Assignment 1
"fl l.)cserihc fhp irnnortance of
At the end of the semester, a professor asked tf I utould be interested in doing some research on sexualharassment in the workplace for her ouer the summer. For the research,I had to read research articles and summarize them for the professor.While I was reading the articles, I would come ocross the research methods the authors used, which included multivariate analysis, OLS Regression analysis, SPSS, and ANOVA tables. I thought it u)as incredible how I came full circle back to the research methods I learned! My research methods class set me on a course that has changed my time in college and possibly inJlu- enced my future career.
Emily G. , Student
! ntimate partner violence (IP\) is a major problem in countries around the I world. In a tI.S. survey of 1 6,507 men and women sponsored by the Department ofJustice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3 5 .6% of women and 28.5%" of men said th.y had experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner at some time in their lives (Black et aI. 2011).A" interna- tional survey by the Wbrld Health Organizatton flMHO) of 24,000 women in 10 countries estimated lifetime physical or sexual abuse ranging from a low of L5% inJapan to a high of 7l% in rural Ethiopia QVHO 2005) (see Exhibit 2.1).
What can be done about this problem? In 1981, a historic experiment was funded by the Police Foundation and the Minneapolis Police Departrnent to determine whether immediately arresting accused spouse abusers on the spot would deter funrre offending incidents. For misdemeanor cases, the experimental course of action involved the random assignment of police to respond by either arresting the suspect or giving the suspect a simple warning. The experimental treatment, then, was whether the suspect was arrested, and the researchers wanted to know whether arresting the suspect was better than not arresting the suspect in reducing recidiaisvn (subsequent assaults against the same victim). The study's results, which were widely publici zed, indicated that arrest did have a deter- rent effect. Pardy as a result of these findings, the percentage of urban police deparunents that made arrest the preferred response to complaints of domestic violence rose from IA% in 198+ to 90"/" in 1988 (Sherman 1 992). Six other cities later carried out studies similar to the Minneapolis e4periment (collectively, this was called the Spouse Assault Replication Program [SARP]), but city to cit1z, the results were mixed (Buzawa and Btzawa L996; Hirschel, Hutchison, and Dean 1992; Pate and Hamilton 1992; Sherman 1992; Sherman and Berk 1984).In some
THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATEDTO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY
t, 60 (E +. tr o o L
t40
.$'p$$*:-t$$l.'1.-'$5.'.:.* qtQt'
iEffi Ever experienced physical violence n Ever experienced sexual violence 1 Ever experienced physical or sexual violence, or both
Source: World Health Organization 2005. Multi-country Study onWomen's Health and DomesticViolence: Summary Report.
cities (and for some people), arrest did seem to prevent future incidents of domestic assault; in other cities, it seemed only to make matters worse, contributing to additional assault; and in still other cities, arrest seemed to have no discernible effect. After these replications of the original Minneapolis experiment, peo- ple still wondered, 'Just what is the effect of arrest in reducing domestic violence cases, and how should the police respond to such cases?" The answer simply was not clear. The Minneapolis experiment, the studies modeled after it, and the related contro- versies provide many examples for a qzstematic overview of the social research process.
ln this chapter, we shift from examining the wlry of social research to an overview of the bow-the focus of the rest of the book. We will consider how to develop a question for social research and then how to review the existing literature about this question while connecting the question to social theory and, in many studies, formulating specific testable hypotheses (see Exhibit 2.2).We will then discuss different social research strategies and standards for social research as a prelude to covering the details about these stages in subsequent chapters. You will find more details in Appendixes A and B about reviewing the literature. We will use the Minneapolis experiment and the related research to illustrate the different research strat- egies and some of the related techniques.The chapter also enpands on the role of social theo- ries in developing research questions and guiding research decisions. By the chapter's end, you should be ready to formulate a research question, critique previous studies that addressed this question, and design a general strategy for answering the question.
Beplication:
Thc ahiliti, sl '*.{t *{f,ii* tit*{}y w e'rf}*r1ffi*fr!,trs b* dupli*al*d,
CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 27
Exhibit 2.1 International Prevalence of Lifetime Physical and Sexual Violence byr an Intimate ' Partner, Among Ever-Partnered Women by Site
ffi,@)@,@)@+miffi IDENTIFYING A RESEARCH QUESTION
How does a researcher interested in criminology and criminal justice-related issues decide what to study and research? A research questiou in criminology and criminal justice-related sciences is a question about some aspect of crime or criminals that you seek to answer through the collection and analysis of firsthand, verifiable, empirical data. The types of questions that can be asked are virtually limidess. For example, "Are children who are violent more likely than nonviolent children to use violence as adults?" "Does the race of a victim who is killed influence whether someone is sentenced to death rather than life imprisonment?" "Why do some kinds of neighborhoods have more crime than others? Is it due to the kinds of people who Iive there or characteristics of the neighborhood itselfl" "Does community policing reduce the crime rate?" "IIas the U.S. government's war on drugs done anything to reduce the use of illegal drugs?" So many research questions are possible in criminology that it is more of a challenge to specif, what does not qualif, as a social research question than to speci$, what does.
But that does not mean it is easy to specifi, a research question. In fact, formulating a good research question can be surprisingly difEcult. We can break the process into three stages: identifiring one or more questions for study, refining the questions, and then evaluat- ing the questions.
Where to Start? Formulating a research question is often an intensely personal process in addition to being a scientific or professional one. Curiosity about the social world may emerge from your "per- sonal toubles," as Mills (1959) put it, or your personal experiences. Examples of these trou- bles or experiences could range from an awareness you may have that crime is not randomly distributed within a city but that there seem to be "good" or safe pars oftown and "bad" or unsafe areas. Can you think of other possible research questions that flow from your own experiences in the world?
The research literature is often the best source for research questions. For example, other researchers may also pose interesting questions for you to study. Most research articles end with some suggestions for additional research that highlight unresolved issues. For exam- ple, Sherman etal. (1992) concluded an article on some of the replications of the Minneapolis experiment on police responses to spouse abuse by suggesting that "deterrence may be effec- tive for a substantial segment of the offender population. . . . However, the underlying mech- anisms remain obscure" (706). A new study could focus on the mechanisms: Why or under what conditions does the arrest of offenders who are employed deter them from future crimi- nal acts? Exacdy what occurs when someone is arrested for domestic violence that may lead him or her not to be violent against a spouse in the future? Is it the brute fear of being arrested and having to go to jail? Is it the fear that one's employer may find out and fire him or her? Is it the fear that members of the communiq may learn about the arrest and the offender may
Besearch questitln:
A qusstir:ri ahout $c,rfir)
a$p*fft of crirH*, firiffiinal$,
*r Ih,* crinrir:al justic*
$ysteffi, the ans,,ryer t* whi*h is s,ruuhi through rolixcti*r, anrJ anal tsis *i {rrsthanri, ve rifiahlr, *rililiri*'al dala"
28 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
Exhibit 2.2 Launching a Research Project
lose his or her good standing in the neighborhood? Is it all these? Any issue of a journal in your field is likely to have comments that point toward unresolved issues.
