• 24 AUG 18
    • 0

    3. Rate four criminological journal articles for overall quality of the research and for effectiveness of the writing and data displays. Discuss how each could have been improved.

    C H A P T E R 1 3
    Reporting Research Results
    Research Report Goals
    Advance Scientific Knowledge
    Shape Social Policy
    Organize Social Action—Participatory
    Action Research
    Case Study: Seeking Higher Education
    for Inmates
    Dialogue With Research Subjects
    On Writing Research
    Research Report Types
    Student Papers and Theses
    Group Projects
    The Thesis Committee
    Journal Articles
    Applied Reports
    An Advisory Committee
    Data Displays
    Ethics and Reporting
    Communicating With the Public
    Plagiarism
    Conclusion
    The goal of research is not just to discover something but to communicate that discovery to a larger
    audience—other social scientists, government officials, your teachers, the general public—perhaps several
    of these audiences. Whatever the study’s particular outcome, if the research report enables the
    intended audience to comprehend the results and learn from them, the research can be judged a success.
    If the intended audience is not able to learn about the study’s results, the research should be judged
    a failure no matter how expensive the research, how sophisticated its design, or how much of yourself
    you invested in it.
    This conclusion may seem obvious, and perhaps a bit unnecessary. After all, you may think that
    all researchers write up their results for other people to read. But the fact is that many research projects
    fail to produce a research report. Sometimes the problem is that the research is poorly designed
    to begin with and cannot be carried out in a satisfactory manner; sometimes unanticipated difficulties
    derail a viable project. But too often the researcher just never gets around to writing a report. And
    then there are many research reports that are very incomplete or poorly written or that speak to only
    one of several interested audiences. The failure may not be complete, but the project’s full potential
    is not achieved.
    The stage of reporting research results is also the point at which the need for new research is identified.
    It is the time when, so to speak, “the rubber hits the road”—when we have to make our research
    make sense to others. To whom will our research be addressed? How should we present our results to
    them? Should we seek to influence how our research report is used?
    The primary goals of this chapter are to guide you in comparing writing worthwhile reports of your
    own, and communicating with the public about research. This chapter also gives particular attention to
    the writing process itself and points out how that process can differ when writing up qualitative versus
    quantitative research. We will conclude by considering some of the ethical issues unique to the reporting
    process, with special attention to the problem of plagiarism.
    RESEARCH REPORT GOALS
    The research report will present research findings and interpretations in a way that reflects some combination
    of the researcher’s goals, the research sponsor’s goals, the concerns of the research subjects,
    and perhaps the concerns of a wider anticipated readership. Understanding the goals of these different
    groups will help the researcher begin to shape the final report even at the start of the research. In
    designing a proposal and in negotiating access to a setting for the research, commitments often must
    be made to produce a particular type of report, or at least cover certain issues in the final report. As the
    research progresses, feedback about the research from its participants, sponsoring agencies, collaborators,
    or other interested partiesmay suggest the importance of focusing on particular issues in the final
    report. Social researchers traditionally have tried to distance themselves from the concerns of such
    interested parties, paying attention only to what is needed to advance scientific knowledge. But in recent
    years, some social scientists have recommended bringing these interested parties into the research and
    reporting process itself.
    Advance Scientific Knowledge
    Most social science research reports are directed to other social scientists working in the area of study,
    so they reflect orientations and concerns that are shared within this community of interest. The traditional
    scientific approach encourages a research goal to advance scientific knowledge by providing
    reports to other scientists. This approach also treats value considerations as beyond the scope of
    science: “An empirical science cannot tell anyone what he should do but rather what he can do and under
    certain circumstances what he wishes to do” (Weber 1949:54).
    The idea is that developing valid knowledge about howsociety is organized or howwe live our lives does
    not tell us how society should be organized or how we should live our lives. There should, as a result, be a
    strict separation between the determination of empirical facts and the evaluation of these facts as satisfactory
    or unsatisfactory (Weber 1949). Social scientistsmust not ignore value considerations,which are viewed
    as a legitimate basis for selecting a research problem to study. After the research is over and a report has
    beenwritten,many scientists also consider it acceptable to encourage government officials or private organizations
    to implement the findings. During a research project, however, value considerations are to be held
    in abeyance.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 425
    Shape Social Policy
    As we highlighted in our discussion of applied research in Chapter 11,many social scientists seek to influence
    social policy through their writing. By now, you have been exposed to several such examples in this
    text, including all the evaluation research (Chapter 11). These particular studies, likemuch policy-oriented
    social science research, are similar to those that aim strictly to increase knowledge. In fact, these studies
    might even be considered contributions to knowledge first and to social policy debate second. What distinguishes
    the reports of these studies fromstrictly academic reports is their attention to policy implications.
    Other social scientists who seek to influence social policy explicitly reject the traditional scientific,
    rigid distinction between facts and values (Sjoberg and Nett 1968). Bellah et al. (1985) have instead proposed
    amodel of “social science as public philosophy,” in which social scientists focus explicit attention
    on achieving a more just society:
    Social science makes assumptions about the nature of persons, the nature of society, and the
    relation between persons and society. It also, whether it admits it or not, makes assumptions
    about good persons and a good society and considers how far these conceptions are embodied
    in our actual society.
    Social science as public philosophy, by breaking through the iron curtain between the social
    sciences and the humanities, becomes a form of social self-understanding or selfinterpretation.
    . . . By probing the past as well as the present, by looking at “values” as much as
    at “facts,” such a social science is able to make connections that are not obvious and to ask
    difficult questions. (P. 301)
    This perspective suggests more explicit concern with public policy implications when reporting
    research results. But it is important to remember that we all are capable of distorting our research and
    our interpretations of research results to correspond to our own value preferences. The temptation to see
    what we want to see is enormous, and research reports cannot be deemed acceptable unless they avoid
    this temptation.
    Organize Social Action—Participatory Action Research
    For the same reasons that value questions are traditionally set apart from the research process, many
    social scientists consider the application of research a nonscientific concern.WilliamFooteWhyte, whose
    Street Corner Society (1943) study you encountered in Chapter 9, has criticized this belief and proposed
    an alternative research and reporting strategy he calls participatory action research (PAR). Whyte
    (1991:285) argues that social scientists must get “out of the academic rut” and engage in applied
    research to develop better understanding of social phenomena.
    In PAR, the researcher involves as active participants somemembers of the setting studied. Both the organizationalmembers
    and the researcher are assumed to want to develop valid conclusions, to bring unique
    insights, and to desire change, but Whyte (1991) believed that these objectives were more likely to be
    obtained if the researcher collaborated activelywith the persons he studied. PAR can bring researchers into
    closer contactwith participants in the research setting through groups that discuss and plan research steps
    and then take steps to implement research findings. Stephen Kemmis and RobinMcTaggart (2005:563–68)
    summarize the key features of PAR research as “a spiral of self-reflecting cycles” involving
    • planning a change,
    • acting and observing the process and consequences of the change,
    426 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    • reflecting on these processes and consequences,
    • replanning, and
    • acting and observing again.
    In contrast with the formal reporting of results at the end of a research project, these “cycles” make
    research reporting an ongoing part of the research process.
    Case Study: Seeking Higher Education for Inmates
    While prison populations in the United States have been significantly increasing, access to college programs
    within prisons has been essentially eliminated. Primarily because of the “tough on crime” policies of the
    1990s, by 1995, only 8 of the existing 350 college programs in prisons remained open nationwide (Torre and
    Fine 2005). To remedy this situation, Torre and Fine became involved in participatory action research to facilitate
    a college and college-bound program at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility (BHCF), a maximumsecurity
    women’s prison in New York. To conduct a study of the effects of the program, Michelle Fine was
    the principal investigator alongwith four prisoner-researchers and four researchers fromthe Graduate Center
    of the City University of New York. This “participatory research team” asked several questions: (a)Who are
