No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Persona Non Grata: The Marginalization of Legal Scholarship in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals
Abstract
Recently, concern has been voiced within the academy regarding the marginalization of legal scholarship within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline. Although conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence indicate that it is difficult to get legal scholarship published in CCJ journals, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals. The present study assesses the representation of legal scholarship in 20 CCJ journals from 2005 to 2015, examining both trends over time and variation across journals. Findings indicate legal scholarship comprises a very small portion of articles published, there has been a steep decline in the number of legal articles published in recent years, and the average number of legal articles per year is very low for nearly all of the journals in the sample. The implications of the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline are discussed.
... Despite the importance of law in delineating what conduct constitutes crime (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco, del Carmen, Steinmetz, Vaughn, & Spaic, 2015) and in setting limits on the criminal justice system's response to crime (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b, law has been marginalized within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline both with regard to the place of law-related courses in CCJ education (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco et al., 2015) and the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals (Hemmens, 2016;Rowe, McCann, & Hemmens, 2017). Recently, a growing number of CCJ scholars have made a persuasive argument that it is time to remedy the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco et al., 2015;Nolasco, Vaughn, & del Carmen, 2010;Rowe et al., 2017). ...
... Despite the importance of law in delineating what conduct constitutes crime (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco, del Carmen, Steinmetz, Vaughn, & Spaic, 2015) and in setting limits on the criminal justice system's response to crime (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b, law has been marginalized within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline both with regard to the place of law-related courses in CCJ education (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco et al., 2015) and the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals (Hemmens, 2016;Rowe, McCann, & Hemmens, 2017). Recently, a growing number of CCJ scholars have made a persuasive argument that it is time to remedy the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline (Hemmens, 2015a(Hemmens, , 2015b(Hemmens, , 2016Nolasco et al., 2015;Nolasco, Vaughn, & del Carmen, 2010;Rowe et al., 2017). In light of this important discussion regarding the place of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline, now is an opportune time to garner empirical evidence concerning the authorship of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline, shedding light on the extent of collaboration among CCJ legal scholars and identifying CCJ legal scholars who have remained largely invisible to date due to their focus on a subfield which has been marginalized within the CCJ discipline. ...
... Finally, this study will identify the most prolific authors of legal articles and the most prolific authors of courts and sentencing articles and compare the number of articles published by the authors in these two groups. The comparison between authorship of legal articles and authorship of courts and sentencing articles provides a useful point of comparison because courts and sentencing is a related, but distinct, area of CCJ scholarship which is better represented in CCJ journals than legal scholarship is, yet is still underrepresented, considering that courts are one of the three main components of the criminal justice system (Rowe et al., 2017). Also, identifying the most prolific authors of courts and sentencing articles is responsive to Rice, Terry, Miller, and Ackerman's (2007) call for research identifying the most productive scholars within the subdisciplines. ...
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.
... This perspective is vital in ensuring that vulnerable populations, often most affected by climate change, are represented and protected in legal and policy frameworks. The marginalization of legal scholarship, as discussed by Rowe, McCann, and Hemmens (2016), presents a significant challenge to its influence on climate change policy (Rowe et al., 2016). Overcoming this marginalization requires legal scholars to actively engage with policymakers, practitioners, and the wider public, translating complex legal principles into actionable insights that can drive policy change. ...
... This perspective is vital in ensuring that vulnerable populations, often most affected by climate change, are represented and protected in legal and policy frameworks. The marginalization of legal scholarship, as discussed by Rowe, McCann, and Hemmens (2016), presents a significant challenge to its influence on climate change policy (Rowe et al., 2016). Overcoming this marginalization requires legal scholars to actively engage with policymakers, practitioners, and the wider public, translating complex legal principles into actionable insights that can drive policy change. ...