Another source for research questions is theory. Many theoretical domains are used to inform research questions in our discipline, including sociological, psychological, and criminological theories. Some researchers spend much of their careers conducting research intended to refine an answer to one central question. For example, you may find rational choice theory to be a useful approach to understanding diverse forms of social behavior, such as crime, because you think that people seem to make decisions on the basis of personal cost-benefit calculations. So, you may ask whether rational choice theory can explain why some people commit crimes and others do not or why some people decide to quit committing crimes while others continue their criminal ways.
Finally, some research questions adopt a very pragmatic rationale concerning their research design. You may focus on a research question posed by someone else because doing so seems to be to your professional or financial advantage. For instance, some researchers conduct research on specific questions posed by a funding source in what is termed a request for proposals (RFP). (Sometimes the acronyrn RFA is used, meaning reqaest for applications.) Or you may learn that the public defenders in your ciq are curious as to whetler they are more successful in getting their clients acquitted of a criminal charge than private lawyers.
Refi ning Research Questions As you may have guessed, coming up with interesting criminological questions for research is less problematic than focusing on a problem of manageable size. We are often interested in much more than we can reasonably investigate with our limited time and resources (or the limited resources of a funding agenry). Researchers may worry about staking a research project (and thereby a grant) on a particular problem, so they commit to addressing several research questions at once, often in a jumbled fashion. It may also seem risky to focus on a research question that may lead to results discrepant with our own cherished assumptions about the social world. In addition, the prospective commitment of time and effort for some research questions may seem overwhelming, resulting in a certain degree of parallsis (not that the authors have any experience with this!).
The best way to avoid these problems is to develop the research question one bit at a time with a step-by-step strategy. Do not keep hoping that the perfect research question will sprilg forth from your pen. Instead, develop a list ofpossible research questions as you go along. At the appropriate time, you can look through this list for the research questions that appear more than once. Narrow your list to the most interesting, most workable candidates. Repeat this process as long as it helps improve your research questions. Keep in mind that the research you are currendy working on will likely generate additional research questions for you to answer.
Evaluating Research Questions In the third stage ofselecting a criminological research question, you evaluate the best can- didate against the criteria for good social research questions: feasibility (given the time and resources available), social importance, and scientific relevance (IGng, Keohane, and Verba tee+).
The research question in the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, "Does the formal sanction of police arrest versus nonarrest inhibit domestic violence?" certainly meets the criteria of social importance and scientific relevance, but it would not be a feasible ques- tion for a student proiect because it would require you to try to get tJle cooperation ofa police
CHAPTER 2 . THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 29
deparrnent. You might instead ask the question "Do people (students) think that arrest will inhibit domestic violence?" This is a question that you could study with an on-campus sur- vey. Or perhaps you could work out an arrangement with a local battered women's shelter to study the question "What leads some women to call the police when they are the victims of domestic violence, and why do they sometimes not call?" A review of the literature, however, might convince you that this and other questions may not be scientifically relevant because they have been studied enough.
Feasibility
You must be able to conduct any study within the time frame and with the resources you have. If time is limited, questions that involve long-term change may not be feasible-for example, "If a state has recendy changed its law so that it now permits capial punishment for those convicted of murder, does it eventually see a reduction in the homicide rate over time?" This is an interesting and important question but one that requires years of data collection and research. Another issue is what people or groups you can expect to gain access to. Although well-experienced researchers may be granted access to police or correctional departrnent files to do their resbarch, less seasoned and lesser-known researchers or students may not be granted such access. It is also often difficult for even the most experienced ofresearchers to be given firll access to the deliberations of a criminal jury. For someone interested in white-collar crime, recording the interactions that take place in co{porate boardrooms may also be aboo.
The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment shows how ambitious social research questions can be when a team of seasoned researchers secures the backing of influential groups. The project required hundreds of thousands of dollars, the collaboration of many social scientiss and criminal justice personnel, and the volunteer efforts of 41 Minneapolis police officers. But don't v/orry; many worthwhile research questions can be investigated with much more limited resources. Of course, for this reason, the Sherman and Berk (1984) question would not be feasible for a student project. You might instead ask the question, "Do students think punishment deters spouse abuse?" Or perhaps you could work out an arrange- ment w'ith a local police departrnent to sflrdy the question, "How satisfied are police ofEcers with their treatrnent of domestic violence cases?"
Social lmportance
Criminological research is not a simple undertaking, so you must focus on a subsantive area that you feel is important and that is important to the discipline and,lor important for public poliry. You also need to feel personally motivated to carry out the study; there is litde point in tying to answer a question that does not interest you.
In addition, you should consider whether the research question is important to other people. Will an answer to the research question make a difference for society? Again, the Minneapolis Domestic Molence Experiment is an exemplary case. If that study had showed that a certain type of police response to domestic violence reduced the risk of subsequent victimization ,
^ grea;t deal of future violence could be prevented. But clearly, criminology and
criminal justice are far from lacking important research questions.
Scientific Relevance
Every research question in criminology should be grounded in the existing empirical litera- wre.By ground.ed,we mean that the research we do must be informed by what others before us have done on the topic. Whether you formulate a research question because you have been stimulated by an academic article or are motivated by questions regarding your own personal experiences, you must turn to existing criminological literature to find out what has already been learned about this question. Even ifyour research topic has already been investigated
SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH30
by someone else, it would not necessarily be a bad idea for you to do research on the issue. It would be unreasonable to think of any criminological research question as being setded for all time. You can be sure that some prior study is relevant to almost any research question you can think of, and you can also think ofbetter ways to do research than have been done in the past.
The Minneapolis experiment was built on a subsantial body of contradictory theories about the impact of punishment on criminality (Sherman and Berk 1984). Deterrence theory predicted that because it was a more severe penalql arresting individuals would better deter them from repeat offenses than not arresting them. Labeling theory on the other hand, pre- dicted that arrest would make repeat offenses more likely because it would stigmatize offend- ers. Clearly, the Minneapolis researchers had good reason to perform another study. Prior research and theory also helped them develop the most effective research design.
