Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
tea room trade
|
Type I: Trade
38% of sample, all are married or had been (with unsatisfactory sex lives), lonely Type II: Ambisexuals 24% of the sample, strong subculture Type III: Openly Gay 14% of the sample, lives typically revolve around their sexual identities Type IV: Closet Queens 24% of the sample, socially isolated Subjects not all homosexual; they only share the fact that all have engaged in homosexual activity in a public restroom. Study occurred during 1965 – 68. One must find where the “action” is. Challenge: to report as things are, not as how one thinks things should be. Furthermore, there were no “hypothesis tests;” hypotheses emerged out of field work. Two stages to research: Field work Survey Using the tape recorder, Humphries recorded the license plate numbers of 10% of the vehicles at the tearoom (obtained 134 numbers). Surveyed these individuals under the guise of a legitimate research project. Interviewed intensively a dozen individuals outside of the tearooms after “the action.” |
|
|
critisims of survey and experiments
|
Some believe that CJ has been overdependent on experiments and surveys (artificiality and internal validity problems).
Verbal reports versus actual behavior There is often a difference between what people say and what they do. The LaPiere “Restaurant study” Imagine what kind of responses one might get for the Laud Humphries Tearoom Trade Study if he had primarily used a survey!! Quantitative studies biased by sponsorships. Quantitative research prone to design problems: Failure to account for nonrespondents Surveys actually conducted by hired hands with little interest in accuracy (leading to data entry problems and mechanical errors) |
|
|
participant observation
|
Involves:
Making direct observation Asking questions Sounds a bit like face-to-face interviews (which can be a part of field research), but the primary mode of data collection is through direct observation. Most suitable for topics where topics can be best understood in their natural settings (I.e., not suitable for artificial settings). Has a long history in anthropology & CJ P.O. refers to a variety of strategies where the researcher studies a group in its natural element by observing its activities and, to an extent, actually participating with the subjects. P.O. very people-oriented. Goal is to gain insight through an understanding of the entire context and perspective of the people being studied. Develops theory through data gathering (I.e., a grounded theory approach), rather than pre-determined hypotheses. |
|
|
complete participant
|
where the researcher not only joins in but actively influences the activities of the group. This approach is rare, owing to ethical problems associated with changing others’ behavior and validity issues (since researcher influence changes the natural setting).
The parallel of ‘entrapment.’ Why is entrapment a reason offenders get exonerated? Would it be okay to tell subjects about one’s identity as a researcher? |
|
|
participant as observer
|
researcher makes presence known and, while not trying to influence situations, does try to objectively observe.
|
|
|
observer as participant
|
basically the same thing as an in-depth interview (even with surveys), where the interviewer also acts as an observer.
|
|
|
complete observation
|
most surveys, experiments, and other unobtrusive measures
|
|
|
types of participant observations
|
Observer as participant, Complete Observation, Participant as Observer, Complete Participation
|
|
|
characteristics of participant observation
|
Large demands on time and personal cost. Personal cost is not just money, but the costs associated with a length commitment to a group of people (months to years).
Observer must operate on two different levels: becoming an insider while remaining an outsider. Being an insider allows for better information, but lack of objectivity destroys the scientific merit of the study. The need to avoid “going native”: researcher must resist taking on a new identity. |
|
|
objectivity in research
|
Researcher must avoid aversion toward the group.