    thewomen in the college program? (b)What is the impact of the college experience on inmate students and
    their children? (c)What is the impact of the college experience on the prison environment? (d)What is the
    impact of the college experience beyond college on recidivism? and (e)What is the cost of such a program
    to taxpayers? The researchers used a triangulatedmethodology employing quantitative analysis of recidivism
    rates and costs of the program along with in-depth interviews with the participants; focus groups with
    inmates, faculty, children, and college presidents; and surveys of faculty who taught in the program.
    Although not using a randomized experimental design, Torre and Fine along with their co-investigators
    tracked participants in the college programafter release and found thatwomenwho had not participated in
    the programwere four timesmore likely to be returned to custody than women who participated.
    The narratives from the interviews with college inmates also illuminated the positive benefits of the
    education. One inmate college student said, “Because when you take somebody that feels that they’re not
    gonna amount to anything, and you put themin an environment, like, when you’re in college it takes you
    away from the prison, . . . it’s like you’re opening your mind to a whole different experience” (Torre and
    Fine 2005:582). The positive impact of college on the inmates was also transferred to their children. The
    cost-benefit analysis of the program indicated that the savings based on decreased recidivism rates for
    those who attended the college far outweighed the initial cost of the program itself. In sum, with just a
    small grant from a private foundation, the participatory action research team brought together universities,
    prisoners, churches, community organizations, and prison administrators to resurrect a college at
    BHCF. The authors concluded, “Key elements of this program include broad-based community involvement,
    strong prisoner participation in design and governance, and the support of the prison administration”
    (p. 591). A full report of this research can be found at http://web.gc.cuny.edu/che/changingminds.html.
    As you can see, participatory action research has the potential to be life changing for all involved!
    Dialogue With Research Subjects
    Guba and Lincoln (1989) have carried the notion of involving research subjects and others in the design
    and reporting of research one step further. What they call the constructivist paradigm is a methodology
    that emphasizes the importance of exploring how different stakeholders in a social setting construct
    their beliefs. This approach rejects the assumption that there is a reality around us to be studied and
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 427
    reported on. Instead, social scientists operating in the constructivist paradigm try to develop a consensus
    among participants in some social process about how to understand the focus of inquiry, a program
    that is often evaluated. A research report will then highlight different views of the social program and
    explain how a consensus can be reached.
    The constructivist approach provides a usefulway of thinking about howto bestmake sense of the complexity
    and subjectivity of the socialworld.Other researcherswrite reports intended to influence public policy,
    and often their findings are ignored. Such neglectwould be less common if social researchers gavemore
    attention to the different meanings attached by participants to the same events, in the spirit of constructivist
    case reports. The philosophy of this approach is also similar to the utilization-based evaluation research
    approach advanced by Patton (1997; see Chapter 11) that involves all stakeholders in the research process.
    ON WRITING RESEARCH
    The goal of research is not just to discover something but also to communicate that discovery to a larger
    audience: other social scientists, government officials, your teachers, the general public—perhaps several
    of these audiences. Whatever the study’s particular outcome, if the intended audience for the research
    comprehends the results and learns fromthem, the research can be judged a success. If the intended audience
    does not learn about the study’s results, the research should be judged a failure—no matter how
    expensive the research, how sophisticated its design, or how much you (or others) invested in it.
    Successful research reporting requires both good writing and a proper publication outlet. We will first
    review guidelines for successful writing before we look at particular types of research publications.
    Consider the following principles formulated by experiencedwriters (Booth, Colomb, andWilliams 1995):
    • Respect the complexity of the task and don’t expect to write a polished draft in a linear
    fashion. Your thinking will develop as you write, causing you to reorganize and rewrite.
    • Leave enough time for dead ends, restarts, revisions, and so on, and accept the fact that you
    will discard much of what you write.
    • Write as fast as you comfortably can. Don’t worry about spelling, grammar, and so on until you
    are polishing things up.
    • Ask anyone whom you trust for reactions to what you have written.
    • Write as you go along, so you have notes and report segments drafted even before you focus
    on writing the report.
    It is important to outline a report before writing it, but neither the report’s organization nor the first
    written draft should be considered fixed. As you write, you will get new ideas about how to organize the
    report. Try themout. As you review the first draft, you will seemany ways to improve your writing. Focus
    particularly on how to shorten and clarify your statements.Make sure that each paragraph concerns only
    one topic. Remember the golden rule of good writing: Writing is revising!
    You can ease the burden of report writing in several ways:
    • Draw on the research proposal and on project notes.
    • Use a word processing program on a computer to facilitate reorganizing and editing.
    • Seek criticism from friends, teachers, and other research consumers before turning in the final
    product.
    428 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    We often find it helpful to use what is called reverse outlining: After you have written a first complete
    draft, outline it on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, ignoring the actual section headings you used.
    See if the paper you wrote actually fits the outline you planned. How could the organization be
    improved? Most important, leave yourself enough time so that you can revise, several times if possible,
    before turning in the final draft. Revision is essential until complete clarity is achieved.
    Formore suggestions aboutwriting, see Becker (1986), Booth et al. (1995), Cuba (2002), Strunk andWhite
    (2000), and Turabian (1996). Andwe don’t need to point out that students (and professional researchers) often
    leave final papers (and reports) until the last possibleminute (often for understandable reasons, including other
    coursework and job or family responsibilities). But be forewarned: The last-minute approach does notwork for
    research reports.
    RESEARCH REPORT TYPES
    Research projects designed to produce student papers and theses, applied research reports, and academic
    articles all have unique features that will influence the final research report. For example, student
    papers are written for a particular professor or for a thesis committee and often are undertaken with
    almost no financial resources and in the face of severe time constraints. Applied research reports are written
    for an organization or agency that usually also has funded the research and has expectations for a
    particular type of report. Journal articles are written for the larger academic community and will not be
    published until they are judged acceptable by some representatives of that community (e.g., after the article
    has gone through extensive peer review).
    These unique features do not really match up so neatly with the specific types of research products.
    For example, a student paper that is based on a research project conducted in collaboration with a work
    organizationmay face some constraints for a project designed to produce an applied research report. An
    academic article may stem from an applied research project conducted for a government agency. An
    applied research report often can be followed by an academic article on the same topic. In fact, one
    research study may lead to all three types of research reports, as students write course papers or theses
    for professors who write both academic articles and applied research reports.
    Student Papers and Theses
    What is most distinctive about a student research paper or thesis is the audience for the final product: a
    professor or, for a thesis, a committee of professors. In light of this, it is important for you to seek feedback
    early and often about the progress of your research and about your professor’s expectations for the
    final paper. Securing approval of a research proposal is usually the first step, but it should not be the last
    occasion for seeking advice prior to writing the final paper. Do not become too anxious for guidance, however.
    Professors require research projects in part so that their students can work through, at least somewhat
    independently, the many issues they confront. A great deal of insight into the research process can
    be gained this way. So balance your requests for advice with some independent decision making.
    Most student research projects can draw on few resources beyond the student’s own time and effort,
    so it is important that the research plan not be overly ambitious. Keep the paper deadline in mind when
    planning the project, and remember that almost every researcher tends to underestimate the time
    required to carry out a project.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 429
    Group Projects
    Pooling your resources with those of several students in a group project can make it possible to collect
    much more data but can lead to other problems. Each student’s role should be clarified at the outset and
    written into the research proposal as a formal commitment. Group members should try to help each
    other out, rather than competing to do the least work possible or to receive the most recognition.
    Complaints about other group members should be made to the professor when things just cannot be