SOCIAL RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS
How do we find prior research on questions of interest? You may already ftnow some of the relevant material from prior coursework or your independent reading, but that won't be enough. When you are about to launch an investigation of a new research question, you must apply a very different standard than when you are studying for a test or merely seek- ing to learn about domestic violence or any other topic. You need to find reports ofprevious investigations that sought to answer the same research question that you wish to an$tre! not only those that were about a similar topic. If there have been no prior studies of exacdy the same research question, you should find reports from investigations of very similar research questions. Once you have located reports from prior research similar to the research that you
31CHAPTER2. THEPROCESSANDPROBLEMSOFRESEARCHRELATEDTOCRIMEANDCRIMINOLOGY
Patrick r. Garr, PhD, Director, Program in Criminal fustice
Patrick J. Carr is the program director of the Program in Criminal Iustice, as well as associate professor of soci- ology at Rutgers
and violence that consumes so much of their daily lives, to ask questions of themselves and the people charged with running [Philadelphia], and to have a serious conversation with teachers, parents, city offi- cials, comrnunity leaders, state legislators, reporters, politicians, and anyone else who wants to know what is going on in the city to move forward on solutions inspired by the youth perspective." The Philadelphia Youth Solutions Project is a venue for Philadelphia's young people to offer their own expert advice on how to transform the city based on their experiences and perspectives.
Carr and Kefalas are ethnographic research- ers who seek to understand people's experiences through participating in their lives and interviewing them in depth. In anothel project, they investigated the experiences of young adults growing up in a small midwestern town by living in the town and sharing in community experiences. Their subsequent book was Hollouri ng Outthe Middle:The RuralBrainDrain and,What It IVIeans for America (2009).
It
more, he is an associate membe r of the MacArthur Foundation's Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood. He earned his PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago in 1998 and his master's degree in sociology from University College Dublin in 1990. His research interests include communities and crime, informal social control, youth violence, and the transition to adulthood.
Carr and his wife, Maria Kefalas (Saint Joseph's University), are founders of the Philadelphia Youth Solutions Proj ect (http :/ /www.pysp.org) , which "offers a safe space for Philadelphia's young people to explain their views and emotions about the danger
l'l
Refereed journals:
J*urn'al* that s*lect rnscarth p;ifiors fcr publi*aii*n has*d i:n thr pe*r r*vi*rrys *f rsth*r r;rs*ial s*i*ntisis.
wish to conduct, you may expand your search to include investigations about related topics or studies that used similar methods. You want to be able to explain what your proposed study adds to prior research as well as how it takes into account what has already been learned about your research question.
Although it's most important when you're starting out, reviewing the literature is also important at later sages of the research process. Throughout a research project, you will uncover new issues and encounter unexpected problems; at each of these times, you should search the literature to locate prior research on these issues and to learn how others responded to similar problems. Published research that you ignored when you were seeking to find other research on domestic violence might become very relevant when you have to decide which questions to ask people about their attitudes toward police and other authorities.
Searchi ng the Literature Conducting a thorough search of the research literature and then reviewing critically what you have found lays an essential foundation for any research project. Fortunately, much ofthis information can be identified online, without leaving your desk, and an increasing number of published journal articles can be downloaded direcdy onto your own computer (depending on your particular access privileges). But just because thereb a lot available online doesnt mean that you need to fir,d it all. Keep in mind that your goal is to find reports of prior research investigations; this means that you should focus on scholarly journals that choose articles for publication after they have been peer reviewed by other social scientists-refereed journals. Newspaper and magazine articles wont do, although you may find some that raise important issues or that summarize social science research investigations.
Every year, the web offers more and more usefirl material, including indexes of the published research literature. You may find copies of particular rating scales, reports from research in progress, papers that have been presented at professional conferences, and online discussions of related topics. Web search engines wilf-also find academic journal articles that you can access direcdy online (although usually for a fee). Most of the published research literature will be available to you online only if you go through the website of your college or university library. The library pays a fee to companies that provide online journals so that you can retrieve this information without paying anything extra yourself. Of course, no Iibrary can afford to pay for every journal, so ifyou cant find a particular issue of a particular journal that you need online, you will have to order the article that you need through interlibrary loan oq ifthe hard copy ofthe journal is available, walk over to your library to read it.
As with any part of the research process, your method for searching the literature vrill affect the quality of your results. Your search method should include the following steps:
Specify Your Research Question. Your research question should be neither so broad that hundreds of articles are judged relevant nor so narrow that yorr miss important literature. "Is informal social control effective?" is probably too broad. "Does informal social control reduce rates of burglary in my town?" is probably too narrow. "Is informal social control more effective in reducing crime rates than policing?" provides about the right level of specificity.
ldentify Appropriate Bibliographic Databases to Search. Criminal Justice Abstracts is a great place to start, however, because the field is interdisciplinary in nature, Sociological Abstracts or SocINDEX may also meet many of your needs. If your focus is on psychological questions, you'll also want to include a search in the online Psychological Abstracts database, PsycINFO, or the version that also contains the firll text of articles, PsycARTICLES. Of course, many journals are listed in several databases, so it is best to begin a search in Criminal Justice Abstracts, and then move on to the others. It will save you a lot of time if you ask a
32 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
librarian to teach you the best techniques for retrieving the most relevant articles to answer your questions.
To find articles that refer to a previous publication, such as Sherman and Berk's study of the police response to domestic violence, the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) will be helpfirl. SSCI is an extremely useful tool for tracing the cumulative research in an area across the social sciences. SSCI has a unique "citation searching" feature that allows you to look up articles or bool,o, see who else has cited them in their worlg and find out which articles and boo[s have had the biggest impact in a field.
Create a Tentative List of Search Terms. List the parts and subparts of your research question and any related issues that you think are impoftant: "informal social control," "policing," "influences on crime rates," and perhaps "community cohesion and crime." List the authors of relevant studies. Specifi, the most important journals that deal with your topic.
Narrow Your Search. The sheer number of references you find can be a problem. For example, searching for "social capital" in July 2017 resulted in 7 ,67 5 citattorrs in SocINDEX. Depending on the database you are working with and the purposes of your search, you may want to limit your search to English-language publications, to journal articles rather than conference papers or dissertations (both of which are more difficult to acquire), and to materials published in recent years. If your search yields too many citations, try specifying the search terms more precisely (e.g., "neighborhood social capital"). If you have not found much literature, try using more general or multiple terms (e.g., "social relations" OR "social ties").
Whatever terms you search first, don't consider your search complete until you have tried several different approaches and have seen how many articles you find. A search for "domestic violence" in SocINDEX onJuly 30,2017,yielded 12,358 hits; by adding "effects" or "influences" as required search terms and limiting the search to peer-reviewed articles published since 2010, the number of hits dropped to 566. But focusing even more by add- ing "police response" resulted in two articles. So, if you are focusing on issues such as tlose in the Sherman and Burk study, you probably need to use a strateg'y a bit narrower than the next-to-last one.
lJse Boolean Search Logic. It\often a good idea to narrow your search by requiring that abstracts contain combinations of words or phrases that include more of the specific deails of your research question. Using the Boolean connector anil allows you to do this, while using the connector or allows you to find abstracts containing different words that mean the same thirg.
Use Appropriate Subject Descriptors. Once you have found an article that you consider appropriate, look at the "descriptors" field in the citation. You can then redo your search after requiring that the articles be classified with some or all of these descriptor terms.
