1
Are children from small families more or less likely to become delinquent or criminal when compared with children from large families? Do criminals commit suicide at higher or lower rates than the general population? Jot down what you think the answers to these two questions might be; then you can compare your guesses with the results from actual scientific research.
Every year all over the world, answers to thousands of questions are being sought by researchers in the fields of criminal justice and criminology.1 The findings from these research studies are often published in scholarly journals. This book is designed to teach the concepts and techniques needed to critically read and eventually contribute to the ever-growing body of knowledge in criminal justice and related disciplines.
It so happens that the two italicized questions leading off this chapter are among those for which there are now numerous research findings, nearly all of which have come to the same conclusions. Before learning what those conclusions might be, take a moment to imagine how researchers might gather scientific evidence that could help to answer either of these questions.
For the first question, how would one measure people’s varying involvement in delinquent or criminal behavior? Concerning the second question, how could one possibly investigate the prevalence of suicide in a criminal population? To address either question, where would one locate people willing to provide the necessary information, and how many individuals should be studied? What would one do with whatever data were collected? Are there ethical issues that ought to be considered when pursuing these types of investigations?
In reading this text, students will gradually become acquainted with the reasoning that underlies criminal justice research. In addition, one will become acquainted with the concepts needed to begin conducting social/behavioral science research in general. Through it all, one should come to realize that, while a text can teach the basics, a high level of proficiency in social/behavioral science research comes only through years of practice. In fact, it is safe to say that those who conduct such research on a regular basis learn new things about the research process itself every time they conduct a study. Nevertheless, many basics are best learned by reading about them rather than through trial and error.
Let’s turn to the two questions posed at the beginning of this chapter, both of which have been investigated by dozens of scientific studies. In brief, here is what the scientific evidence indicates:
Regarding the relationship between the number of brothers and sisters someone has and his or her likelihood of being delinquent and criminal, over sixty studies have examined this topic in many parts of the world. About 80 percent of these studies found that persons with the fewest number of siblings (including those with no siblings at all) had lower probabilities of delinquency and crime than did persons who came from larger families (Ellis et al., 2009, 72–74).2 Nearly all of the remaining 20 percent of studies pertained only to minor types of delinquency and simply failed to find a significant relationship. Overall, there is a tendency for the number of children in a family to be related to delinquency and crime, and appears to be most pronounced for serious offenses.
Concerning suicide and criminality, over two dozen studies have been published. These studies have not only examined actual acts of suicide, but also suicide attempts and even what is called suicidal ideation (serious thoughts of suicide). Every one of these reports have concluded that offenders are more likely to commit, attempt, and even contemplate suicide than do persons in general (Ellis et al., 2009, 167–69).
Of course, knowing that relationships exist between such things as family size and delinquency on the one hand and criminality and suicide on the other hand raises more questions than it answers. Researchers would like to explain exactly why such relationships are found. These explanations usually come in the form of theories. Much more is said about the important role that theorizing plays in scientific research later in this text.
LEARNING TO BECOME A RESEARCHER
This book has been written to help readers become a part of the worldwide community of scientists who are contributing to the ever-growing knowledge of criminal justice and related sociocultural phenomena. One can become a part of this community not only by conducting research, but also by reading and making use of what is learned through the research of others. We all also need to become better consumers of research; hopefully, what is read here can help accomplish that goal.
Although one may have difficulty with some of the terminology used by scientists to describe their research designs and their findings, the terms can be mastered with some serious effort. Also, one will find that the research methods used by social and behavioral scientists have a major element of common sense, even though what they discover using these methods can sometimes confuse common sense.
Because this text emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of criminal justice research, we now proceed to ensure that readers are acquainted with the social and behavioral sciences in general. After describing each of the social and behavioral sciences, this chapter presents a brief sketch of what has come to be called the scientific method, and it acquaints readers with how this set of methods guide scientific research.
CIRCUMSCRIBING CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY
Scientific attempts to understand criminal behavior (and the legal system instituted to help control such behavior) go back to the early 1800s in Europe. Various intellectuals began to suggest that instead of demons and other supernatural forces being responsible for crime, the causes might be found within each individual offender or within the societies where they live (Masters & Roberson, 1990, 54). Out of these ideas have emerged a variety of theories of criminal behavior, nearly all of which can be subsumed under two main criminological traditions: an environmentalist tradition and a biosocial tradition. (Some have identified a third strictly biological tradition, but in fact no criminologist has ever argued that social environmental factors play no role in crime causation.)
The environmentalist tradition asserts that human behavior, including that which is socially defined as criminal, is largely the result of social environmental circumstances, including such factors as poverty, poor upbringing, and associating with the ‘‘wrong’’ peers. In other words, all people have essentially equal probabilities of running afoul of the law; what alter those probabilities are the social conditions to which each person is exposed. Numerous environmental theories have been proposed over the roughly two centuries that criminology has been recognized as a discipline (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
Biosocial theorizing in criminology can be traced back to Cesare Lombroso, a military physician who is usually considered criminology’s founder. While Lombroso recognized that environmental factors had an important role to play in crime causation, he also felt that not all individuals were equally likely to engage in crime. In particular, Lombroso (1899) asserted that some individuals had certain evolutionarily primitive traits that he felt were better adapted to life in an age before industrialization. These so-called atavistic individuals were believed to be especially prone to persistent criminality.
Prior to the 1970s, the study of criminology and juvenile delinquency were almost exclusively taught under the disciplinary umbrella of sociology. Since that time, more and more North American colleges have come to offer specialized degrees in criminal justice (Adams, 1976). Today, while nearly all sociology departments still teach courses in criminology, the field of criminal justice has emerged as a social science in its own right. Programs that specialize in criminology emphasize attempts to understand the causes of criminal behavior, whereas criminal justice programs focus more on studying the criminal justice system and on crime prevention and treatment.