    worked out among groupmembers. Each groupmember should have a clear area of responsibility in the
    final report, and one may want to serve as the final editor.
    The Thesis Committee
    Students who are preparing a paper for a committee, usually during the senior year of a B.A. or at the
    M.A. or Ph.D. level, must be prepared to integrate the multiple perspectives and comments of committee
    members into a plan for a coherent final report. (The thesis committee chair should be the primary
    guide in this process; careful selection of faculty to serve on the committee is also important.) As much
    as possible, committeemembers should have complementary areas of expertise that are each important
    for the research project: perhaps onemethodologist, one specialist in the primary substantive area of the
    thesis, and one specialist in a secondary area. Theses using data collected by service agencies or other
    organizations often benefit if an organizational representative is on the committee.
    It is very important that you work with your committee members in an ongoing manner, both individually
    and collectively. In fact, it is vitally important to have a group meeting with all committee
    members at the beginning of the project to ensure everyone on the committee supports the research plan.
    Doing this will avoid obstacles that arise due to miscommunication later in the research process.
    Journal Articles
    It is the peer reviewprocess thatmakes preparation of an academic journal articlemost unique. Similar
    to a grant review, the journal’s editor sends submitted articles to two or three experts, peers, who are asked
    whether the paper should be accepted more or less as is, revised and then resubmitted, or rejected.
    Reviewers also provide comments, sometimes quite lengthy, to explain their decision and to guide any
    required revisions. The process is an anonymous one atmost journals; reviewers are not told the author’s
    name, and the author is not told the reviewers’ names. Although the journal editor has the final say, editors’
    decisions are normally based on the reviewers’ comments.
    This peer review process must be anticipated in designing the final report. Peer reviewers are not
    pulled out of a hat. They are expert in the field or fields represented in the paper and usually have published
    articles themselves in that field. It is critical that the author be familiar with the research literature
    and be able to present the research findings as a unique contribution to that literature. Inmost cases,
    this hurdle is much harder to jump with journal articles than with student papers or applied research
    reports. In fact, most leading journals have a rejection rate of over 90%, so that hurdle is quite high
    indeed. Of course, there is also a certain luck of the draw in peer review. One set of two or three reviewersmay
    be inclined to reject an article that another set of reviewers would accept (see the next case study).
    But in general, the anonymous peer review process results in higher-quality research reports because articles
    are revised prior to publication in response to the suggestions and criticisms of the experts.
    Criminological and criminal justice research is published in a myriad of journals within several disciplines,
    including criminology, law, sociology, psychology, and economics. As a result, there is no one
    formatting style that all criminological literature abides by. If, for example, you are submitting your paper
    to a psychology-related journal, youmust abide by the formatting style dictated by the Publication Manual
    430 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    of the American Psychological Association (2009). The easiest way to determine how to format a paper for
    a particular journal is to examine recent volumes of the journal and format your paper accordingly. To
    give you a general idea of what a journal article looks like, an article in its entirety has been reprinted in
    Appendix C, along with an illustration of how to read a journal article. There are also numerous articles
    available on the Student Study Site for this text.
    Despite the slight variations in style across journals, there are typically seven standard sections within
    a journal article in addition to the title page (see Exhibit 13.1).
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 431
    EXHIBI T 13.1 General Sections of a Journal Article
    1. Abstract.This should be a concise and nonevaluative summary of your research paper (no more than
    120 words) that describes the research problem, the sample, the method, and the findings.
    2. Introduction. The body of a paper should open with an introduction that presents the specific problem
    under study and describes the research strategy. Before writing this section, you should consider
    the following questions: What is the point of the study? How do the hypotheses and the
    research design relate to the problem? What are the theoretical implications of the study, and how
    does the study relate to previous work in the area?What are the theoretical propositions tested, and
    how were they derived? A good introduction answers these questions in a few paragraphs by summarizing
    the relevant argument and the data, giving the reader a sense of what was done and why.
    3. Literature Review. Discuss the relevant literature in a way that relates each previous study cited to
    your research, not in an exhaustive historical review. Citation of and specific credit to relevant earlier
    works is part of the researchers’ scientific and scholarly responsibility. It is essential for the growth
    of cumulative science. This section should demonstrate the logical continuity between previous
    research and the research at hand. At the end of this section, you are ready to conceptually define
    your variables and formally state your hypotheses.
    4. Method. Describe in detail how the study was conducted. Such a description enables the reader to
    evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and the reliability and validity of your results. It also
    permits experienced investigators to replicate the study if they so desire. In this section, you can
    include subsections that describe the sample, the independent and dependent variables, and the
    analytical or statistical procedure you will use to analyze the data.
    5. Results. Summarize the results of the statistical or qualitative analyses performed on the data. This
    can include tables and figures that summarize findings. If statistical analyses are performed, tests
    of significance should also be highlighted.
    6. Discussion. Take the opportunity to evaluate and interpret your results, particularly with respect to
    your original hypotheses and previous research. Here, you are free to examine and interpret your
    results as well as draw inferences from them. In general, this section should answer the following
    questions:What have I contributed to the literature here? How has my study helped resolve the original
    problem?What conclusions and theoretical implications can I draw from my study?What are the
    limitations of my study? What are the implications for future research?
    7. References. All citations in the manuscript must appear in the reference list, and all references must
    be cited in the text.
    Applied Reports
    Unlike journal articles, applied reports are usually commissioned by a particular government agency, corporation,
    or nonprofit organization. As such, the most important problem that applied researchers confront is
    the need to produce a final report thatmeets the funding organization’s expectations. This is called the hired
    gun problem. Of course, the extent to which being a hired gun is a problem varies greatly with the research
    orientation of the funding organization and with the nature of the research problem posed. The ideal situation
    is to have fewconstraints on the nature of the final report, but sometimes research reports are suppressed
    or distorted because the researcher comes to conclusions that the funding organization does not like.
    Applied reports that are written in a less highly charged environment can face another problem—even
    when they are favorably received by the funding organization, their conclusions are often ignored. This
    problem can be more a matter of the organization not really knowing how to use research findings than
    a matter of not wanting to use them. And this is not just a problem of the funding organization; many
    researchers are prepared only to present their findings, without giving any thought to how research findings
    can be translated into organizational policies or programs.
    An Advisory Committee
    An advisory committee can help the applied researcher avoid the problems of incompatible expectations for
    the final report and insufficient understanding of howto use the research results,without adopting themore
    engaged strategy ofWhyte’s (1991) participatory action research or Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) constructivist
    inquiry. An advisory committee should be formed before the start of the project to represent the various organizational
    segments with stakes in the outcomes of the research. The researcher can use the committee as
    a source of intelligence about how particular findings may be received and as a sounding board for ideas
    about howthe organization or agency can use research findings. Perhapsmost important, an advisory committee
    can help the researcher work outmany problems in research design, implementation, and data collection.
    Because an advisory committee is meant to comprise all stakeholders, it is inevitable that conflicts
    will arise between advisory group members. In our experience, however, these conflicts almost invariably
    can be used to strategizemore effectively about the research design and the final product.
    Advisory committees are particularly necessary for research investigating controversial issues. For
    example, after a study conducted in 1999 found that several death rowinmates had beenwrongly convicted
    of their crimes, the governor of Illinois placed amoratoriumon all death sentences in the state.Other results
    of the study suggested that the death penalty was handed down unfairly; it found proportionally more
    minority and poor offenders were sentenced to death than whites and those who could afford hired legal
    counsel. This caused a great deal ofmedia attention and calls for other states that practice the death penalty
    to institute similarmoratoriums. As a consequence of this attention, other states have begun to examine their