Check the Resu/fs. Read the tides and abstracts you have found and identif, the articles that appear to be most relevant. If possible, click on these article tides and generate a list of their references. See ifyou find more articles that are relevant to your research question but that you have missed so far. You will be surprised at how many imporant articles your initial online search missed.
Locate the Articles. Whatever database you use, the next step after finding your references is to obtain the articles themselves. You will probably find the firll text of many articles available online, but this will be determined by what journals your library subscribes to and the period
33CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY
for which it pays for online access. The most recent issues of some journals may not be available online. Keep in mind that your library will not have anywhere near all the journals (and books) that you run across in your literature search, so you will have to add another step to your search: checking the "holdings" information. If an article that appears to be important for your topic isnt available from your own library or online, you may be able to request a copy online through your library site or by asking a member of the library saff. You can also check http://worldcat.org to see which other librar- ies have the journal.
Take Notes on Each Article Your Read, Organizing Your Notes lnto Standard Sections: Theory, Methods, Findings, Conclusions. L *y case, write your review of the literature so that it contributes to your study in some concrete way; don't feel compelled to discuss an article merely because you have read it. Be judicious. You are conducting only one study of one issue, and it will only obscure the value of your study if you try to relate it to every tangential point in related research.
Dont think of searching the literature as a one-time-only venture---+omething that you leave behind as you move on to your real research. You may encounter new questions or unanticipated problems as you conduct your research or as you burrow deeper into the literature. Searching the literature again to determine what others have found in response to these questions or what steps they have aken to resolve these problems can yield substantial improvements in your own research, There is so much literature on so many topics that it often is not possible to figure out in advance every subject for which you should search the literature or what type of search will be most beneficial.
Another reason to make searching the literature an ongoing project is that the literature is always growing. During the course of one research study, whether it takes only one semes- ter or several years, new findings will be published and relevant questions will be debated. Staying attuned to the literature and checking it at least when you are writing up your find- ings may save your study from being outdated as soon as it is finished.
Critically Review Research Your literature review will suggest specific research questions for further investigation and research methods with which to study those questions. Sherman and Berk (1984) learned from their literature review that there had been litde empirical research about the impact of arrest policies in domestic violence cases. What prior research had been conducted did not use very rigorous research designs. There was thus potential value in conducting new research using a rigorous design. Subsequent researchers questioned whether Sherman and Berk's results would be replicated in other cities and whether some of their methods could be improved. When the original results did not replicate, researchers designed more investiga- tions to find outwhy. In this way, reviewing the literature identifies unanswered questions and contradictory evidence.
Effective review of the prior research is an essential step in building the foundation for new research. You must assess carefirlly the quality of each research study, consider the implications of each article for your own plans, and expand your thinking about your research question to take account of new perspectives and altemative arguments. It is through review- ing the literature and using it to extend and sharpen your own ideas and methods that you become a part of the social science community. Instead of being only one individual studying an issue, you are building on an ever-growing body ofknowledge that is being constructed by the entire community of scholars.
34 SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
Sometimes you'll find that someone else has akeady searched the literature on your research question and discussed what he or she found in a special review article or book chapter. For example, Chalk and Garner (2001) published an excellent review of the research on arrest and domestic violence in the journal Nar Direxions for Eaaluation. Most of the research articles that you find will include a short literature review on the specific focus of the research. These reviews can help a lot, but they are no substitute for searching the literature yourself, select- ing the articles and other sources that are most pertinent to your research question, and then reviewing what you have found. No one but you can decide what is relevant for your research question and the research circumstances you will be facing-the setting you will study, the timing of your study, the new issues that you want to include in your study, and your specific methods. And you cant depend on any published research review for information on the most recent works. Results from new research about many questions appear continually in scholarly journals and boola, in research reports from government agencies and other organizations, and on websites all over the world; you'll need to check for new research like this yourself.
This section concentrates on the procedures you should use for reviewing the articles you find in a search ofthe scholarly literature. These procedures can also be applied to reviews of research monographs-books that provide more information from a research project than that which can be contained in a journal article.
Reviewing the literature is really a two-stage process. In the first stage, you must assess each article separately. This assessment should follow a standard format such as that repre- sented in Appendix A, "Questions to Ask About a Research Article." However, you should keep in mind that you cant adequately understand a research study ifyou treat it as a series of discrete steps, involving a marriage of convenience among separate techniques. Any research
CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY
project is an integrated whole, so you must be concerned with how each component of the research design influenced the others-for example, how the measurement approach might have affected the causal validity of the researcher's conclusions and how the sampling strategy might have altered the quality of measures.
The second sage of the review process is to assess the implications of the entire set of articles (and other materials) for the relevant aspects ofyour research question and proce- dures and then to write an integrated review that highlights these implications. Although you can find literature reviews that consist simply of assessments of one published article after another-that never get beyond the first stage in the review process-your understanding of the literature and the quality of your own workwill be much improved if you make the effort to write an integrated review.
In the next two sections, we will show how you might answer many of the questions in Appendix A as we review a research article about domestic violence. We will then show how the review of a single article can be used vdthin an integrated review of the body of prior research on this research question. Because at this early point in the textyou wont be familiar with all the terminology used in the article review, you might want to put offreading t}rough the more elaborate article review in Appendix B until later in the course.
A Single-Article Review: Formal and !nforma! Deterrents to Domestic Violence
Antony Pate and Edwin Hamilton at the National Police Foundation designed one of the studies funded by the U.S. Departnent ofJustice to replicate the Minneapolis DomesticVio- lence Eriperiment. In this section, we will examine the article that resulted from that replica- tion, which was published inrhe Arnerican Sociological Reaiew @ate and Hamilton 1992).The numbers in square brackets refer to the article review questions inAppendix B.
The Research Question. Like Sherman and Berk's (198a) original Minneapolis study, Pate and Hamilton's (1992) Metro-Dade replication spouse assault experiment sought to test the deterrent effect of arrest in domestic violence cases but with an additional focus on the role of informal social control [1]. The purpose of the study was explanatory because the goal was to explain variation in the propensity to commit spouse abuse [2]. Deterrence theory provided the theoretical framework for the study, but this study was broadened to include informal sanctions such as stigma and the loss of valued relationships as well as formal sanctions such as arrest [3]. Pate and Hamilton's (1992) literature review referred, appropriately, to the original Sherman and Berk (1984) research, to the other studies that attempted to replicate the original findings, and to research on informal social control [4].
There is no explicit discussion of ethical guidelines in the article, although reference is made to a more complete unpublished report [6]. Clearly, important ethical issues had to be considered, given the experimenal intervention in the police response to serious assaults, but the adherence to standard criminal justice procedures suggests attention to the welfare of victims as well as to the rights of suspects. W'e will consider these issues in more detail later in this chapte
The Research Design. Developed as a follow-up to the original Minneapolis experiment, theMetro-Dade experiment exemplifies the guidelines for scientific research. Itwas designed systematically,with carefirl attention to specification of terms and clarification of assumptions, and focused on the possibility of different outcomes rather than certainty about one preferred outcome. The major concepts in the study, formal and informal deterrence, were defined clearly [7] and then measured with straightforward indicators-alTest or nonarrest for formal deterrence, and marital status and employment status for informal deterrence. However, the
36 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
specific measurement procedures for marital and employment status were not discussed, and no attempt was made to determine whether they captured adequately the concept of informal social control [9, l0].