CIRCUMSCRIBING THE OTHER SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
The term social and behavioral science is used to refer to the disciplines whose primary objective is to understand behavioral and sociocultural phenomena. Criminal justice and criminology are obviously a part of the social and behavioral sciences and often share knowledge with other social and behavioral scientists. For this reason, it is important for students in criminal justice to be acquainted with the social and behavioral sciences generally and how all scientists seek a better understanding of all aspects of behavior. Throughout this text, we refer on several occasions to the most common and conventional methods that are used in the social and behavioral sciences and to some important findings of existing social and behavioral science research. In the interest of simplicity and readability, however, we simply use the terms social sciences or social scientists to refer to both the social and behavioral sciences.
When did social science begin? The answer to this question depends somewhat on which social science one is considering. Nevertheless, historians of science agree that during the 1700s (i.e., the eighteenth century) ideas that eventually coalesced into the development of disciplines such as anthropology, economics, psychology, political science, and sociology began to emerge in Europe (Brittain, 1990, 105). It was not until the end of the 1800s, however, that professionalization of the social and behavioral sciences became apparent. This professionalization primarily took the form of establishing university departments with full-time faculty in each of the disciplines, along with the publication of specialized journals in those disciplines.
While the social sciences are quite diverse, they all focus on some aspect of behavior and social life and on the cultural institutions, technology, ideas, and aesthetic creations emanating from social interactions. Some social scientists even come full circle by reflecting upon the complex sociocultural processes that have given rise to science itself (i.e., the sociology of science). Other social scientists extend their interests in behavior and social living to nonhuman animals, either for the purpose of gaining insights into human behavior or as areas of study in their own right.
As one reads through the descriptions of the major social science disciplines in this chapter, notice how each makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of the richness and wonder of the human species and of its extraordinary social and cultural accomplishments. The disciplines are listed in alphabetical order, and there is no intention to suggest that one is more important than another by the amount of space devoted to their description. Some disciplines are simply easier to characterize than others. Following our description of each discipline is a brief account of how this discipline has contributed to research in the field of criminal justice.
Anthropology
Anthropology literally means the study of man (or humankind). The discipline began to form in the mid-1800s as the academic and intellectual community of Europe became increasingly interested in human origins and in studying the ethnic and cultural diversity of humankind. Consequently, two major branches of anthropology are recognized: physical and cultural (Lieberman, 1989, 680). Physical (or biological) anthropology primarily attempts to piece together fossil evidence of the physical evolution of humans (Birdsell, 1987, 2). It also tries to link the emergence of the human species from several extinct ancestral forms of human-like creatures that have been discovered, some of whom lived several million years ago (Barnouw, 1989, 138; Campbell, 1985, 161).
Physical anthropologists are also interested in both the physical features and the genetic makeup of the various nonhuman primates (monkey and apes) that still exist, and seek to someday determine when nonhuman primate ancestors and human ancestors first diverged into separate evolutionary lines (Larsen et al., 1991; Relethford, 1990, 190).
Cultural anthropologists specialize in studying the full diversity of human cultures and social customs as exhibited by people in thousands of human societies, both large and small, throughout the world (Haviland, 2000, 11; Peoples & Bailey, 1991; Scupin & DeCorse, 1992, 8). Cultural anthropologists often work closely with sociologists (discussed in the following text) in studying contemporary industrialized societies.
In recent years, a number of anthropologists have studied social behavior in nonhuman primates, especially apes (Campbell, 1985, 119; Richard, 1985; Smuts et al., 1987). This nonhuman research has made it possible to examine the similarities and differences that exist between humans and other primates. A researcher on the forefront of this work has been Jane Goodall, whose observations of wild chimpanzees since the 1960s have provided tremendous insights into the behavior of humankind’s closest living relative. Goodall (1977) and others (Mitani et al., 2002; Watts, 2004) have documented infanticide and other types of ‘‘murders’’ among chimpanzees, suggesting that humans are not alone in sometimes exhibiting a darker side (Ellis, 1998; Wrangham, 1999).
Anthropologists have made other unique contributions to the field of criminal justice. Returning to Lombroso, who is usually recognized as the founder of criminology, it is worth historically noting that he referred to his research on physical features linked to criminality as criminal anthropology (Gibson, 1982).
In contemporary times, anthropological research has been undertaken to determine to what degree the equivalent of ‘‘crime’’ exists in preliterate societies. Because crime is a legal concept and all laws by definition must be written, in a technical sense crime exists only in literate societies. Nonetheless, preliterate societies still experience people being assaulted and sometimes dying from those assaults. So, a few anthropologists have sought to study these ‘‘virtual criminal acts.’’
The type of offense considered most comparable is the equivalent of homicide (the intentional killing of another societal member). In nearly all literate societies, homicides are declared as the cause of death based on a physician’s report. But in preliterate societies, such a cause of death would be recorded by an anthropologist based on interviewing living societal members regarding their deceased relatives. These are obviously not identical procedures from a methodological standpoint, although for violent deaths it is reasonable to assume that a relative would make similar judgments regarding what caused the death as would a physician.
Studies have concluded that the rates of ‘‘homicide’’ in most preliterate society are much higher than they are in literate societies. For example, in the United States in recent years, the homicide rate (the highest in the industrialized world) has hovered between seven and ten per one hundred thousand persons over the past half-century (Walsh & Ellis, 2007, 291). However, among the San, a nomadic people living in sub-Sahara Africa, the rate was 29.3 per 100,000 (Lee, 1979, 398), and among the Yanomamo of the Amazon, the rate was 166 per 100,000 (Melancon, 1982, 33). These studies challenge the belief that human violence is largely the result of living in today’s large, impersonal societies.