    implementation of the death penalty as well. Maryland is one such state. In 2001, the state legislature in
    Maryland commissioned Raymond Paternoster (Paternoster et al. 2004) at the University ofMaryland to conduct
    a study of its practice of the death penalty. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether
    the administration of the death penalty in the state was affected by the race of the defendant or victim.
    As you can imagine,when the studywas released, itwas controversial. Tomake sure all interestswere represented,
    Paternoster et al. (2004) set up an advisory committee before undertaking the study. The advisory
    committee consisted of a group of prosecutors and defense counselwho had experience in capital cases. They
    advised Professor Paternoster on several critical issues, including the years that the study should cover, the
    sourceswhere information can be found, and the particularly important variables related to sentencing outcomes.
    Not only did the advisory committee provide substantive input into the research, but by having a broad
    spectrumof the legal community “on board,” it also provided credibility to the study’s findings.
    432 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    DATA DISPLAYS
    You learned in Chapter 12 about some of the statistics that are useful in analyzing and reporting data,
    but there are some additional methods of presenting statistical results that can improve research
    reports. Combined and compressed displays are used most often in applied research reports and government
    documents, but they can also help communicate findings more effectively in student papers
    and journal articles.
    In a combined frequency display, the distributions for a set of conceptually similar variables with
    the same response categories are presented together, with common headings for the responses. For
    example, you could identify the variables in the leftmost column and the value labels along the top.
    Exhibit 13.2 is a combined display reporting the frequency distributions in percentage form for five
    variables that indicate the responses of high school seniors to questions about their delinquent behavior.
    From this table you can infer several pieces of information besides the basic distribution of selfreported
    delinquency. You can determine the variation in the cohort’s involvement in specific types
    of delinquent behavior, and you can also determine whether this behavior increased or decreased over
    time (1982–1994). For example, although the majority of seniors reported having an argument or a
    fight with their parents, only a small percentage of students (around 20%on average) reported getting
    into a fight where a group of their friends was against another group or getting into trouble with police
    (around 25%on average). You can also see that the rate of fighting behavior did not change much over
    the 13-year time period examined; however, the percentage of youth getting into trouble with the
    police actually decreased.
    Compressed frequency displays can also be used to present cross-tabular data and summary
    statistics more efficiently, by eliminating unnecessary percentages (such as those corresponding to the
    second value of a dichotomous variable) and by reducing the need for repetitive labels. Exhibit 13.3
    presents a compressed display used to highlight the results of a survey on attitudes toward problems
    facing the country by several demographic characteristics. For several problem areas, respondents
    were asked to tell interviewers if they believed the country was “about the same today,”
    “making progress in this area,” or “losing ground” on this area. The percentages displayed are for
    those respondents who said that they believed the country was “losing ground” on a particular
    problem area.
    Combined and compressed statistical displays present a large amount of data in a relatively small
    space. To the experienced reader of statistical reports, such displays can convey much important information.
    They should be used with caution, however, because people who are not used to them may be
    baffled by the rows of numbers. Graphs can also provide an efficient tool for summarizing relationships
    among variables. Exhibit 13.4 is from the evaluation report of the Children at Risk (CAR) program performed
    by Harrell, Cavanagh, and Sridharan (1999). It presents the percentage of youth who used drugs
    at different times during the course of the evaluation for both treatment (youth who participated in the
    program) and control (youth who did not) groups. As you can readily see, compared to youth who did
    not receive the CAR program, fewer youth who participated in the CAR program used drugs at all times
    that were measured.
    Another good example of the use of graphs to show relationships is provided by a Bureau of Justice
    Statistics report on age patterns of victims of violent crime (Perkins 1997). Exhibit 13.5, taken from that
    report, shows how the rates of violent crimes have varied by particular age groups over time. You can see
    that whereas violent crime victimization rates have remained relatively stable over time for older age
    cohorts, younger age cohorts, particularly those under the age of 19, experienced increases in their rate of
    victimization during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 433
    Delinquent
    Activity
    Class of
    1987
    (N = 3,179)
    Class of
    1988
    (N = 3,361)
    Class of
    1989
    (N = 3,350)
    Class of
    1990
    (N = 2,879)
    Class of
    1991
    (N = 2,627)
    Class of
    1992
    (N = 2,569)
    Class of
    1993
    (N = 2,690)
    Argued or had a fight with either of your parents?
    Not at all 8.8 9.7 9.6 9.3 10.0 9.3 12.1
    Once 8.5 8.2 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.7 9.4
    Twice 12.1 11.0 10.2 12.8 12.7 11.7 12.4
    3 or 4 times 23.1 23.7 23.6 23.2 24.7 24.7 20.2
    5 or more
    times
    47.5 47.5 47.9 45.9 43.6 45.5 45.9
    Taken part in a fight where a group of your friends was against another group?
    Not at all 80.4 80.5 79.7 81.1 79.6 78.7 77.8
    Once 11.3 11.1 12.1 11.4 11.2 11.5 11.2
    Twice 4.4 4.4 3.9 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.8
    3 or 4
    times
    2.6 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.5 3.2 2.9
    5 or more
    times
    1.4 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.3
    Gotten into trouble with police because of something you did?
    Not at all 75.9 77.5 76.6 75.8 77.4 77.8 90.4
    Once 15.3 12.8 13.7 13.2 12.4 11.9 5.9
    Twice 4.5 6.2 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.2 1.8
    3 or 4
    times
    2.8 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.7 3.0 1.2
    5 or more
    times
    1.5 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.5 2.2 0.6
    434 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    EXHIBI T 13.2
    Combined Frequency Display of High School Seniors Reporting Involvement in
    Selected Delinquent Activities in the Past 12 Months, United States (in %)
    Source: Monitoring the Future Data provided by Monitoring the Future Project, Survey Research Center, Lloyd
    D. Johnston, Jerald G. Bachman, and Patrick M. O’Malley, Principal Investigators. Table adapted fromSourcebook
    of Criminal Justice Statistics: 1994 (NCJ-154591). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department
    of Justice.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 435
    EXHIBI T 13.3
    Compressed Display of Attitudes Toward Problems Affecting the Country
    Today by Demographic Characteristics
    Question: “Next, as I read you some problem areas, please tell me how you think each is affecting the country
    today. First, do you think the problem of . . . is about the same today, is the country making progress in this
    area, or is the country losing ground?”
    Percentage Responding “Losing Ground”
    Crime (in %) Families Split Up (in %) Drugs (in %)
    Sex
    Male 71 73 60
    Female 82 77 71
    Race
    White 77 75 64
    Nonwhite 77 75 79
    Age
    Under 30 years 73 75 64
    30 to 49 years 79 73 63
    50 to 64 years 78 76 69
    65 years and older 77 76 70
    Education
    College graduate 71 71 64
    Some college 84 79 67
    High school graduate 80 77 66
    Less than high school
    graduate
    69 72 66
    Source: Interview data from a nationwide sample of 1,800 adults by Princeton Survey Research Associates for
    the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Adapted fromSourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics: 1995
    (NCJ-158900). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
    ETHICS AND REPORTING
    It is at the time of reporting research results that the researcher’s ethical duty to be honest becomes paramount.
    Here are some guidelines:
    • Provide an honest accounting of how the research was carried out and where the initial research
    design had to be changed. Readers do not have to know about every change you made in your
    plans and each new idea you had, but they should be informed about major changes in
    hypotheses or research design.
    • Maintain a full record of the research project so that questions can be answered if they arise.
    Many details will have to be omitted from all but the most comprehensive reports, but these
    omissions should not make it impossible to track down answers to specific questions about
    research procedures that may arise in the course of data analysis or presentation.
    • Avoid “lying with statistics” or using graphs to mislead. (See Chapter 12.)
    436 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    EXHIBI T 13.4 Percentage of Children at Risk and Control Youths Reporting Drug Use
    100
    90
    80
    70
    60
    50
    40
    30
    20
    10
    0
    Stronger
    drug use
    (past month)
    Gateway
    drug use
    (past month)
    5
    9
    51
    65
    52
    67
    11
    14
    64
    74
    56
    63
    Drug use
    (past month)
    Stronger drug
    use (year
    following end
    of program)
    Gateway drug
    use (year
    following end
    of program)
    Drug use
    (year following
    end of
    program)
    Percentage
    Treatment (n = 264) Control (n = 236)
    Source: A. Harrell, Cavanagh, S., and Sridharan, S. 1999. Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program: Results 1 Year
    After the End of the Program (NCJ-178914).Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief.
    • Acknowledge the sponsors of the research. In part, this is so others can consider whether this