Three hypotheses were sated and related to the larger theoretical framework and prior research [8]. The study design focused on t]re behavior of individuals [1 1] and collected data over time, including records indicating subsequent assault up to six months after the initial arrest. The project's experimental design was used appropriately to test for the causal effect of arrest on recidivism 115,17). The research project involved all eligible cases, rather than a sample of cases, but there were a number of eligibility criteria that narrowed down the ability to generalize these results to the entire population of domestic assault cases in the Metro-Dade area or elsewhere [11]. There is a brief discussion of the 92 eligible cases that were not given the treatrnent to which they were assigned, but it does not clari$, the reasons for the misassignment [15].
The Research Findings and Conclusion. Pate and Hamilton's (1992) analysis of the Metro-Dade experiment was motivated by concern with the effect of social context, because the replications in other cities of the original Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment had not had consistent results [19]. Their analysis gave strong support to the expectation that informal social control processes are important As they had hypothesized, arrest had a deterrent effect on suspects who were employed but not on those who were unemployed @xhibit 2.3). However, marital status had no such effect [20]. The subsequent discussion of these findings gives no attention to the implications of the lack of support for the effect of marital status [21], but the study represents an imporant improvement over earlier research that had not examined informal sanctions [22]. The need for additional research is highlighted, and the importance of the findings for social poliry is discussed: Pate and Hamilton suggest that their finding that arrest deters only those who have something to lose (e.9., a job) must be taken into account when policing policies are established.
Overall, the Pate and Hamilton (1992) study represents an important contribution to understanding how informal social control processes influence the effectiveness of formal sanctions such as arrest. Although the use of a population of actual spouse assault cases pre- cluded the use of very sophisticated measures of informal social conuol, the experimental design ofthe study and the researchers' ability to interpret the results in the context ofseveral other comparable experiments distinguish this research as exceptionally worthwhile. It is not hard to understand why these studies continue to stimulate further research and ongoing policy discussions.
An lntegrated Literature Review: When Does Arrest Matter?
The goal of the second stage of the literature review process is to integrate the results of your separate article reviews and develop an overall assessment of the implications of prior research.The integrated literature review should accomplish tfuee goals: (1) summarize prior research, (2) critique prior research, and (3) present pertinent conclusions (tIart 1998). We will discuss each of these goals in turn.
I . Sunmtarize prior researcb.Your summary of prior research must focus on the particular research questions that you will address, but you may also need to provide some more general background. Carolyn Hoyle andAndrew Sanders (2000) begin rhen British Jouru.al of Criminolog research article about mandatory arrest policies in domestic violence cases with what they term a "provocative" question: What is the point of making it a crime for men to assault their female partners and ex-partners? They then review the different theories and supporting research that has justified different police policies: the "victim choice" position, the "pro-arrest" position,
CHAPTER 2 . THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 37
E20 (E o o +t t?tr lc o-J C' o o €10a G ?-+. =5*,c o C) Lto
38
Unemployed Employed
Source: Anthony M. Pate and Edwin E. Hamilton.1992. "Formal and Informal Deterents to DomesticViolence." American Sociological Reuieu, 57(5),691-697. Reprinted with permission from the American Sociological Association and the authors.
and the "victim empowerment" position. Finally, they review the research on the "controlling behaviors" of men that frames the specific research question on which they focus: How do victims view the value of criminal justice interventions in their own cases (tloyle and Sanders 2000)?
fukyourself three questions aboutyour summary of the literature:
a. flave you been selective? Ifthere have been more than a few prior investigations ofyour research question, you will need to narrow your focus to the most relevant and highest-quality studies. Dont cite a large number of prior articles "because they are there."
b. Is the research up to date? Be sure to include the most recent research, not only the "classic" studies.
c. Have you used direct quotes sparingly? To focus your literature review, you need to express the key points from prior research in your own words. Use direct quotes only when they are essential for making an imporant point @yrczak 2005).
2. Critique prior research. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the prior research. In addition to all the points that you develop as you an$trer the article review questions in Appendix B, you should also select articles for review that reflect work published in peer-reviewed journals and written by credible authors who have been funded by reputable sources. Consider the following questions as you decide how much weight to give each article:
a. Howwas the report reviewed prior to its publication or release? Articles published in academic journals go through a rigorous review process, usually
SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
Unemployed
Exhibit 2.3 Percentage of Suspects With a Subsequent Assault by Employment Status and Arrest Status
involving carefirl criticism and revision. Top refereed journals may accept only 10% of the submitted articles, so they can be very selective. Disserations go through a lengthy process of criticism and revision by a few members of the dissertation writer's home institution. A report released direcdy by a research organization is likely to have had only a limited review, although some research organizations maintain a rigorous internal review process. Papers presented at
professional meetings may have had litde prior revievr. Needless to say, more confidence can be placed in research results that have been subject to a more rigorous review.
b. What is the author's reputation? Reports by an author or a team of authors who have published other work on the research question should be given somewhat greater credibility at the outset.
c. Who funded and sponsored the research? Major federal funding agencies and private foundations fund only research proposals that have been evaluated
carefirlly and ranked highly by a panel ofexperts. They also often closely monitor the progress of the research. This does not guarantee that every such project report is good, but it goes a long way toward ensuring some worthwhile products. On the other hand, research that is funded by organizations that have
a preference for a particular outcome should be given particularly close scrutiny (Locke, Silverman, and Spirduso 1998).
3. Present pertinent conclwionl Don't leave the reader guessing about the implications of the prior research for your own investigation. Present the conclusions you draw from the research you have reviewed. fu you do so, follow several simple guidelines:
a. Distinguish clearlyyour own opinion of prior research from the conclusions of the authors of the articles you have reviewed.
b. Make it clear when your own approach is based on the theoretical framework that you use and not on the results ofprior research.
Acknowledge the potential limitations of any empirical research project. Don't empha size problems in prior research that you can't avoid (Pyczak 2005).
Explain how the unanswered questions raised by prior research or the limitations of methods used in prior research make it important for you to conduct your own investigation (Fink 2 005).
A good example ofhow to conclude an integrated Iiterature review is provided by an article based on the replication in Milwaukee of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. For this article, Paternoster et al. (1997) sought to determine whether police officers'use of fair procedures when arresting assault suspects would lessen the rate of subsequent domestic violence. For example, did suspecs feel that their side of the story was heard? Did they feel that they were treated fairly? Paternoster et al. concluded that there was a major gap in the prior literature: "Even at the end of some seven experiinents and millions of dollars, then, there is a great deal of ambiguity surounding the question of how arrest impacts future spouse assault" (164). Specifically, theynoted that each of the seven experiments focused on the effect of arrest itself but ignored the possibility that "particular kinds of police procedure might inhibit the recurreRce of spouse assault" (165).