An additional issue needs to be considered when comparing ‘‘homicide’’ rates in preliterate and literate societies. It involves the availability of good emergency medical services (Giacopassi, 1992). There is no doubt that homicide rates would be much higher in the United States and other industrialized societies were it not for well-trained medics and emergency room personnel. According to one study, U.S. homicide rates would be up to five times higher without these improvements in medical technology and training (Harris et al., 2002). These facilities are obviously not available among foraging people, so it is very likely that their rates of death from interpersonal violence are higher at least in part because of the lack of medical care to victims.
Overall, estimates of ‘‘murder’’ rates among preliterate populations are an example of how anthropologists have enriched the field of criminal justice. Other examples come from an emerging branch of anthropology called forensic anthropology, which specializes in identifying the bodies of murder victims that may be found months after the crime occurred (Byers, 2005).
Economics
The discipline of economics began taking shape near the end of the nineteenth century. Those affiliated with the discipline study all aspects of the economic processes, from individual and family finances (microeconomics) to the financial affairs of states and nations (macroeconomics). Economics is closely related to the fields of business and finance. It also has major ties with the fields of political science in studying the politics behind economic decision making. Many links can also be found between economics and sociology, inasmuch as both disciplines are interested in understanding how people form social hierarchies based on political power and wealth (social stratification).
Many close relationships have been established between economists and criminologists as well. For example, an English study was recently reported in which violence-related injuries were statistically linked to the price of beer. As prices rose, admissions to hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries declined (Matthews et al., 2006).
Economists have also contributed to a vast array of studies designed to detect the deterrent effects of increasing arrest rates, conviction rates, and average lengths of sentences (e.g., Cornwell & Trumbull, 1994; Witte, 1980). Numerous studies involving both economists and criminologists have attempted to estimate the deterrent effects of allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons (e.g., Kleck & Gertz, 1995; Lott & Mustard, 1997).
Geography
Geography literally means ‘‘earth measurement.’’ However, as the discipline developed, it has come to focus on how politically drawn boundaries impact and are affected by features of the earth (especially near its surface). While it is generally considered a social science, geography has close ties with geology, a discipline that studies the physical features of the earth and the formation of those features, as well as with meteorology, which studies the earth’s weather patterns. The branch of geography that is most intimately related to social science is called cultural geography (Jordan-Bychkov & Domosh, 1999). Probably the most unique feature of geography relative to the other social sciences is its heavy reliance on maps.
Geographic mapping has a long history in the field of criminology, and is sometimes known as cartographic criminology. It can be traced back to an eighteenth-century astronomer named Adolpe Quetelet, who, instead of studying the heavens, devoted much of his career to mapping the prevalence of crime in various European countries using the crime statistics that were available to him at the time (Hurwitz & Christensen, 1983, 22).
Today, cartography has experienced a major resurgence in criminology with the development of global positioning system (GPS) technology. Basically, GPS technology utilizes multiple satellites to get accurate information as to the location of objects and events anywhere on earth. As a result of this technology, numerous studies of how crime is geographically concentrated are currently revolutionizing crime prevention efforts (e.g., Althausen & Mieczkowski, 2001; Renzema & Mayo-Wilson, 2005; Padgett et al., 2006). It is even being used to track offenders while they are on probation or parole (Nellis, 2005; Stacey, 2006). Later in this text, we explore various computer-based software that allows researchers to map crime events to locations as specific as city blocks, and then link those blocks to many of their unique characteristics.
History
History is widely regarded as ‘‘the first social science,’’ although it may actually share that distinction with philosophy or political science, since all these disciplines trace their roots back at least as far as the classical period of Greece. Building on the word story, history means learning from an account or a written record. Because the first forms of writing began to appear only about six to seven thousand years ago (Lewin, 1988, 1129), events before that time are known as prehistory. When compared with the other social sciences, history tends to be most similar to anthropology, especially the branch called historic archaeology.
As is explained later, history has a special function among the social sciences by focusing on the causes of unique events rather than on categories of events. For this reason, there is continual debate over whether history should be considered a science in the strictest sense of the term (Carr, 1962, 70; Kloppenberg, 1989). Nevertheless, its importance to human understanding of itself is hard to exaggerate.
Links between the fields of history and criminal justice are considerable. For example, historical accounts of the early beginnings of the criminal justice system provide valuable insight into its present and future (Beattie, 1986; Brackett, 1994). Furthermore, some historians have located and analyzed seventeenth- and eighteenth-century jail records to provide information as to the sex and age of prisoners dating back to the sixteenth century in England (Beattie, 1977; Walker, 2003). Others have traced crime rates in various European countries back centuries (Innes & Styles, 1986; Lawson, 1986), in some cases as far back as the thirteenth century (Österberg, 1992; Spierenburg, 1994; Stone, 1983).
Philosophy
The prefix philo means ‘‘to love’’ and the suffix sophia denotes wisdom or knowledge. Western philosophy has its roots in ancient Greece and refers to intellectual efforts to understand the meaning of life, the nature of good and evil, and the breadth and limits of human knowledge. While some believe that philosophy is better classified as a humanity rather than a social science, there can be no doubt that philosophy forms the foundation upon which all science has been built. Accordingly, some of the philosophical underpinnings of scientific methods are discussed later in this chapter. Even today, most scientists awarded doctoral degrees receive doctorates of philosophy (Ph.D.s) rather than doctorates in science.