    sponsorship may have tempted you to bias your results in some way; and thank staff who
    made major contributions.
    • Be sure that the order of authorship for coauthored reports is discussed in advance and reflects
    agreed-upon principles. Be sensitive to coauthors’ needs and concerns.
    Communicating With the Public
    Even following appropriate guidelines such as these, however, will not prevent controversy and conflict
    over research on sensitive issues. Does thismean that ethical researchers should avoid political controversy
    by sidesteppingmedia outlets for their work? Many social scientists argue that themedia offer one
    of the best ways to communicate the practical application of sociological knowledge and that when we
    avoid these opportunities, “some of the best sociological insights never reach policy makers because
    sociologists seldom take advantage of useful mechanisms to get their ideas out” (Wilson 1998:435).
    The sociologist William Julius Wilson (1998) urges the following principles for engaging the public
    through the media:
    1. Focus on issues of national concern, issues that are high on the public agenda.
    2. Develop creative and thoughtful arguments that are clearly presented and devoid of technical
    language.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 437
    EXHIBI T 13.5 Violent Crime Rates by Age
    125
    100
    75
    50
    25
    0
    1973 1977 1982 1987 1992 1994
    16–19
    12–15
    20–24
    25–34
    35–49
    50–64
    65+
    Source: Perkins, C. A. 1997. Age Patterns of Victims of Serious Violent Crime (NCJ-162031). Washington, DC:
    Bureau of Justice Statistics.
    3. Present the big picture whereby the arguments are organized and presented so that the readers
    can see how the various parts are interrelated.
    Ethical research reporting should not mean ineffective reporting. You need to tell a coherent story in
    the report and to avoid losing track of the story in a thicket ofminuscule details. You do not need to report
    every twist and turn in the conceptualization of the research problemor the conduct of the research, but
    be suspicious of reports that do not seemto admit to the possibility of any roomfor improvement. Social
    science is an ongoing enterprise in which one research report makes its most valuable contribution by
    laying the groundwork for another, more sophisticated research project. Highlight important findings in
    the research report, but use the research report also to point out what are likely to be the most productive
    directions for future researchers.
    Plagiarism
    It may seem depressing to end a book on research methods with a section on plagiarism, but it would be
    irresponsible to avoid the topic. Of course, you may have a course syllabus detailing instructor or university
    policies about plagiarismand specifying the penalties for violating that policy, sowe’re not simply going
    to repeat that kind of warning. You probably realize that the practice of selling term papers is revoltingly
    widespread (our search of “termpapers” on Google returned 5,920,000Web sites on June 3, 2008); sowe’re
    not going to just repeat that academic dishonesty is widespread. Instead, we will use this section to review
    the concept of plagiarismand to showhowthat problemconnects to the larger issue of the integrity of social
    research.When you understand the dimensions of the problemand theway it affects research, you should
    be better able to detect plagiarism in other work and avoid it in your own.
    You learned in Chapter 3 that maintaining professional integrity—honesty and openness in research
    procedures and results—is the foundation for ethical research practice.When it comes to research publications
    and reports, being honest and openmeans avoiding plagiarism—that is, presenting as one’s own
    the ideas or words of another person or persons for academic evaluation without proper acknowledgment
    (Hard, Conway, and Moran 2006).
    An increasing body of research suggests that plagiarismis a growing problemon college campuses. Jason
    Stephens and his colleagues (2007) found in aWeb-based survey of self-selected students at two universities
    that one quarter acknowledged having plagiarized a few sentences (24.7%) or a complete paper (.3%)
    in coursework within the past year (many others admitted to other forms of academic dishonesty, such as
    copying homework). Hard et al. (2006) conducted an anonymous survey in selected classes in one university,
    with almost all students participating, and found much higher plagiarism rates: 60.6% reported that
    they had copied “sentences, phrases, paragraphs, tables, figures or data directly or in slightlymodified form
    from a book, article, or other academic source without using quotation marks or giving proper acknowledgment
    to the original author or source” (p. 1069) and 39.4%reported that they had “copied information
    from InternetWeb sites and submitted it as [their] work” (p. 1069).
    So the plagiarism problem is not just about purchasing term papers—although that is really about as
    bad as it gets (Broskoske 2005); plagiarism is also about what you do with the information you obtain
    from a literature review or an inspection of research reports. And rest assured that this is not only about
    student papers; it also is about the work of established scholars and social researchers who publish
    reports that you want to rely on for accurate information. Several noted historians have been accused of
    plagiarizing passages that they used in popular books; some have admitted to not checking the work of
    their research assistants, to not keeping track of their sources, or to being unable to retrieve the data they
    claimed they had analyzed. Whether the cause is cutting corners to meet deadlines or consciously fudging
    facts, the effect is to undermine the trustworthiness of social research.
    438 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    Now that you are completing this course in research methods, it’s time to think about how to do your
    part to reduce the prevalence of plagiarism. Of course, the first step is tomaintain careful procedures for
    documenting the sources that you rely on for your own research and papers, but you should also think
    about how best to reduce temptations among others. After all, what people believe about what others do
    is a strong influence on their own behavior (Hard et al. 2006).
    Reviewing the definition of plagiarism and how it is enforced by your discipline’s professional association
    is an important first step. These definitions and procedures reflect a collective effort to help social
    scientistsmaintain standards throughout the discipline. Awareness is the first step (American Sociological
    Association [ASA] 1999). In addition, your college or university also has rules that delineate its definition
    of and consequences for plagiarism.
    Researchers have an obligation to be familiar with their code of ethics, other applicable ethics codes, and
    their application to sociologists’ work. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not,
    in itself, a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.
    ASA’s (1999) Code of Ethics, which is used by the American Society of Criminology, includes an explicit
    prohibition of plagiarism:
    14. Plagiarism
    (a) In publications, presentations, teaching, practice, and service, sociologists explicitly identify,
    credit, and reference the author when they take data or material verbatim from another
    person’s written work, whether it is published, unpublished, or electronically available.
    (b) In their publications, presentations, teaching, practice, and service, sociologists provide
    acknowledgment of and reference to the use of others’ work, even if the work is not quoted
    verbatim or paraphrased, and they do not present others’ work as their own whether it is
    published, unpublished, or electronically available. (P. 16)
    The next step toward combating the problem and temptation of plagiarism is to keep focused on the
    goal of social research methods: investigating the social world. If researchers are motivated by a desire
    to learn about social relations, to understand how people understand society, and to discover why conflicts
    arise and how they can be prevented, they will be as concerned with the integrity of their research
    methods as are those, like yourself, who read and use the results of their research. Throughout this text,
    you have been learning how to use research processes and practices that yield valid findings and trustworthy
    conclusions. Failing to report honestly and openly on the methods used or sources consulted
    derails progress toward that goal.
    It works the same as with cheating in school.When students aremotivated only by the desire to “ace”
    their tests and receive better grades than others, they are more likely to plagiarize and use other illicit
    means to achieve that goal. Students who seek first to improve their understanding of the subject matter
    and to engage in the process of learning are less likely to plagiarize sources or cheat on exams (Kohn
    2008). They are also building the foundation for becoming successful social researchers who help others
    understand our world.
    CONCLUSION
    Good critical skills are essential when evaluating research reports, whether your own or those produced by
    others. There are always weak points in any research, even published research. It is an indication of
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 439
    strength, not weakness, to recognize areas where one’s own research needs to be, or could have been,
    improved. And it is really not just a question of sharpening our knives and going for the jugular. You need to
    be able toweigh the strengths andweaknesses of particular research results and to evaluate a study in terms
    of its contribution to understanding its particular research question, notwhether it gives a definitive answer
    for all time.
    But this is not to say that anything goes.Much research lacks one ormore of the three legs of validity—
    measurement validity, causal validity, and generalizability—and sometimes contributes more confusion
    than understanding about particular issues. Top journals generally maintain very high standards, partly
    because they have good critics in the review process and distinguished editors whomake the final acceptance
    decisions. But some daily newspapers do a poor job of screening, and research reporting standards