The imperative to address climate change has never been more urgent. As the world grapples with increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events, the role of legal scholarship in shaping policies for a sustainable future is increasingly critical. This letter aims to address the vital contribution of legal scholarship to climate change policy, emphasizing its unique position to bridge theory and practice, advocate for environmental justice, and facilitate the transition towards sustainable futures. By analyzing and proposing legal frameworks that prioritize adaptive capacity and social equity, legal scholars ensure that climate policies do not merely respond to environmental challenges but also contribute to building stronger, more just communities. In conclusion, the critical role of legal scholarship in shaping climate change policy cannot be overstated. As we navigate the complexities of global environmental challenges, the insights, analysis, and advocacy provided by legal scholars are indispensable in guiding our collective efforts towards a sustainable and equitable future. It is imperative that the legal community continues to engage with and contribute to the climate change discourse, ensuring that laws and policies not only address current environmental issues but also anticipate and mitigate future challenges. Let this letter serve as a call to action for legal scholars, policymakers, and society at large to recognize and leverage the unique contributions of legal scholarship in our global fight against climate change.
... Effective legal frameworks must include robust mechanisms for monitoring compliance and enforcing rules to deter violations and promote accountability (Athapaththu and Karunasena 2018). Various approaches have been employed to enhance compliance, including inspections, reporting requirements, and penalties for non-compliance (Rowe et al. 2016). In developed countries, regulatory agencies often have the resources and capacity to enforce environmental laws (Coker 2023). ...
This chapter underscores the pivotal role of robust policies and regulations in addressing global environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion. It explores the design, implementation, and impact of international agreements, national legislation, and governance models in promoting sustainability. Emphasis is placed on frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, which provide guidelines for coordinated action on ecological issues. Case studies, including Costa Rica’s Payment for Ecosystem Services and the European Union’s Water Framework Directive, highlight successful strategies for policy integration and stakeholder engagement. The chapter also evaluates diverse governance models, such as centralized and decentralized frameworks, participatory approaches, and integrating technology and data for environmental management. It also examines economic instruments like market-based mechanisms, subsidies, and Payment for Ecosystem Services, highlighting their potential and challenges. Legal frameworks and corporate accountability measures are reviewed, emphasizing the need for compliance, enforcement, and equity to achieve sustainable outcomes. Despite advancements, significant barriers remain, including political resistance, limited institutional capacity, and social opposition. Future directions advocate for adaptive, technology-driven, and inclusive approaches to policy-making. The chapter calls for a multi-level governance strategy that bridges global agreements with local actions, fostering collaboration and ensuring equitable resource management. By aligning sustainability goals with innovative governance and economic instruments, this chapter provides a roadmap for achieving long-term environmental resilience.
... Although the CCJ journals analyzed here may be generally considered the leading or top journals in the field, there is certainly disagreement among scholars regarding reliance on those journals as representative of the field. For instance, Kleck and Barnes (2011) noted that many CCJ scholars publish in journals in other fields, and Rowe, McCann, and Hemmens (2017) analyzed the marginalization of legal research in CCJ journals. And although reliance on impact factors has also been critiqued (see e.g., DeJong & George, 2018), Sorenson (2009) found that a combination of impact measures and prestige surveys can fairly reliably identify a 'rather stable hierarchy of outlets' (p. ...
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.
... Some advocate for more classic readings so that students learn the nature of criminal justice education [1], others argue for more inclusive curriculum so that comparative/international criminology could occupy a more prominent position [2,3], and still others mourn the demise of police education [4]. More recently, Rowe, McCann and Hemmens [5] complain about the marginalization of legal scholarship in criminology and criminal justice journals. As an interdisciplinary science, it is quite normal to hear these various arguments from the authors' own stand points. ...
The law plays an important role in society generally and the criminal justice system in particular. Without the law there would be nothing for the police to enforce and no need for courts to adjudicate offenders and impose criminal sanctions. But while the significance of the law and, by implication the courts wherein the law is enforced, is great, the academic discipline of criminal justice has not given law and courts the attention they deserve, either in the classroom or research. In this essay I lay out the case for why the teaching and study of law and courts is so important to academic criminal justice, and how the discipline has failed its students and the public in the way it deals with the law and courts.