Philosophy’s influence on the field of criminal justice is substantial. It continues to provide the primary basis within which research on the proper role of the criminal justice system in people’s lives and the nature of free will and personal responsibility under the law can be undertaken.
While philosophers rarely if ever conduct scientific research, they have contributed to the scientific research process nonetheless. Contributions have come in the form of providing key philosophical assumptions that make science itself possible. These assumptions are discussed later in this chapter.
Another contribution of philosophy to the field of criminal justice comes in the way of examining the rationales that people give for exacting punishment on others for their misbehavior. Is it the desire for revenge, for deterrence, or simply to incapacitate the offender that should motivate us?
Political Science
With his book Politics, Aristotle is often regarded as the first political scientist. As a recognized discipline, however, political science did not begin to appear until the late 1700s, when the European Enlightenment witnessed the replacement of various monarchies with constitutional democracies.
Today, political scientists study all types of governments and the political forces that drive them. In addition, political scientists analyze voting patterns, shifts in public opinion, and the dynamics of international relations. Political science issues are often closely interwoven with issues of economics, geography, sociology, and history.
Because politics underlie the laws that the criminal justice system helps to enforce, there is obviously a strong connection between political science and criminal justice. In addition, political scientists have an abiding interest in research being conducted in the field of criminal justice as a guide to legislative decision making. For example, studies indicate that some offenders may be much more prone to career criminality (called life-course persistent offenders) than others (called adolescent-limited offenders) (Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt & Walsh, 2003). This research is being examined with reference to legislating changes in sentencing guidelines (e.g., Sampson & Laub, 2005; Tyler, 2004). Also, the work being done by geographers and criminal justice personnel involving GPS technology (discussed previously) could lead to new legislation regarding the potential for offenders to serve more of their sentences in a community rather than a prison setting. Finally, recently politics and crime have become inextricably linked, with politicians using crime reduction and punishment as a staple of their campaign platform.
Psychology
Psychology began to form as a discipline apart from philosophy in the 1700s. The word psychology literally means ‘‘study of the mind’’ (or ‘‘study of the psyche or spirit’’). By the 1800s, this cerebral concept of psychology had become a source of growing discontent, leading to efforts to make psychology a more objective discipline (Brozek, 1990). Since the turn of the twentieth century, psychology has usually been defined primarily as the study of behavior and the cognitive processes underlying it, such as thoughts and emotions (Cooper et al., 1987, 7; Dewsbury, 1984, 244).
A survey of psychological literature revealed that over the past century, psychologists have increasingly turned their attention to studies of the brain and its functioning as holding the key to understanding behavior, thoughts, and emotions (Ellis, Miller, et al., 1988). This trend has increasingly linked psychology with biology, especially neurology and neurochemistry (Davis et al., 1988). Nevertheless, psychology still retains close ties to ‘‘mainstream’’ social science, particularly in terms of research methodology (Bunge, 1990).
Many psychologists concentrate on studying the behavior of nonhuman animals more than the study of the behavior of humans. This is especially true of those specializing in such subdisciplines as experimental psychology and comparative psychology.
Connections between psychology and criminal justice have mushroomed in recent decades. Several criminal justice and criminology journals now mainly publish articles of a psychological nature. These articles address such topics as how criminal and delinquent behavior are related to a variety of personality traits (e.g., Cochran, Wood, et al., 1994), to alcoholism and drug addiction (e.g., Greenfield & Weisner, 1995; Wierson & Forehand, 1995), to intelligence (e.g., Fergusson and Horwood, 2002; Stattin et al., 1997), to learning disabilities (e.g., Grande, 1988; Leone et al., 1991), and to mental illness (e.g., Swanson, 1994, 113; Teplin et al., 1996). It is therefore very important for students of criminal justice to be acquainted with the research in psychology and with the methodology they most often use, especially in the field of personality and abnormal psychology.
Social Work
Social work is a specialized discipline for helping the poor, disabled, and otherwise disadvantaged maintain a quality life. Social workers attempt to restore and enable clients to be physically and mentally healthy and self-sufficient.
As a discipline, social work is similar to criminal justice in having a major practical (or applied) orientation, rather than simply focusing on acquiring new knowledge. Also like criminal justice, social work began to become formally separated from sociology in the 1960s.
Personnel in social work and criminal justice have collaborated on many mutual research interests. For example, both have undertaken to better understand how best to reduce the incidence of spousal abuse (e.g., Buttell & Pike, 2003; Carney & Buttell, 2006; Echeburua et al., 2006). Similarly, social workers have helped to devise and implement broad ranging social approaches to delinquency prevention, and then helped in assessing their effectiveness (e.g., Hawkins & Weis, 1985; Henggeler et al., 1993).
Sociology
Sociology began to establish itself as a major social science in the mid-1800s after a French philosopher and scientist named Auguste Comte argued that a special science was needed to study human societies and social relationships. Comte championed the idea that all matter evolves through major stages, beginning with inorganic matter, proceeding through simple life-forms, and advancing further to life-forms in which large, multicellular organisms such as humans form social collectives called ‘‘super organisms’’ or societies. He coined the term sociology to describe the discipline that would study all social phenomena.
Today, sociology is probably best defined as the study of social behavior, social institutions, and societies in general. While most sociologists are exclusively interested in social phenomena exhibited by humans in modern industrial societies, a few sociologists join anthropologists in studying humans living in nonindustrial societies.
As sociology was transported from Europe to North America in the late nineteenth century, many of its adherents developed an interest in understanding criminal behavior. Thus, what the physician, Lombroso, had termed criminal anthropology became increasingly associated with sociology as American influence in sociology grew. Today, of course, the fields of criminal justice and criminology have become so large and diverse that they have become increasingly separated from sociology.