Paternoster and his colleagues (1997) grounded their new analysis in additional litera- ture on procedural justice and concluded that their new analysis would be'othe first study to
C.
d.
CHAPTER 2 . THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 39
examine the effect of fairness judgmens regarding a punitive criminal sanction (arrest) on serious criminal behavior (assaulting one's partner)" (172).
THE ROLE OFTHEORY
We have already pointed out that criminological theory can be a rich source of research ques- tions. What deserves more attention at this point is the larger role of theory in research. We have also noted that research investigating criminal justice and criminology-related ques- tions rely on many tleories, including criminological, sociological, and psychological theo- ries. These theories do many things:
They help us explain or understand things, such as why some people commit crimes or more crimes than others; why some people quit and others continue; and what the expected effect of good families, harsh punishment, or other factors on crime mightbe.
They help us make predictions about the criminological world: "What would be the expected effect on the homicide rate if we employed capital punishment ratler than life imprisonment?" "'What would be the effect on the rate of property crimes if unemployment were to subsantially increase? "
They help us organize and make sense of empirical findings in a discipline.
They help guide future research.
They help guide public policy: "What should we do to reduce the level of domestic violence?"
Social scientiss such as criminologiss (who connect their work to theories in their disci- pline) can generate better ideas about what to look for in a study and develop conclusions with more implications for other research. Building and evaluating theory is therefore one of the most important objectives of a social science such as criminology.
Theories usually contain what are called theoretical constructs. These theoretical con- structs describe what is important to look at to understand, explain, predict, and "do some- thing about" crime. For example, an important theoretical construct in differential association theory is the notion of "definitions favorable and unfavorable to the violation of law." Theo- ries usually link one or more theoretical constructs to others in what are called relationship staternen*.Differential association theory for example, Iinls the theoretical constnrct of favor- able or unfavorable definitions to the theoretical construct of involvement in crime to argue as follows: "As one is exposed to more definitions favorable to the violation of law relative to definitions unfavorable to the violation of law, one is more at risk for criminal behavior."This is a relationship statement that linls two tleoretical constructs; it states that as exposure to definitions favorable to the violation of law increases, the risk of crime also increases. This is essentially a hypothesis that the theory of differential association entertains; if the theory is true, then the expected relationship should be true. The purpose of much criminological research is to examine the truth value, or ernpirical aalidity, of such theoretical relationship statements or hlpotheses. Some criminological theories reflect a substantial body of research and the thinking of many social scientiss; others are formulated in the course of one investi- gation. A few have been widely accepted, at least for a time; others are the subject ofvigorous controversy, with frequent changes and refinements in response to criticism and new research.
Theory:
h l*Uical ly int*rr*lnl*rJ
set *f pr*,;rs*ilirsns ahout *mfrirical r *ality, [xan: p I es rsf *rimin*l * gt *al ih*r,ri *p, i nrl ude **r:i*l l*arni*u. r* uti n e a*livili es, lah*lir,rJ,
**,;t *r al *tr ain, anrj ** *ial tj t ** r g a*izali a n th * r,s r v .
Theoretical constructs:
?'*rL* rf *. thct:ry th'tl rj***rib*',tth*t i r ; m pr: rtianl r"* lrs*k attrs tanrl*rstand,
cxpl*in, predir;t, and "do
*r:rn*thin$ ahout" the
suhjr*t,
40 SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
o
o
o
Most criminological research is guided by some theory, although the theory may be only partially developed in a particular study or may even be unrecognized by the researcher. When researchers are involved in conducting a research project or engrossed in writing a research report, they may easily lose sight of the larger picture. It is easy to focus on accumulating or clarifring particular findings rather than considering how the study's findings fit into a more general understanding of the social world. Furthermore, as we shall soon see, iust as theory guides research, research findings also influence the development of theory.
We can use the studies of the police response to domestic assault to illustrate the value of theory for social research. Even in this very concrete and practical matter, we must draw on social theories to understand how people act and what should be done about those actions. Consider the three action options that police officers have when they confront a domes- tic assault suspect. Fellow officers might encourage separation to achieve short-term peace; police trainers might prefer mediation to resolve the underhing dispute; feminist groups may advocate arest to protect the victim from further harm. None of these recommenda- tions is rcally a theory but each suggests a different perspective on crime and legal sanc- tions. You will encounter these different perspectives if you read much of the literature on domestic violence or even if'you talk with your friends about it. In turn, these assumptions reflect different experiences with family conflict, police actions, and the legal system. What we believe about one crime and the appropriate response to it relates to a great many other ideas we have about the social world. Recognizing these relationships is a first step toward becoming a theoretically guided social researcher and a theoretically informed consumer of social research.
Remember that social theories do not provide the answers to research questions. Instead, social theories suggest the areas on which we should focus and the propositions that we should consider for a test. That is, theories suggest testable hypotheses about phenomena, and research verifies whether those hlpotheses are true. In fact, one of the most important requirements of theory is that it be testable, or what philosophers of science call falsifiable; theoretical statements must be capable ofbeing proven wrong. Ifa body ofthought cannot be empirically tested, it is more likely philosophy than theory. For example, Sherman and Berk's (1984) domestic violence research was actually a test of predictions derived from two alternative theories of the impact of punishment on crime: deterrence theory and labeling theory.
Deterrence theory prestmes that human beings are at least marginally rational beings who are responsive to the expected costs and benefits of their actions. Committing a crime nets certain benefits for offenders; therefore, if we want to inhibit crime, there must be a compensating cost that outweighs the potential benefits associated with the offense. One cost is the criminal sanction (arrest, conviction, punishment). Deterrence theory expects punishment to inhibit crime in two ways. General deterrence occurs when people see that crime results in undesirable punishments for others, that "crime doesn't pay." Those who are punished serve as examples for those who have not yet committed an offense but might be thinking of what awaits them should they engage in similarly punishable acts. Specific deterrence occurs when persons who are punished decide not to commit another offense so they can avoid further punishment (Lempert and Sanders 1986). Deterrence theory leads to the prediction that arresting IPV offenders will reduce the likelihood of their reoffend- ing when compared with a less serious sanction (not being arrested but being warned or counseled).