In recent years, leaders in the field of criminology and criminal justice have advocated for comparative/international and collaborative research; however, there is uncertainty regarding how much comparative/international research on the topic of juvenile justice is being conducted and how well information on juvenile justice issues with a cross-cultural or international focus is being disseminated. This study analyzed the number and focus of studies on international/comparative juvenile justice papers in the four major US juvenile justice specialty journals (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, Journal of Juvenile Justice, UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, and Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice). Data came from 567 papers published during the period of 2000–2013. The authors discuss the roles of the juvenile justice specialty journals to encourage the study of juvenile justice internationally.
This article argues for the need to build legal competency in the discipline of criminal justice and criminology through incorporating law courses in its PhD program curriculum, whether as black letter law (i.e. criminal law, criminal procedure, courts), sociology of law, or socio-legal studies (i.e. law and society courses). Through requiring law courses as a necessary and integral part of the curriculum, and recognizing the mainstream impact of these courses, the discipline stands to enrich the field of legal studies in criminology and criminal justice. The discipline’s need and demand for law trained tenure track faculty with PhD credentials can only be met through consistent law course offerings.
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.
Although some have claimed that criminal justice and criminology have arrived as disciplines, recent research reveals that there is little consistency amongst Master's programs. This paper replicates and extends previous research into curricular requirements. The required course curricula of United States programs offering a Master's degree in criminal justice or criminology are described. This research identifies correlates of specific course requirements and provides a discussion of the current and future state of criminal justice and criminology graduate education.
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.
The results from a survey of ACJS and ASC members show that, while generally stable over time, some significant changes in journal prestige ratings have occurred. The results also show divergences between criminologists and justicians, mainly in the ratings of lower ranked policy‐oriented journals. An unprecedented degree of concordance between the two groups was noted for the highest ranked journals. The triumph of methodological strength over subject matter in the ratings of these top journals suggests that paradigmatic differences are shrinking, and the discipline finally appears to be carving out its own niche encompassing the study of crime and crime control.
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.
Criminal Justice departments across the country are experiening unprecedented growth. This growth has created a demand for qualified tenure-track faculty. Obviously, it is important to maintain quality standards for the hiring of tenure-track faculty during periods of growth. In an effort to improve the quality of Criminal Justice education, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences has adopted standards for certification of baccalaureate and graduate degree programs. One area adressed by the ACJS standards is the area of acceptable faculty credentials for certification. For example, graduate programs that desire the ACJS imprimatur cannot have a faculty with more than 1 in 10 faculty members who hold a Juris Doctor degree. Efforts to eliminate the JD from the CJ faculty ranks are misguided. Instead, CJ departments should focus on the individual candiadate. Graduates from top-tier institutions with a history of scholarly productivity and who possess ample skills in empirical study should not be excluded from tenure-track consideration solely because they lack a PhD. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. - William Shakespeare, Henry VI (Act IV, Scene II)
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.
This article informs the reader about legal research, compares it with other forms of social science research, and ultimately argues for the respect it is due, contending that law is at the core to a complete understanding of criminal justice and criminology. While research has a strong positivistic focus, legal scholarship has often set the foundational aspects of much in the field of criminal justice. The discipline is changing rapidly, however, with mixed methods research combining both qualitative and quantitative analysis, including legal issues in criminal justice. The article maintains that: (1) law research and social science research methodologically are not mutually exclusive; (2) legal research has made significant contributions to criminal justice and is not peripheral to quantitative research; and (3) legal research will and should continue to effectively contribute to the advancement of scholarship in criminal justice.
This article is a response to the criticisms of Drs. Hemmens and Hunter which appeared in recent issues of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education. Both agree that ACJS accreditation, which requires criminal justice departments who seek master’s program accreditation to have a faculty where 90% hold a PhD in criminal justice, will lead to greater status and strengthen the position of criminal justice programs within higher education. However, the 90% requirement does not necessarily improve the overall quality of the faculty in criminal justice programs and therefore should be eliminated. Moreover, the accreditation standards with respect to the faculty credential quotas fails to take into consideration the current faculty make‐up at some of America’s best criminal justice schools and is inferior to the rubric used by most regional accreditation organizations.