Despite the substantial specialization that has taken place in studying criminal behavior since the 1970s, the intellectual links between criminal justice, criminology, and sociology remain strong. This is reflected in the fact that most departments of sociology still offer courses in criminology and in the fact that many universities have joint departments of sociology and criminal justice.
Even today, much of the research in criminology and criminal justice is conducted by sociologists. Examples are presented throughout the remainder of this text.
THE NEAR SOCIAL SCIENCES
In order to get a complete picture of the breadth and scope of the social sciences, three other disciplines should be mentioned: education, psychiatry, and public health. There are many examples of researchers in each of these disciplines who have contributed to the field of criminal justice (and vice versa).
Education
As a discipline, education involves studying the process of acquiring and transmitting knowledge and facilitating learning, usually in an academic setting. Many educators engage in research to improve teaching techniques and to determine why students vary in learning abilities and interests. The research methods that they use are the same as those used in the social sciences generally.
Psychiatry
Literally, psychiatry means ‘‘correction of the mind.’’ As practiced, psychiatry involves efforts to treat persons with mental illnesses. Psychiatrists have background both in medicine and in psychology. Thus, the treatment provided by psychiatrists can include psychological counseling as well as prescribing drugs and even performing surgery. Most psychiatric research methods are very similar to those used in the social sciences, although some methods are more closely allied to medical research. Many psychiatrists have become extremely interested in a clinical condition known as psychopathy, which studies have shown to be closely associated with persistent criminality (Hare, 1996; Porter et al., 2000; Poythress et al., 2006; Sandler, 2007).
Public Health
Public health is a discipline that, like psychiatry, is closely allied to medicine. It is most involved in studying the health of large populations rather than individual patients. Public health officials work closely with the social sciences and generally utilize the same research methods. Several efforts have been made in recent years to deal with neighborhood concentrations of crime using what is known as a public health model, which confronts crime much as one would a communicable disease outbreak (e.g., Coleman & Thorson, 2002; Garcia & Herrero, 2007; Sampson et al., 1997).
OTHER DISCIPLINES THAT UTILIZE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH METHODS
There are two disciplines whose practitioners have come to increasingly employ social science research methodology: journalism and business. Their use of social research methodology is as follows:
Increasingly, people in the fields of journalism, communications, and public relations collect social science data in the form of public opinion surveys (Cameron et al., 1992). Interestingly, the amount of coverage that a social science study receives in the popular press appears to actually influence the subsequent likelihood of the study being cited by the scientific community (Phillips et al., 1991). This suggests that journalists not only conduct social science research, they also impact the social science community.
Regarding business, those in marketing and advertising are increasingly utilizing survey research methodology. Like their journalism counterparts, business students should know how to select samples that are representative of a target population, how to phrase questions in ways that elicit the most meaningful responses, and how to analyze and interpret the responses obtained.
In short, the people who utilize social science methods are vast and growing. As a result, the knowledge being accumulated is rapidly expanding and impacting everyday life. Those in the field of criminal justice can learn a great deal from the research findings by persons trained in these other disciplines.
FEATURES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Now that the scope of social sciences and their allied disciplines have been identified, consider this question: What is it that makes a discipline ‘‘scientific’’? The answer boils down to a unique set of methods. Thus, the degree to which a social and behavioral science is truly scientific depends upon the extent to which its practitioners use a set of methodological rules and assumptions to answer their questions.
These rules are collectively called the scientific method. The characteristics of the scientific method can be grouped in various ways, but seven basic characteristics can be identified.
Empiricism
Ultimately, all things with which science can deal are empirical phenomena. Such phenomena are those that can be sensed (i.e., seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled) (Dickinson, 1971). In other words, all scientific knowledge ultimately rests on what can be perceived through the senses, with sight and sound being the most frequently used.
There are instances in which scientists hypothesize the existence of things that have not yet been sensed, at least not directly. These would include phenomena that are too small (like various subatomic particles), too remote (such as black holes), or that may exist even though our current methods are inadequate for measurement (life on other planets). Nevertheless, all phenomena with which scientists can deal are at least conceivably empirical.
You might question the relevance of empiricism to the study of humans, particularly in the case of our thoughts and attitudes. However, in these cases, social scientists usually infer the existence and measurability of these sorts of thoughts and attitudes through interviews and responses to questionnaires.
Before leaving the issue of empiricism, take note that there is no way of proving that our sensory experiences are accurate representations of what exists. Thus, all science rests upon an unprovable philosophical assumption! As we will see, there are other essentially unprovable assumptions that must be made for the scientific enterprise to function.
Verifiability
The characteristic of verifiability assumes that we can use our own empirical observations to confirm or refute the empirical observations made by others, and that they, in turn, can check ours. For various reasons, mistaken observations are occasionally reported. Gradually, such an observation will be followed by attempts to replicate the finding until it is apparent that the original report was in error.
Verifying the findings of another researcher is achieved through replication, which involves conducting essentially the same study a second, third, or even fourth time. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of replication in scientific research. In the words of one English psychologist, ‘‘replication is the life-blood of science’’ (Eysenck, 1994, 44). Despite the recognized importance of these studies, they are not as ‘‘glamorous’’ as innovative and groundbreaking studies. As a result, some disturbing evidence has been reported that suggests that replication research is becoming less, rather than more, prevalent in recent decades (Evanschitzky et al., 2007; Hunter, 2001).