Labeling theory distingishes between primary deviance, the acts of individuals that lead to public sanctions, and secondary deviance, the deviance that occurs in response to public sanction (Hagan 1994). Arrest or some other public sanction for misdeeds labels the offender as deviant in the eyes of others. Once the offender is labeled, others will treat the offender
Falsifiable: ifiJr. ^. * ," +l- ^ ,.. t- ^ L ^ *t,.;\!MlL)11 .l 1!1t.\IIIil f.'-l11 I\lL j1,.\t:Il,:,t1
ar:*. f'ili: li** * r Ei';iirt { vuit t: t t n4 *t i {tt1 iit i *il Lt,,r r:i{yirii {'t t, |11,t1;t .\t ;i|r_tttl tt'ilt tly \')tt11Jt\ trt(11I ",=]''
CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 41
as a deviant, and he or she is then more likely to act in a way that is consistent with the deviant label. Ironically, the act of punishment stimulates more of the very behavior that it was intended to eliminate (Thnnenbaum 193 8). This theory suggests that persons arrested for IPV are more likely to reoffend than those who are caught but not punished because the for- mal sanction of arrest is more stigmatizing than being warned or counseled. This prediction about the effect of formal legal sanctions is the reverse of the deterrence theory prediction.
Theorizing about the logic behind formal legal punishment also can help us draw con- nections to more general theories about social processes. Deterrence theory reflects the aSsumptions of rational choice theory, which assumes behavior is shaped by practical cal- culations: People break the law if the benefits of doing so exceed the costs. If crime is a rational choice for some people, then increasing the certainty or severity of punishment for crime should shift the cost-benefit balance away from criminal behavior. Labeling theory is rooted in s.,rmbolic interactionism, which focuses on the qrmbolic meanings that people give to behavior (Ilagar 1994). Instead of assuming that some forms of behavior are deviant in and of themselves (Scull 1988), symbolic interactionists view deviance as a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions to an offender (Becker 1963). Exhibit 2.4 summarizes how these general theories relate to the question ofwhether to arrest IPVoffenders.
Does either deterrence theory or labeling theory make sense to you as an explanation for the impact of punishment? Do these theories seem consistent with your observations of social life? Over a decade after Sherman and Berk's (1984) stu{r, Paternoster et d.. (1997) decided to snrdy punishment of domestic violence from a different perspective. They turned to a social psychological theory called. proced.ural jratice tbeory, which explains law-abiding behavior as resulting from a sense of duty or morality (Tyler 1990). People obey the law from a sense of obligation that flows from seeing legal authorities as moral and legitimate. From this perspective, individuals who are arrested seem less likely to reoffend ifthey are treated fairly, irrespective of the outcome of their case, because fair treatrnent will enhance their view of legal authorities as moral and legitimate. Procedural justice theory expands our view of the punishment process by focusing attention on how police act and how authorities treat subjects, rather than only on the legal decisions they make. Are you now less certain about the likely effect of arrest for IPV.) Will arrest decrease recidivism because abusers do not wish to suffer from legal sanctions again? Will it increase recidivism because abusers feel stigmatized by being arrested and thus are more likely to act as criminals? Or will arrest reduce abuse only if the abusers feel they have been treated fairly by the legal authorities? By posing such ques- tions, social theory makes us much more sensitive to the possibilities and so helps us design better research. Before, during, and after a research investigation, we need to keep thinling theoretically.
i:!!::::!!::! ::::i: ::...:: ::. . . . .::i.r..: : ::::: ::r':!!: : :t : ,,:l fi@6,69tIc3[,:,, :".:.....':...:... ."....:: :.. :: : . ' ::aSSulm,p,t ion,,
,P.,ied,l,ct ioh,(eff O'Ct.of .' ,, . .. .:..:::::::: .'. , .:. :.: : , ., ,, ., ,. .:: r. . ,.,t: , ,,, ,,.t.:.:,: : t.:
sp,p,g$f f or: do,me${ j9,, ;' , ::::.:::...::ir.i':'::': ": : : :'::: '
aSS'aLl,lI), "':: : .,, : ::,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,::,,:,, :,,,,,,, :,:
42 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
Exhibit 2.4 IIro Social Theories and Their Predictions About the Effect of Arrest for Intimate PartrrerAssault
Adding Exploration to the Mix While some researchers were grappling with the results of the randomized experiments, other researchers were engaged in inductive research by interviewing victims and offenders in depth and then developing an explanation for what was found. Because qualitative research is often exploratory and, hence, inductive, researchers often ask questions such as "What is going on here?" "FIow do people interpret these experiences?" or "Why do people do what they do?" Rather than testing a hypothesis, the researchers are trying to make sense of some social phenomenon.
CASE STUDY
Police Decision Making O'Neal and Spohn (2017) wanted to explore the factors that influence arrest and charging decisions in cases of intimate partner se)rual assault cases. In addition to examining quantitative data on these two variables in Los Angeles, they interviewed 52 Los Angeles police department (LAPD) detectives and examined Los Angeles district attorney charge evaluation sheets. Results of the quantiative daa indicated that the primary factor influencing whether an arrest was made was whether victims sustained injuries as the result of the attack. To explore this further, O'Neal and Spohn asked the LAPD detectives, "What are the decision nrles that you follow in deciding whether to make an arest or not?" (720).To this, one detective replied, "I had a case, excuse my French, where the victim got the shit beat out of her. Her face was punched in. She was bruised all over and you could tell she fought him offher" (720).
Other issues related to arrest discovered by O'Neal and Spohn were delayed reporting and victimt cooperation. Several of the detectives believed that intimate partners were less likely to cooperate with the prosecutors after reporting compared to victimizations perpetrated by strangers. This was further complicated when victims did not report the incident to police soon after the attack. For example, one LAPD detective stated,
Everyvictim is different. But delayed reporting results in lack of evidence. Good cases are those with a cooperative [victim], [and] witresses who notifi, the police in a timely manner so that the evidence is preserved. . . . Timely reporting is a lot easier to inves- r,gate. (721)
These qualitative interview data allowed O'Neal and Spohn to understand the process of making an arrest from the detectives'perspective. The researchers note that the interviews allowed "the interviewer to engage in model-building, model-testing, theory-construction, and theory verification within the same interview session" (7 1 5).
Explanations developed inductively from qualitative research such as these interview narratives can feel authentic because we have heard what people have to say in their own words, and we have tried to see the social world as they see it. Explanations derived from qualitative research will be richer and more finely textured than they often are in quantitative research, but they are likely to be based on fewer cases from a limited area. We cannot assume that the people studied in this setting are similar to others or that other researchers will develop explanations similar to ours to make sense of what was observed or heard. Because we do not initially set up a test of a hlpothesis according to some specific rules, another researcher cannot come along and conduct the same test.
50 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
SOCIAL RESEARCH STANDARDS
Research can improve our understanding of empirical reality, the reality we encounter firsthand. But when is lnowledge valid? In general, we have reached the goal of validity when our statements or conclusions about empirical reality are correct. If you look out your w'in- dow and observe that it is raining, this is probably a valid observation, ifyour eyes and ears are to be trusted. I{oweveq if you pick up the newspaper and read that the majority ofAmericans favor the death penalty, this conclusion is ofquestionable validity because it is probably based on an interpretation of a social survey. As you will see in Chapter 8, attitudes toward the death penaltyvary substantially, depending on the wording of the questions asked.