    in many popular magazines, TV shows, and books are often abysmally poor. Keep your standards high
    and your view critical when reading research reports, but not so high or so critical that you turn away
    from studies that make tangible contributions to the literature, even if they do not provide definitive
    answers. And don’t be so intimidated by the need to maintain high standards that you shrink from taking
    advantage of opportunities to conduct research yourself.
    The growth of social sciencemethods frominfancy to adolescence, perhaps to young adulthood, ranks
    as a key intellectual accomplishment of the 20th century. Opinions about the causes and consequences
    of crime no longer need depend on the scattered impressions of individuals, and criminal justice policies
    can be shaped by systematic evidence of their effectiveness.
    Of course, social research methods are no more useful than the commitment of the researchers to
    their proper application. Researchmethods, like all knowledge, can be used poorly or well, for good purposes
    or bad, when appropriate or not. A claim that a belief is based on social science research in itself
    provides no extra credibility. As you have learned throughout this book, wemust first learn whichmethods
    were used, how they were applied, and whether interpretations square with the evidence. To investigate
    the social world, we must keep in mind the lessons of research methods.
    440 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    KEY TERMS
    Combined frequency display
    Compressed frequency display
    Constructivist paradigm
    Participatory action research
    Peer review
    Reverse outlining
    HIGHLIGHTS
    • Proposal writing should be a time for clarifying the
    research problem, reviewing the literature, and
    thinking ahead about the report that will be required.
    • Relations with research subjects and consumers
    should be developed in a manner that achieves key
    research goals and preparation of an effective
    research report. The traditional scientific approach of
    minimizing the involvement of research subjects and
    consumers in research decisions has been challenged
    by proponents of participatory action research and
    adherents of the constructivist paradigm.
    • Different types of reports typically pose different
    problems. Authors of student papers must be guided in
    part by the expectations of their professor. Thesis writers
    have to meet the requirements of different committee
    members but can benefit greatly from the areas of
    expertise represented on a typical thesis committee.
    Applied researchers are constrained by the expectations
    of the research sponsor; an advisory committee from
    the applied setting can help avoid problems. Journal
    articles must pass a peer review by other social scientists
    and often are much improved in the process.
    • Research reports should include an introductory
    statement of the research problem, a literature review,
    a methodology section, a findings section with
    pertinent data displays, and a conclusions section that
    identifies any weaknesses in the research design and
    points out implications for future research and
    theorizing. This basic report format should be modified
    according to the needs of a particular audience.
    • All reports should be revised several times and critiqued
    by others before they are presented in final form.
    • Some of the data in many reports can be displayed
    more efficiently by using combined and compressed
    statistical displays.
    • The central ethical concern in research reporting is to
    be honest. This honesty should include providing a
    truthful accounting of how the research was carried
    out, maintaining a full record about the project, using
    appropriate statistics and graphs, acknowledging the
    research sponsors, and being sensitive to the
    perspectives of coauthors.
    • Plagiarism is a grievous violation of scholarly
    ethics. All direct quotes or paraphrased material
    from another author’s work must be appropriately
    cited.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 441
    EXERCISES
    1. Select a recent article published in a peer-reviewed
    criminological journal and answer the following
    questions: How effective is the article in conveying the
    design and findings of the research? Could the article’s
    organization be improved at all? Are there bases for
    disagreement about the interpretation of the findings?
    2. Call a local criminal justice official and arrange for an
    interview. Ask the official about his or her experience
    with applied research reports and his or her
    conclusions about the value of social research and
    the best techniques for reporting to practitioners.
    3. Rate four criminological journal articles for overall
    quality of the research and for effectiveness of the
    writing and data displays. Discuss how each could
    have been improved.
    4. How firm a foundation do social research methods
    provide for understanding the social world?
    Stage an in-class debate, with the pro and con
    arguments focusing on the variability of social
    research findings across different social contexts
    and the difficulty of understanding human
    subjectivity.
    DEVELOPING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL
    Now, it is time to bring all the elements of your proposal together.
    1. Organize the proposal material you wrote for
    previous chapters in a logical order. Based on your
    research question, select the most appropriate
    research method as your primary method (see
    Chapters 5–10).
    2. To add a multiple component to your research
    design, select another research method that could
    add knowledge about your research question.
    3. Rewrite the entire proposal, adding an introduction.
    Also add sections that outline a budget and state the
    limitations of your study.
    1. Go to the National Science Foundation’s Law and
    Social Sciences Program Web site at
    www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5422.
    What are the components that this program looks for
    in a proposed piece of research? Write a detailed
    outline for a research proposal to study a subject of
    your choice to be submitted to the National Science
    Foundation for funding.
    2. Using the Web, find five different examples of
    criminological research projects that have been
    completed. Briefly describe each. How does each
    differ in its approach to reporting the research
    results? To whom do you think the author(s) of each
    is “reporting” (i.e., who is the “audience”)? How do
    you think the predicted audience has helped shape
    the author’s approach to reporting the results? Be
    sure to note the Web sites at which you located each
    of your five examples.
    442 THE PRACTICE OF RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    1. Plagiarism is not a joke. What are the regulations on
    plagiarism in class papers at your school? What do
    you think the ideal policy would be? Should this
    policy take into account cultural differences in
    teaching practices and learning styles? Do you think
    this ideal policy is likely to be implemented? Why or
    why not? Based on your experiences, do you believe
    that most student plagiarism is the result of
    misunderstanding about proper citation practices, or
    is it the result of dishonesty? Do you think that
    students who plagiarize while in school are less likely
    to be honest as social researchers?
    2. Full disclosure of sources of research as well as of
    other medically related funding has become a
    major concern for medical journals. Should
    researchers publishing in criminology and criminal
    justice journals also be required to fully disclose
    all sources of funding? Should full disclosure of
    all previous funds received by criminal justice
    agencies be required in each published article? What
    about disclosure of any previous jobs or paid
    consultations with criminal justice agencies?
    Write a short justification of the regulations you
    propose.
    The companion Web site for The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Fourth Edition,
    can be found at http://www.sagepub.com/prccj4e. Visit the Web-based Student Study Site to enhance
    your understanding of the chapter by using the e-flashcards, practice self-tests, and more.
    STUDENT STUDY SITE
    WEB EXERCISES
    ETHICS EXERCISES
    SPSS OR EXCEL EXERCISES
    1. How do friends’ opinions and support for delinquent
    activities influence levels of delinquency among
    youth? A combined frequency display of the
    distributions of a series of YOUTH.POR variables will
    help you answer this question.
    a. Obtain a frequency distribution and descriptive
    statistics for the index of friends’ attitudes toward
    delinquent acts (FROPINION), the index of friends’
    engagement in delinquent acts (FRBEHAVE), and
    the delinquency index at time 11 (DELINQ1).
    b. Using the mean as the measure of center, recode
    the three indexes to measure low and high levels of
    each variable (e.g., all values below the mean represent
    low levels of a given variable, and all values
    above the mean represent high levels of the given
    variable).
    c. Use the percentages in these distributions to prepare
    a combined frequency display.
    d. Discuss what you have learned about the influence
    of friends’ delinquent tendencies on delinquency
    levels among youth.
    2. Repeat Exercise 1 using the parental index (PARNT2),
    the certainty of punishment index (CERTAIN), and the
    morality index (MORAL). Note: The scale for the
    variables of interest in this exercise is measured
    opposite the delinquency scale. For example, high
    scores on the parental index indicate high parental
    supervision, which in theory should correspond with
    low levels of delinquency. Be sure to place the
    percentages for DELINQ1 accordingly (make note of
    the placement of the percentiles for this variable or
    create more intuitive column labels).
    3. Write a short report based on the analyses you
    conducted for the SPSS exercises throughout this
    book, including the data displays you have just
    prepared. Include in your report a brief
    introduction and literature review. In a short
    methods section, review the basic methods used
    and list the variables you have used for the
    analysis. In your conclusions section, include some
    suggestions for additional research on support for
    capital punishment.
    CHAPTER 13 Reporting Research Results 443

    Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment Police Foundation Reports
    Page 5 of 13 April 1984

    meet the interviewer at a ?safe?
    location for the interview.
    The response rate to the biweekly
    follow-up interviews was even
    lower than for the initial
    interview, as response rates have
    been in much research on women
    crime victims. After the first
    interview, for which the victims
    were paid $20, there was a
    gradual falloff in completed
    interviews with each successive
    wave; only 161 victims provided
    all 12 follow-up interviews over
    the six months, a completion rate
    of 49 percent. Whether paying
    for the follow-up interviews
    would have improved the
    response rate is unclear; it would
    have added over $40,000 to the
    cost of the research. When the
    telephone interviews yielded few
    reports of violence, every fourth
    interview was conducted in
    person.
    Fortunately, there is absolutely
    no evidence that the
    experimental treatment assigned
    to the offender affected the
    victims? decision to grant initial
    interviews. Statistical tests
    showed there was no difference
    in victims? willingness to give
    interviews according to what
    police did, race of victim, or race
    of offender.
    In sum, despite the practical
    difficulties of controlling an
    experiment and interviewing
    crime victims in an emotionally
    charged and violent social
    context, the experiment
    succeeded in producing a
    promising sample of 314 cases
    with complete official outcome
    measures and an apparently
    unbiased sample of responses
    from the victims in those cases.
    About the Police Foundation