Aversion would affect the tenor of the research and possibly undermine data collection. (R. ignores virtues and criticizes endlessly). Some groups will be repugnant and immoral, but researcher must objectively record what they do and try to understand them without trying to “improve” them. Otherwise the value of the research is lost. Going Native: overidentification with the group Where the researcher loses objectivity in the other direction and totally sympathizes with the group (ignoring faults and praising “virtues”; ignoring the law). The Case of John Irwin (p. 227 in Hagan). |
|
|
how to do field research
|
Try to avoid studying groups that you are too immersed in:
Too difficult to maintain objectivity Subjects will know the researcher too well and thus not treat him/her as such. Field Notes: your diary in the field (record everything! Essential for successful field work. You have to make some record! People tend to forget detail over time, so note-taking is important. Notes also include trivial details (I.e., offer thick, rich description). Video-taping, photos, tape recorders, and notepads |
|
|
tips for doing partcipant observation
|
When studying criminals:
Remember that your subjects risk a lot by being observed. Avoid taking notes on the spot. Initially, spend most of the time observing and listening and not asking a lot of questions. Field research interviews tend to be quite unstructured (like a conversation)—the goal is to let the subjects speak for themselves. This is good especially when the researcher knows little about a topic. |
|
|
access to formal organizations
|
Use a four-step procedure:
Sponsor Letter (Intro, brief statement, action request) Phone Call Meeting |
|
|
access to subculture
|
Learn the lingo
Purposive samples: Hang out where your subjects are, and participate (if possible) in their recreational activities. Use snowball samples, even want ads. Start with Gatekeepers |
|
|
gatekeepers
|
one who vouches for the researcher to other subjects
Gatekeeper can be a useful guide to surroundings. Can also ease access to other people. Problems with gatekeepers |
|
|
how to do field research
|
Try to avoid studying groups that you are too immersed in:
Too difficult to maintain objectivity Subjects will know the researcher too well and thus not treat him/her as such. Field Notes: your diary in the field (record everything! Essential for successful field work. You have to make some record! People tend to forget detail over time, so note-taking is important. Notes also include trivial details (I.e., offer thick, rich description). Video-taping, photos, tape recorders, and notepads |
|
|
tips for doing partcipant observation
|
When studying criminals:
Remember that your subjects risk a lot by being observed. Avoid taking notes on the spot. Initially, spend most of the time observing and listening and not asking a lot of questions. Field research interviews tend to be quite unstructured (like a conversation)—the goal is to let the subjects speak for themselves. This is good especially when the researcher knows little about a topic. |
|
|
access to formal organizations
|
Use a four-step procedure:
Sponsor Letter (Intro, brief statement, action request) Phone Call Meeting |
|
|
access to subculture
|
Learn the lingo
Purposive samples: Hang out where your subjects are, and participate (if possible) in their recreational activities. Use snowball samples, even want ads. Start with Gatekeepers |
|
|
gatekeepers
|
one who vouches for the researcher to other subjects
Gatekeeper can be a useful guide to surroundings. Can also ease access to other people. Problems with gatekeepers |
|
|
how to do field research
|
Try to avoid studying groups that you are too immersed in:
Too difficult to maintain objectivity Subjects will know the researcher too well and thus not treat him/her as such. Field Notes: your diary in the field (record everything! Essential for successful field work. You have to make some record! People tend to forget detail over time, so note-taking is important. Notes also include trivial details (I.e., offer thick, rich description). Video-taping, photos, tape recorders, and notepads |
|
|
tips for doing partcipant observation
|
When studying criminals:
Remember that your subjects risk a lot by being observed. Avoid taking notes on the spot. Initially, spend most of the time observing and listening and not asking a lot of questions. Field research interviews tend to be quite unstructured (like a conversation)—the goal is to let the subjects speak for themselves. This is good especially when the researcher knows little about a topic. |
|
|
access to formal organizations
|
Use a four-step procedure:
Sponsor Letter (Intro, brief statement, action request) Phone Call Meeting |
|
|
access to subculture
|
Learn the lingo
Purposive samples: Hang out where your subjects are, and participate (if possible) in their recreational activities. Use snowball samples, even want ads. Start with Gatekeepers |
|
|
gatekeepers
|
one who vouches for the researcher to other subjects
Gatekeeper can be a useful guide to surroundings. Can also ease access to other people. Problems with gatekeepers |
|
|
how do i know what good field research looks like
|
Credibility (actual participants)
Transferability (generalizability) Dependability (reliability) Do subjects give consistent accounts? Confirmability (verifiability) Triangulating sources |
|
|
field research advantages
|
Because the researcher actually experiences the life conditions of subjects, field research:
Produces less prejudgments Is less disturbing to subjects than experiments Is more flexible Field research produces some of the richest and most readable research in social science. |
|
|
field research disadvantages
|
Very time consuming (months and years)
Observed behavior may be deeply disturbing to researchers. Boredom and tedium; noteworthy events are few and far between. Getting access is sometimes difficult Ethical dilemmas |
|
|
examples of participant observation in criminal justice research
|
Two objectives:
To estimate the prevalence of shoplifting To assess the effectiveness of store security Three possible difficulties: Offenses are usually rare and unpredictable Observers may deter shoplifting Observers in some danger Are these difficulties serious when it comes to studying shoplifting? |
|
|
unobtrusive measures
|
means of gathering data in such a way as the subjects do not know they are being studied (nonreactive measures).