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.
The law plays an important role in society generally and the criminal justice system in particular. Without the law there would be nothing for the police to enforce and no need for courts to adjudicate offenders and impose criminal sanctions. But while the significance of the law and, by implication the courts wherein the law is enforced, is great, the academic discipline of criminal justice has not given law and courts the attention they deserve, either in the classroom or research. In this essay I lay out the case for why the teaching and study of law and courts is so important to academic criminal justice, and how the discipline has failed its students and the public in the way it deals with the law and courts.
In the event that the United States considers ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), concerns will be raised regarding whether such ratification and U.S. participation in the ICC would comply with the U.S. Constitution. A primary issue is whether such ratification would violate Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution regarding the judicial power of the United States. The authors argue that ratification following adoption of implementing legislation would not violate Article III, Section 1. The ratification strategy proposed in this Article would be grounded in the Article II, Section 2 treaty power and the Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 Define and Punish Clause of the Constitution, and include amendments to the federal criminal code and military code to ensure the ability of U.S. courts to investigate and prosecute the atrocity crimes comprising the subject matter jurisdiction of the Rome Statute. The Article confirms that fundamental due process rights are protected by the Rome Statute and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and that the absence of jury trials before the ICC does not violate the Constitution. Nonetheless, the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute enables the United States to prosecute any American citizen or other individual within its jurisdiction before a jury and in accordance with the full range of due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution and American jurisprudence. The United States would not be barred by the Constitution from agreeing to the Rome Statute's prohibition of head of state or other high-level immunity from prosecution before the ICC. The authors propose a ratification strategy that includes adoption of declarations, understandings, and provisos to clarify American adherence to its Constitution as a State Party to the Rome Statute.
This study aims to measure what changes the disciplines of criminology and criminal justice have undergone over the past decade with respect to white collar crime representation in the criminological literature. It is well documented in the white collar crime literature that white collar offending causes a greater number of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses as well as greater economic losses than all street crimes combined. Nevertheless, our analysis of the contents of 15 leading criminology and criminal justice journals from 2001-2010, 13 best-selling introductory CCJ textbooks, and all U.S. Ph.D. granting criminology and criminal justice programs indicates that white collar crime continues to be underrepresented in the criminological literature relative to all street crimes, similar to the findings in Lynch et al.'s 2004 study. Since then, the U.S. has experienced two unprecedented corporate crime waves, in the early part of the 2000s and in the latter part of the decade. Implications for white collar crime representation findings are discussed within the context of harm and crime seriousness relative to street crimes.
There has long been a debate about what, if anything, differentiates criminology and criminal justice programs. Both grew about of sociology and, to a lesser degree, law and political science. In the 1970s and early 1980s, debate arose over the scope and limits of the two. That debate has faded today but the perceptions emanating from that controversy linger. The current study seeks to reopen the debate and invite disciplinary reflection. Two sources of data are analyzed: (1) doctoral program curricula and (2) articles in the top-tier disciplinary journals. Results show criminology courses are well represented in criminal justice doctoral programs, while criminal justice courses constitute a comparatively smaller part of criminology doctoral programs. In top-tier disciplinary journals, criminology articles are more prevalent than criminal justice articles. Plausible explanations are advanced. It is hoped that these findings provide a new springboard for further research and discussion that will lead to a better understanding and delineation of these allied disciplines.
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.
Law-related courses, and more broadly the place of the law and lawyers in criminal justice programs, are the focus of this paper. I believe that the importance of the law, the study of legal issues, and the way in which the law is taught in criminal justice programs is in need of significant refinement. We need more law-related courses in the curriculum, at both the undergraduate and graduate level, more PhDs with an understanding of the law, and more legal research done by criminal justice scholars. In the pages that follow, I make the case for changing how we approach the study of law in criminal justice undergraduate and graduate programs.
The current study uses a mixed methods design to examine the so-called methodological divide in criminology and criminal justice and the extent to which mixed methods are being employed within the discipline. The authors content analyzed research articles from two national and four regional journals to determine the type and frequency of various methodologies. A sample of journal article authors was then surveyed to gain a better understanding of the methodological and publication pressures experienced by researchers. Findings indicate that although quantitative methods still dominate, the use of mixed methods appears to be increasing. Differences between national and regional journals are also discussed.
The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) took place in Rome at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The participants numbered 160 states, thirty-three intergovernmental organizations and a coalition of 236 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The conference concluded by adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a nonrecorded vote of 120 in favor, 7 against and 21 abstentions. The United States elected to indicate publicly that it had voted against the statute. France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation supported the statute.
In recent years there has been a vigorous debate in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice, concerning the role of faculty members in Criminology and Criminal Justice departments who hold a Juris Doctorate (JD), but lack a PhD. Some argue that faculty members with a JD possess sufficient credentials to be tenure-track faculty members within a department; however, others believe that a tenure-track faculty member within a department should hold a PhD. Two primary arguments in the debate concern the discrepancies in the hour requirements for degree certification, as well as the dissertation requirement for completion of a PhD. Although it seems both sides are entrenched in their respective beliefs, one plausible method of attempting to bridge this gap is to encourage interested students to enroll in joint JD/PhD programs. These programs are designed to overlap degree requirements and allow students to concurrently earn both degrees in a shorter period of time than if both degrees were earned separately. To analyze JD/PhD programs, a survey of the 201 American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools with joint degree programs within criminology and criminal justice (as well as other academic disciplines) was conducted. Of specific interest was the process of program integration and combined curriculum requirements.
Academic disciplines are artificial constructions, but also rational methods of organizing curriculum. A relatively new discipline such as criminal justice borrows its substance from established disciplines and wages a constant battle to be scholarly rather than merely vocational. JDs who teach in criminal justice programs find themselves tarred with the vocational brush; the resulting ghettoized status is reflected in salaries, hiring practices and lack of collaboration in teaching and research. JDs have no less commitment to teaching than do PhDs; their education is neither better nor worse, but different. Students will be better served if JDs are drawn into the academic mainstream as equal partners.
The traditional methods of teaching constitutional criminal procedure by using legal casebooks and separate law courses impair our students' ability to understand the impact of law on criminal justice. Students could more clearly comprehend law in context if faculty members taught legal topics in regular courses on policing, courts, and corrections. This paradigm shift would require faculty members to critically examine whether our current replication of law school methods and materials fulfills the broad purposes of criminal justice curricula.
In 2005 the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences approved ACJS Certification Standards for Academic Programs. This was the culmination of two decades of efforts on the part of criminal justice educators to establish minimum standards for the discipline. These standards were developed to improve the quality of criminal justice education at the associate's, bachelor's and master's degree levels. Section C, which establishes faculty qualifications for teaching at the various program levels, has been criticized by educators holding JDs as an effort by PhDs to push them out of the profession. The President of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences responds to specific concerns of JDs and then discusses the general impacts of the ACJS certification standards on criminal justice education.
Criminal justicians and criminologists use a variety of research techniques when undertaking their investigations. However, most tend to overwhelmingly rely on either one of two types of data collection methods to address their research questions and hypotheses. Rarely, do these researchers use triangulated methodologies to increase the rigors of their scholarship by making their investigations robust. A content analysis of two of the fields’ most prestigious journals reveals a lack of triangulated methods being used. This is of primary concern since these journals are heralded as the finest the fields have to offer and are also considered the most widely cited. We believe that because criminal justice and criminology are grounded in law, legal research methods can be used as an additional technique to achieve triangulated methods.
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.
Content analysis of criminological research articles published in various American and British journals between 1895 and 1997 is used to assess concerns about the representation of females in the study of crime and delinquency. Findings reveal a severe and long-term underrepresentation of females in criminological research. This appears to be related to the tendency of numerically dominant male researchers to focus on male subjects. However, research on and about females has not been conducted primarily by female researchers nor has the focus of such research been mainly on such a “female” offense as prostitution. Implications of these findings are discussed.
There is an ongoing debate in criminal justice departments as to whether a person with a JD degree has the education necessary to be a full‐time faculty member. Recently, several authors have argued that a JD should be sufficient and that a PhD should not be required. In this essay I argue otherwise. JD training is not equivalent to PhD training. PhD training provides a background in social science methods, statistical analysis, and theory that JD training does not. The discipline of criminal justice needs to assert control over its credential standards lest others do it for us.
Based on in-depth interview materials, this article examines why most rural-urban migrant entrepreneurs in Beijing do not fully comply with a discriminatory license requirement, and in particular, why they prefer license-renting from the locals. This article suggests that the law's lack of legitimacy adds weight to instrumental considerations. But more important, this license-renting practice seems to be reinforced and sustained institutionally by local businesses, law enforcement officers, and the local authorities, because their interests are inextricably intertwined with it. The whole situation constitutes a general equilibrium through which various interests are balanced. This case study thus paints a far more complicated picture of the law's impact on people's behavior than usually assumed. Instrumental concerns, or coercive action and sanctions alone, do not adequately explain people's interaction with the law in a “lawless” circumstance; a whole range of instrumental concerns must be considered, and they, together with sanctions, must be understood in the context of a larger institutional environment in which the interactions of various players unfold.
The current study was undertaken to provide an impact assessment of criminal justice and criminology journals as an alternative measure to the prestige survey ratings reported by Sorensen, Snell, and Rodriguez (2006). Citations to sixty-seven target journals were tallied from ten top criminal justice and criminology journals. Various impact measures were fairly consistent with one another and the prestige survey ratings, particularly for a “top tier” of journals. With a couple of notable exceptions, a long-standing core of these elite journals has held their relative positions from early impact studies relying on data from the 1970s and 1980s; nevertheless, significant deviations were noted based on the measurement utilized for all but the top journals. Findings from the current study suggested that the quality of journals is multifaceted and warns against employing a scale based on one dimension of journal quality.
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.
Is it really 'just a J.D.?' ACJS Today Retrieved from http The vanishing JD – How ACJS certification ensures extinction of the species
- R P R Engvall
Engvall, R. P. (2007). Is it really 'just a J.D.?' ACJS Today, 1, 5–6. Retrieved from
http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_666_3516.cfm
Enriquez, R. (2007). The vanishing JD – How ACJS certification ensures extinction of
the species. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 254–260.
Why criminal procedure should matter to criminal justice departments
- C Hemmens
Hemmens, C. (2015b, May). Why criminal procedure should matter to criminal justice
departments. ACJS Today, 40, 21-25. Retrieved from http://www.acjs.org/pubs/
167_666_3516.cfm
The search for the criminal justice educator
- L J Myers
Myers, L. J. (2007). The search for the criminal justice educator. ACJS Today, 1, 5-6.
Retrieved from http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_666_3516.cfm
is an assistant professor of Criminology at Texas A & M University-San Antonio. Her research interests include legal issues in criminal justice
- Brenda I Rowe
- Phd Jd
Brenda I. Rowe, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor of Criminology at Texas A & M
University-San Antonio. Her research interests include legal issues in criminal justice,
criminal justice legislation, and police-prosecutor relationships.
is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington State University. His research interests include legal issues in criminal justice
- Wesley S Mccann
Wesley S. McCann, MA, is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and
Criminology at Washington State University. His research interests include legal issues in
criminal justice, criminal law and procedure, terrorism, and counter-terrorism policy.
Is it really ‘just a
- R P Engvall
Engvall, R. P. (2007). Is it really 'just a J.D.?' ACJS Today, 1, 5-6. Retrieved from
http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_666_3516.cfm