Cumulativeness
The famous physicist, Isaac Newton, was once asked by a friend how he came up with all his ideas. He replied, ‘‘If I have seen far, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’’ (letter to R. Hooke, 1675 or 1676; for a more in depth discussion of the debate on the origins of this much used aphorism, see Merton, R. 1965). Newton’s response reflects the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge. One of the most exciting features of the scientific method is that scientists do not start from scratch when attempting to understand something. Instead, they find out what others have already learned and attempt to add a bit more to this ever-growing ‘‘knowledge base.’’
As the reader becomes familiar with a specialized subject area, as the decades pass, he or she will notice that the questions gradually change and become more refined. This is because it is not necessary to scientifically answer most questions more than a half dozen times or so, unless, of course, researchers keep getting different answers.
This cumulative feature of the scientific method means that research findings are, in a real sense, timeless. Readers will find research reports being published today in which findings that were published decades ago are still being cited. Unlike nearly all popular publications being read in the week or two after being printed, scientific publications tend to be read years and even decades after first being published.
Self-Correcting
Science is considered self-correcting because when errors in observations are made, sooner or later the mistakes will be identified (Silberner, 1982, 41; Stokes, 1974). Ultimately, no statement about scientific observations is ever excluded from the possibility of being in error, although from a practical standpoint many statements can be considered proven. Because science is self-correcting by always leaving all statements about reality open for further investigation, scientists use such terms as ‘‘The evidence strongly suggests . . .’’ or ‘‘Studies have shown. . . .’’ They avoid using emphatic statements such as ‘‘It is now a fact . . .’’ or ‘‘This study proves. . . .’’ The self-correcting and the verifiable and cumulative features of scientific methodology are all closely linked (Fuchs & Turner, 1986, 143).
Determinism
Determinism is another unproven philosophical assumption that scientists implicitly make when they attempt to explain why things happen. Basically, this assumption is that any explanation given for a phenomenon must entail only empirical (or natural), as opposed to supernatural, factors. Although there is no way to prove that supernatural entities (God, the devil, etc.) are not actually causing whatever is being observed, by removing the supernatural from consideration, scientists can at least hope to identify and comprehend the causes. If supernatural forces are manipulating events that scientists are attempting to understand, then scientists are unlikely to ever fathom the phenomenon using the scientific method. Consequently, scientists normally assume that the causes for whatever they are studying are all natural in origin (natural in this sense also includes social causes).
There is little controversy about the utility of the determinist assumption for studying physical or even biological phenomena. When it comes to studying human behavior, however, the determinist assumption also implies that, in the strictest sense, there is no ‘‘free will’’ operating.
Consider the following: Say that some criminologist theorizes that the reason people do or do not commit crime is that they freely choose to do so or not to do so. While this ‘‘theory’’ would be able to immediately explain every criminal act that occurs, it would not be considered a scientific theory. Can you see the problem with the theory from a scientific standpoint? The main problem is that it can only be tested after the fact: You wait for someone to commit a crime and then explain that he or she did so because he or she wanted to. It would be impossible to test the theory because it identifies no prior event to a criminal act other than a person’s free will (that an individual may not even be aware of until after the event occurs).
The issue of free will has been debated by theologians and philosophers for centuries, and obviously will not be settled here, but you should know that when scientists try to understand something, even human behavior, they assume that the determining forces are of a natural, observable nature, and thus are neither supernatural nor the result of ‘‘free will’’ (Ruse, 1987; Russell, 1945; Viney, 1986).
Students of research methods need only understand that (1) determinism is ultimately an unprovable assumption, and (2) even when made, the assumption does not deny that humans (or other animals) make choices. The assumption is simply that all choices humans or any other living creature make can be explained ultimately in terms of some combination of natural (including social) factors.
Ethical and Ideological Neutrality (Value Free)
The ethical and ideological neutrality of the scientific method does not mean that scientists must divest themselves of all moral principles and political beliefs in order to conduct research. In fact, an entire chapter (chapter 16) later in this text discusses many of the important ethical issues facing social and behavioral scientists. Ethical and ideological neutrality simply means that scientists should not allow such things as ethics and ideology to influence what is being empirically observed and reported.
Is it possible for scientists to be totally neutral from an ethical and ideological standpoint, especially when studying human behavior? There is a long-standing controversy surrounding this question, especially when studying people with cultural (or subcultural) backgrounds unfamiliar to the observer (Brittain, 1990, 108; Mahoney, 1987).
One interesting example of bias among social and behavioral scientists has come from studies of gender differences in behavior. Men researchers were found to report greater gender differences in various behavior patterns than were women researchers (Eagly & Carli, 1981). Which sex is closer to being correct still remains to be determined!
Another example bears directly on the field of criminal justice and criminology. Two of the present authors surveyed 140 members of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) in 1997 (Walsh & Ellis, 2004). This study revealed that ASC members who classified themselves as politically liberal or radical were more likely than those who considered themselves moderate or conservative to believe that biology had no significant role to play in causing criminal behavior, a finding that was still evident in a 2007 replication of the Walsh and Ellis (2004) study (Ellis et al., 2008). Both of these studies found that the strongest predictor of which theory criminologists favored was their sociopolitical ideology (conservative, moderate, liberal, radical).
The best insurance against observational biases is, first, never to take one study’s results as proof. Scientists should conduct numerous replications (or near-replications), using a variety of methodologies and samples before asserting that a particular finding is well established (Bornstein, 1990). The second way to avoid unintentional biases is to make social and behavioral science a multicultural and multi-ideological endeavor. Fortunately, people in nearly all countries and political persuasions have an interest in objectively studying most phenomena (Brittain, 1990, 108). This fact gives reason for optimism about the social and behavioral sciences gradually becoming a universal human enterprise focused on identifying truth, no matter how comforting or discomforting it may be.