    The Police Foundation is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting innovation and
    improvement in policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted seminal research in police behavior,
    policy, and procedure, and works to transfer to local agencies the best information about practices for dealing
    effectively with a range of important police operational and administrative concerns.
    Our purpose is to help the police be more effective in doing their job, whether it be deterring robberies, intervening
    in potentially injurious domestic disputes, or working to improve relationships between the police and the
    communities they serve. To accomplish our mission, we work closely with police officers and police departments
    across the country, and it is in their hard work and contributions that our accomplishments are rooted.
    The foundation has done much of the research that led to a questioning of the traditional model of professional law
    enforcement and toward a new view of policingCone emphasizing a community orientation. As a partner in the
    Community Policing Consortium, the foundation, along with four other leading national law enforcement
    organizations, plays a principal role in the development of community policing research, training, and technical
    assistance.
    The foundation=s Institute for Integrity, Leadership, and Professionalism in Policing (IILPP) helps police
    departments to acquire both the knowledge gained through research and the tools needed to integrate that
    knowledge into police practices. Working with law enforcement agencies seeking to improve accountability,
    performance, service delivery, and community satisfaction with police services, the IILPP offers a wide range of
    assessment, technology, training, education, certification, management, and human resources services.
    The foundation has developed two state-of-the art technologies to enable police agencies to systematically collect and
    analyze a wide range of performance-related data. The RAMSJII (The Risk Analysis Management System) is an
    early warning device that helps agencies manage and minimize risk. The QSIJ (Quality of Service Indicator)
    collects and analyzes officer-citizen contacts, including traffic stop data. Both The RAMSJII and the QSIJ produce
    detailed reports to assist police managers in making critical personnel and operational decisions.
    The foundation=s state-of-the-art Crime Mapping Laboratory (CML) works to advance the understanding of
    computer mapping and to pioneer new applications of computer mapping. The CML provides training and technical
    assistance to police agencies seeking to incorporate mapping technologies and applications into their crime analysis
    and patrol operations.
    Other foundation projects are also directed at the improvement of policing. For example, the foundation has helped
    to create independent organizations dedicated to the advancement of policing, including the National Organization
    of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).
    Motivating all of the foundation’s efforts is the goal of efficient, effective, humane policing that operates within the
    framework of democratic principles and the highest ideals of the nation.
    1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20036-2636
    (202) 833-1460
    (202) 659-9149 fax
    E-mail: pfinfo@policefoundation.org
    www.policefoundation.org
    ©1984 Police Foundation. All rights reserved.

    6.1_Discussion

    Review Sherman and Berk’s experiment on the effect of mandatory arrest on domestic violence.

    •Discuss Sherman and Berk’s research with regard to each of the four report goals:
    ? advance scientific knowledge
    ? shape social policy
    ? organize social action, and
    ? dialogue with research subjects

    “Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
    Use the following coupon
    FIRST15

    Order Now

    Leave a reply →

Leave a reply

Cancel reply

Photostream

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp