive criminal justice graduate programs. The current study examined the years 2000–2004 and made comparisons to the previous studies, which assessed 1995–1999. Findings revealed the University of Cincinnati and the University of Maryland were the most productive institutions and had the most productive faculty.
The analysis of citations makes it possible to identify influential scholars and topics during particular time periods. The advantages and problems of using citations are reviewed, and it is concluded that they provide a reasonably valid measure of the influence and prestige of scholars. The number of different articles (or books) in which a scholar is cited, however, may be a better measure than the total number of citations. The most-cited authors in six major American criminology and criminal justice journals in 1986–1990 (excluding self-citations) were determined. Travis Hirschi was most-cited in Criminology and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Marvin E. Wolfgang in Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Francis T. Cullen in Justice Quarterly, Robert M. Regoli in Journal of Criminal Justice, and Edwin I. Megargee in Criminal Justice and Behavior. Over all six journals, the most-cited authors were Marvin E. Wolfgang, Michael J. Hindelang, and Alfred Blumstein. Their influence was connected with the perceived importance of criminal career research and the longitudinal method, measuring crime and delinquency, and the prestigious National Academy of Sciences panel reports.
Articles published in seven leading criminology and criminal justice journals were coded with regard to the research methods used, focusing on the general research designs, data-gathering methods, and statistical analysis techniques employed. The results indicated that survey research was by far the dominant mode of acquiring criminological information, that cross-sectional nonexperimental designs still predominated, and that multivariate statistical methods were the norm. The findings could aid criminology and criminal justice faculty in devising graduate methods curricula that reflected the state-of-the-art as currently practiced by criminological researchers.
Reflections on the ascendancy of biosocial criminology
- K Beaver
- J P Wright
Beaver, K., & Wright, J. P. (2013). Reflections on the ascendancy of biosocial criminology. ACJS Today, XXXVIII, 1, 4, 6-11.
Inner themes-outer behaviours a multivariate facet model of U.S. serial murderers' crime scene actions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
- G M Godwin
Godwin, G. M. (1998). Inner themes-outer behaviours a multivariate facet model of
U.S. serial murderers' crime scene actions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.