Statistical Generalizability
Science has a reputation of being impersonal. This is because the scientific method is less interested in individuals than in sufficiently large samples of individuals to allow a researcher to statistically generalize about the sort of overall pattern that emerges.
Sometimes the statistics involved are very simple, such as finding averages and calculating percentages, and other times the statistics are exceedingly complex. The view underlying this text is that no student can grasp social science research methods without a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. In chapters 3 and 4, readers will learn various ways statistics are used by social and behavioral scientists to aid in generalizing about research findings.
As summarized in table 1.1, these seven interrelated characteristics of the scientific method are identified. Although they are all important, one should not assume that scientists necessarily adhere without exception to the scientific method. Reasons for straying from the scientific method include individual motivation, inspiration, lucky hunches, and even stubborn defiance of prevailing opinion. The qualities of what constitutes good science come under the category of what is known as the spirit of science, which we now discuss.
THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT
Anyone who is acquainted with many social scientists already knows that they are a diverse group of people. One would be hard-pressed to find any point of view upon which they all agree. So, what drives social and behavioral scientists (including those in criminal justice) to do what they do? With rare exceptions, social scientists (along with their colleagues in the physical and biological sciences) share what is called the scientific spirit. This spirit can be distinguished from the scientific method in that it reflects more about attitudes than about a set of agreed-upon rules.
The strongest components of the scientific spirit are ones of curiosity, persistence, and skepticism. Let us briefly discuss each one of these traits:
Like children who cannot resist taking a watch apart to see how it works, social and behavioral scientists have a burning desire to understand what they have chosen to study. Sometimes their curiosity is driven by a desire to institute changes, such as those who study the conditions responsible for poverty. Other times, understanding itself is their only motivation.
This desire to understand is sometimes so intense that researchers will sacrifice jobs, friendships, and, sadly, even a marriage or two rather than abandon their efforts to uncover some scientific mystery. Thus, persistence is a central ingredient in the scientific spirit. This trait is good because it is rarely possible to make major headway in understanding most aspects of behavior or of social networks without being internally motivated, often bordering on stubborn obsessiveness.
Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of the scientific spirit is that of skepticism, referring to a dogged resistance to believe something without compelling evidence. This feature of the scientific spirit has given scientists a reputation for being cantankerous oddballs; it has also pitted science more than once against some (but not all) religious teachings. In science, there is no authority to go to for truth. The weight of the evidence, whatever it may be, holds sway on all conclusions scientists reach. And because evidence is never complete, the spirit of science is one that never closes the door on the possibility that current conclusions may be wrong.
TYPES OF QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
Nearly all of the questions that scientists attempt to answer can be subsumed under one of five categories. These categories are measurement, description, exploration, causation, and evaluation. Let us define and illustrate each of these five types of questions.
Measurement Questions
Whenever a scientist seeks to study some phenomenon, he or she must first decide how to measure it. Here is an example of a measurement question: Before any objective conclusions can be reached regarding the proportion of people who are criminal, decisions must be made about how narrow or broad one’s conceptualization of criminality should be. Should a researcher include relatively trivial thefts and acts of vandalism or just those that would result in imprisonment if they were to have been arrested and convicted? Should speeding or drunk driving be included? Also, what sort of response options should be provided to participants in the study? Should possible responses include only yes-no options, or should participants be asked to report how many times they recalled engaging in each illegal act?
Descriptive Questions
After addressing measurement questions, researchers often move to descriptive questions in order to provide a basic picture of the extent and scope of a phenomenon. For example, studies undertaken to assess racial and ethnic variations in self-reported ‘‘problem drinking’’ have reached different conclusions, at least among males. Studies in the United States have found that blacks report more problem drinking (as well as full-blown alcoholism) than do whites (Flask-erud & Hu, 1992; Pope et al., 1994). However, a study conducted in England came to the opposite conclusion (Cochrane & Howell, 1995).
Exploratory Questions
Studies that address exploratory questions go beyond mere description of a phenomenon and begin to probe for details surrounding it. Exploratory questions often involve conducting in-depth interviews of people affected by some phenomenon. Extensive personal observations are another source of exploratory research. Typically, an exploratory study attempts to narrow the possibilities regarding the causes of some phenomenon, but they do not actually attempt to identify those causes.
As an example, studies have been conducted in which people were asked how they explain tremendous variations in wealth. In other words, why there are rich people and poor people, with most people in between? Throughout the world, answers have been shown to vary somewhat depending on whether one is interviewing children, adolescents, or adults (Burris, 1983; Forgas et al., 1982; Furnham, 1982). One Australian study even found that people’s answers varied somewhat by religious denomination (Feather, 1974).
Causal Questions
Questions that seek to identify one or more factors that actually bring about a phenomenon are causal (or explanatory) questions. Researchers recently sought to determine if ‘‘violence begets violence’’ in the sense of physical child abuse being one of the causes of violent criminal behavior (Widom & Maxfield, 2001). This study found qualified support for the ‘‘violence begets violence’’ hypothesis. Other studies have failed to show that exposure to violence makes persons more violent. Questions of a causal nature are very tricky to answer, usually because so many variables are involved in explaining human behavior.
Evaluative Questions
After one or more causes of a phenomenon have been identified, scientists sometimes specifically seek to alter the prevalence of that phenomenon. When this is done, research designed to assess how well the intervention actually worked is needed. In these cases, the questions being asked are of an evaluative nature.
Numerous studies in criminal justice attempt to evaluate crime reduction programs, or the implementation of new policies and laws. In other words, these research studies seek to answer questions regarding whether these programs, policies, or laws have achieved their intended goals or had their intended crime-reducing effects.
While these five categories of questions sometimes overlap and studies are often multifaceted in attempts to gather information on a certain topic, distinguishing them provides one with a sense of the breadth of what criminal justice and social scientists cover in their research. Note, of course, that researchers sometimes address two or even three of these questions in the same study.
VARIED ADHERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Having described the social sciences, the features of the scientific method, and the types of questions social scientists address, it is important to note that some disciplines utilize the scientific method more than others. Two disciplines, in particular, rely on the scientific method to a lesser degree than the remaining disciplines. These are philosophy and history (Brittain, 1990; Carr, 1962, 70). This is not to imply anything about the value of these two disciplines, but simply to recognize some of their unique features and functions.
Philosophy
As noted earlier in this chapter, philosophy lies at the heart of all science in that certain unprovable philosophical assumptions must be made (or at least implied) for science to function. For example, empiricism—the idea that our senses are providing us with more or less accurate information—is ultimately a philosophical assumption that cannot be proven. Likewise, determinism—the view that only natural (including social) events cause other natural events (without free will and supernatural intervention)—is beyond scientific proof. Thus, science is built on certain philosophical assumptions, putting philosophy ‘‘above’’ science, so to speak.
Because the assumptional umbrella beneath which science resides is philosophical, and philosophy is concerned with nonscientific forms of knowledge as well (e.g., knowledge of the supernatural and of human goodness), philosophers often explore questions that are beyond the scientific realm. For example, a philosopher might seek to investigate the validity of various religious beliefs. Most other social scientists usually restrict themselves to investigating the proportions of people in different cultures and religious backgrounds who might subscribe to these beliefs.
History
Research is fundamental to history, but the sort of questions historians normally address make the scientific method inadequate for their work. As mentioned earlier, historians usually ask questions about the nature of unique events, whereas the other social scientists seek to generalize about entire categories of events. For example, political scientists and sociologists might offer an explanation for the causes of war, but historians typically focus on the causes of a particular war (Vasquez, 1996, 161).
Another difference between historians and most other social scientists involves the use of statistics. Because most of the questions that historians attempt to answer have to do with unique events, historians utilize statistics far less than do other social scientists. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule (see Jarausch & Hardy, 1991; Rowney & Graham, 1969).
A couple of examples of historians utilizing statistics in their research are these: One historian statistically analyzed old jail records to determine the male/female ratio of persons arrested for crimes in England during the eighteenth century (Beattie, 1975). Another historian used registration records to assess the characteristics of persons who did and did not join Germany’s Nazi Party around the time of the Second World War (Kater, 1983). Overall, while historians rely less heavily than most other social and behavioral scientists on the scientific method, there are growing numbers of exceptions.
SUMMARY
The overarching theme of this text is that criminal justice is part of the social sciences. Nearly all of the research in the field of criminal justice uses methodology also utilized in other fields. Accordingly, this introductory chapter provided basic descriptions of the social sciences in general and cites examples of how these disciplines have helped those in criminal justice to better understand criminal and related behavior.
The social sciences covered were anthropology, economics, geography, history, philosophy, political science, psychology, social work, and sociology. Also mentioned were the so-called near social sciences, consisting of education, psychiatry, and public health. The field of criminal justice shares with these disciplines the goal of better understanding some important aspects of human behavior. What is found by researchers in one discipline, no matter how specialized it might be, will almost certainly contribute to the understanding of the whole. As a result, students of criminal justice should always look for opportunities to draw whatever knowledge they can from other disciplines and to contribute to that pool of knowledge in any way they can.
Seven characteristics of the scientific method were identified to help distinguish it from all other ways of acquiring human knowledge. We noted that the scientific method is (1) empirical, (2) verifiable, (3) cumulative, (4) self-correcting, (5) deterministic, (6) ethically and ideologically neutral, and (7) statistically generalizable. The scientific method is distinguishable from the scientific spirit; the latter refers to a set of attitudes that help to make scientists a rather distinctive group of people. The three main attitudes associated with the scientific spirit are intense curiosity, an unrelenting focus on understanding, and a willingness to question everything.
Empirical refers to those things that can be seen, felt, heard, tasted, and smelled. Verifiable means that others are assumed to have the same abilities to make empirical observations as oneself, and that scientists can therefore cross-check one another’s observations. Cumulative refers to the tendency to pursue new questions after several studies have verified the answers to old ones. The self-correcting nature of science means that errors made in empirical observations are eventually identified as such. Determinism is the essentially unprovable assumption that natural forces, rather than supernatural forces or free will, are responsible for whatever it is that scientists set out to understand. Ethical and ideological neutrality means that scientists strive to prevent their moral beliefs from biasing any empirical observations they make. Statistical generalizability refers to the tendency by scientists to describe what they have observed using widely agreed-upon statistical rules.
The five main types of questions addressed by social science research were identified as questions of measurement, description, exploration, causation, and evaluation. Measurement questions have to do with how best to objectively measure a phenomenon of interest, while descriptive questions pertain to characterizing a phenomenon’s prevalence within a prescribed population or setting. Exploratory questions shed more detailed light upon the circumstances surrounding a phenomenon. If one tries to identify actual causes of a phenomenon, one is asking causal (or explanatory) questions, and if one tries to assess how well efforts to alter a phenomenon actually accomplished their objective, one is addressing an evaluative question.
Two of the often-recognized social sciences that utilize the scientific method the least are philosophy and history. This does not diminish the important roles that these disciplines play in understanding the human condition. Philosophy does not rely on the scientific method because it provides the assumptional foundation upon which all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is based. History does not rely heavily on the scientific method because it usually focuses on series of unique human events, and does not ordinarily attempt to draw statistical generalizations about numerous similar events.