Lack of awareness eliminates reactivity problems. Clandestine observation might reveal more accurate behavior. |
|
|
physical trace anaylsis
|
the study of deposits, accretions, or other indirect evidence produced by human interaction (e.g., garbage, blood stains).
Very common in forensic science and crime scene investigation. The researcher looks for clues and circumstantial evidence, like hair, footprints. In some cases (e.g., DNA analysis), it doesn’t really matter if its unobtrusive since info can’t be changed. Be careful in generalizing from indirect evidence. Information on the scene may be spurious or irrelevant. |
|
|
archival analysis
|
include memoirs, diaries, historical documents, existing statistics, content analysis, and secondary analysis. Secondary analysis: basically involves reanalysis of data collected for other reasons (e.g., Census data).
Secondary analysis is efficient (essentially recycling) You can also replicate others’ findings Data can be inaccurate, faked, or misleading. Why is this type of data analysis unobtrusive? People didn’t know they would be studied by the present researcher, though they knew about original surveyor. Other sources, diaries, memoirs, might lack objectivity. Meta-analyses: analysis of others’ analyses. Draws out themes of findings, techniques. |
|
|
observation
|
observation with minimal participation by the researcher.Can be disguised or undisguised (but where the subjects don’t know the true purpose of the study).
The attractiveness study of delinquents versus nondelinquents. Ethical problems abound. Especially if there is any deception or unauthorized “bugging” Disguised is better, but prone to ethical problems as well as personal safety risk (if discovered). E.g., Humphries. Sometimes validity might be compromised if subjects are aware of researcher’s true status. Also Feldman study, where foreigners overpaid, etc., and 63% of garages, 64% radio repair shops, and 49% watch repair shops were dishonest. One can also use “confederates” to get the action going (e.g., Candid Camera). E.g., Web et al. (1966) where one confederate would ask a subject to watch a bag while he went into a store, a few minutes later another confederate would take the bag—does the subject say anything to protect the bag? Rosenhan (1973) is really interesting: researchers played inmates in a mental facility, acted normally, were diagnosed as schizophrenics, and had a hard time getting out. |
|
|
content analysis
|
Content analysis is a technique for gathering and analyzing the content of text (e.g., books, newspapers). Content includes: pictures, words, symbols, meanings, ideas, themes.
Looks at content of texts or advertising to understanding trends in content, words, imagery. How often does a theme come up? How intense is the imagery? Procedure: 1. What categories and subjects will be analyzed; 2. What are the rules for inclusion (so that results can be easily replicated); 3. How closely did I follow these rules; 4. Statistical analysis of the results. The technique is thus often quantitative, and can involve random sampling. This approach is nonreactive because the researcher does not influence text or content. |
|
|
advantages of observation
|
Nonreactive, if the research is truly unobtrusive.
Gives another basis of knowledge other than directly asking people. Anonymity is easier to guarantee (esp. in physical trace research). Archival and official data are usually accessible and cheap to use. |
|
|
disadvantages of observation
|
Ethical problems
Subjects cannot be protected if subpoena is issued. Subjects may not be representative of typical. Time-consuming No probing. |
|
|
Error in research
|
Error is another term for invalidity, which is always present in research.
No a priori predictions (I.e., no theory), poorly defined variables, confounded variables, poor sampling Validity: asks “does my measuring instrument in fact measure what it claims to measure?” Reliability: asks “do my measures yield the same results time and time again if I repeat the study?” |
|
|
why is there a lack of vaildation in CJ research
|
An awareness of poor research is longstanding.
But,… Little professional esteem in replication, and some studies are impossible to replicate. Existence of design faults make replication unlikely (other researchers would instead try to improve on the design). Unfavorable climate for validation occurs because organizations have little interest in validating embarrassing findings or “obvious” results. Interjurisdictional differences: comparisons across jurisdictions may be impossible because of different functions. |
|
|
how to determine vaildity
|
Face validity
Content validity Construct validity Pragmatic validity Convergent-discriminant validity |
|
|
policy analysis
|
The study of whatever governments choose to do or not to do; applied research.
More specifically, the study of proposals for achieving goals, programs (authorized means for achieving goals), decisions (actions taken to implement programs), and effects (measurable impacts). Policy analysis includes: Identifying of problems, formulating policy proposals, legitimating policies (building political support and enacting into law), implementing policies (setting up bureaucracy), and evaluating policies. |
|
|
evaluation research
|
This is the last stage of policy research; asks the following questions:
Do the programs work? (I.e., meet specified criteria for success) Do they produce the desired results? Are there unexpected results? Do they provide enough benefits to justify costs? Are there better ways to attack the problem? Should the programs be maintained, improved or eliminated? Goal of evaluation research: to supply scientifically valid information to guide public policy. |
|
|
policy experiments
|
Policy experiments are applied field experiments that address themselves to immediate practical policy questions.
For designing a policy experiment: Choose an interesting problem (one that people care about). Do some creative thinking to solve legal or ethical issues. Follow the best methodology in designing the experiment. (random assignment, control groups, etc) Adopt a team approach between researchers and practitioners Use an experiment to inform policy, not make policy. Understand and confront political risks involved Make sure the experiment is replicated in other settings before encouraging widespread adoption. |
|
|
before undertaking an evaluation...
|
There are three crucial questions to answer:
Will the findings be used? Sometimes, scientific evaluation will be at odds with political reality; researchers should avoid projects where the sponsors are not serious about obtaining an accurate assessment. Can the project be evaluated? The program must have specific and measurable goals! The program must keep accurate and useful records. Has the process been specified clearly? Also, are there enough funds to set up an adequate research design? Who can do this work? Internal or external evaluators? If internal, then one has to set aside sufficient personnel and resources. If external, researchers may be more objective, but will be less familiar with relevant agencies |
|
|
steps in evaluation research
|
Follows the same basic pattern as other research: problem formulation, design instruments, design study, data collection, analysis, write up findings, and utilize them
|
|
|
problem formulation
|
Read the literature! See how others have measured important concepts.
Theory can tell you what aspects of a program ought to have an effect and why. |
|
|
research design
|
Ideally, researchers would want a classic experiment (with control over treatment and random assignment into experimental and control groups).
This often doesn’t happen: Staff/planner resistance, due to feeling that treatment should be based on need/merit. Design may not be carried out properly, resulting in nonequivalent groups. Mortality may ruin randomization. |
|
|
data collection
|
Use multiple methodologies (not just survey questionnaires)!
Why would you want to do this? |
|
|
data analysis
|
Use appropriate statistics, but you need to make the results accessible to any reasonably educated person.
|
|
|
utilization
|
Remember that evaluation studies are used to decide the future of programs!
On the one hand, evaluation requires the help of practitioners, but at the same time evaluation can be critical of what they do! |