To some of you, the goal of validity may sound a bit far-fetched. A.fter all, how can we really be sure our understandings of empirical phenomena are correct when we can perceive the world only through the filter of our own senses? You need not worry. Such skepticism will help you remember the tenuousness of all knowledge and will keep you properly skeptical about new discoveries.
This book is about validity more than anphing else, about how to conduct research that leads to valid interpretations of the social world. We will refer to validity repeatedly and we askyou to register it in your brain now as the central goal ofall the research conducted in our field. The goal ofresearch conducted by social scientists investigating issues related to criminology and criminal justice is not to come up with conclusions that people will like or conclusions that suit their personal preferences. The goal is to determine the most valid answefs through empirical research methods,
Wb must be concerned with three aspects of validity: measurement validity general- izability, and causal validity (also known as internal validity). Each of these three aspects of validity is essential: Conclusions based on invalid measures, invalid generalizations, or invalid causal inferences will themselves be invalid. Wb will also be concerned with the goal of authenticity, a concern with reflecting tairly the perspectives of participants in a setting that we study.
Measurement Validity Measurement
"rlidity is our first concern in establishing the validity of research resulrs,
because without having measured what we think we measured, we really don't know what we're talking about. Measurement validity is the focus of Chapter 4. A measure is valid when it measures what we think it measures. In other words, if we seek to describe the &equenry of domestic violence in families, we need to develop a valid procedure for measuring domestic violence.
The first step in achieving measurement validity is to specifiz clearly what it is we intend to measure. Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) identified this as one of the problems with research on domestic violence: "Definitions of the term vary widely from study to study, making com- parisons difEcult" (5). To avoid this problem, Tjaden and Thoennes presented a clear defi- nition of what they meant by intim.ate partner aiolence: "Rape, physical assault, and stalking perpetrated by current and former dates, spouses, and cohabiting partners, with cohabiting meaning living together at least some of the time as a couple" (5).
Tjaden and Thoennes also provided a measure of each type of violence. For example, "'physical assault' is defined as behaviors that threaten, attempt, or actually inflict physical harm" (2000, 5).
With this definition in mind, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000, 6) then specified the set of questions they would use to measure IPV (the questions pertai.rfng to physical assault):
Measurement validity: T?t* typ* *f ,tt'lirJit'{ trtar i* a.r;hi*';*d wh*n a {n*',}.*ur*
{ti{:?:,?,1itt:fi ''UhAt it i*
W**Lifit{r* t* nir'tf,**f *,
51CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY
Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, after you became an adult, did any other adult, male or female, ever:
---:Throw something at you that could hurt?
-Push, grab, or shove you?
-Pull your hair?
-Slap or hityou?
-Kick or bite you?
-Choke or attempt to drown you?
-Hit you with some object?
-Beatyou up?
---Threaten you with a gun?
---lThreaten you with a knife or other weapon?
-IJse a gun on you?
-Use a knife or other weapon on you?
Do you believe that answers to these questions provide a valid measure of having been physically assaulted? Do you worry that some survey respondents might not report all the assaults they have experienced? Might some respondents make up some incidenm? Issues such as these must be considered when we evaluate measurement validity. Suffice it to say that we must be very careful in desigrring our measures and in subsequendy evaluating how well they have performed. Chapter 4 introduces several different ways to test measurement validity. We ca[not assttn e that measures are valid.
Generalizability
The generalizabiTity of a study is the extent to which it can be used to inform us about persons, places, or events that were not studied. You have already learned in this chapter that Sherman and Berk's findings in Minneapolis about the police response to domestic violence simply did not hold up in several other cities: The initial results could not be generalized. As you know, this led to additional research to figure out what accounted for the different pat- terns in different cities.
If every person or community we study were similar to every other one, generalizations based on observations of a small number would be valid. But that's not the case. We are on solid ground if we question the generalizabllig, of statements about research based on the results of a restricted sample of the population or in only one community or other social context.
Generalizability has two aspects. Sample generalizability refers to the ability to gen- eralize from a sample, ot sabset, of a larger population to that population itself. This is the most common meaning of generalizability. Cross-population generalizability refers to the ability to generalize from findings about one group, population, or setting to other groups, populations, or settings. Cross-population generalizability can also be referred to as external validity. (Some social scientists equate the term extetnal oalidity to generalizability,brt in this book, we restrict its use to the more limited notion of cross-population generalizabtlity.)
Sample generalizability is a key concern in survey research. Political pollsters may snrdy a sample of likely voters, for example, and then generulize their findings to the entire popu- lation of likely voters. No one would be interested in the results of political polls if they
Generalizability:
Th* typ* *t validity that i* a*lii*u*d wh*n a c*n';lu*i*n h r: l d,r tr** l*r th*,.Jts,Jltlati*n, *r*ufr , ffi Ur**p* t*at "u* *ay it dars, given tlt* r:*nditiat::*
lh,at w* *p*tif,t,
Sample generalizability:
fxists wn*n a ****iisi*n b*'t*d {}'n'a saffifil* rsr *u?s**t cf a lar$*t f]fiflulatirin hrsldri
tr,s* t*r that i:*pu i a.t! tri,
Cross-population
generali zabi lity (external
validity): [xi*ts',sh*n {irrd i n*s a[:*ut {}n* #{{}ti#, tr}otr}ulati*n, *r *tttinfi h*ld tru* trtr rstlt*r
U r*Li ps, pfi pLJ lali*ns, *r **Tl.irrrJ*,
52 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
represented only the relatively tiny sample that actually was surveyed rather than the entire population.
Cross-population generalizability occurs to the extent that the results of a study hold true for multiple populations; these populations may not all have been sampled or they may be represented as subgroups within the sample studied. You have already learned tJrat persons in Minneapolis who were arrested for domestic violence did not respond in the same way as persons arrested for the same crime in several other cities. For this reason, t-he conclusions from Sherman and Berk's (1984) initial research in Minneapolis were not externally valid.
Generalizability is a key concern in research design. We rarely have the resources to study the entire population that is of interest to us, so we have to select cases to study that will allow our findings to be generalized to the population of interest. Nonetheless, because we car never be sure that our findings will hold under all conditions, we should be cautious in generalizing to populations or periods that we did not actually sample.
Causal Validity Causal validity, also knorryr * interwal aalid.i4,, refers to the truthfulness of an assertion that A causes B. It is a focus of Chapter 6. Most research seeks to determine what causes what, so social scientists frequendy must be concerned with causal validity. Sherman and Berk (1984) were concerned with the effect of arrest on the likelihood of recidivism by people accused of domestic violence. To test their causal hlpothesis, tley designed their experiment so that some accused persons were arrested and others were not. Of course, it may seem heavy-handed for social scientists to influence police actions for the prupose of a research project, but this step reflects how difEcult it can be to establish causally valid undersandings about the social world. It was only because police ofEcials did not know whether arrest caused IPV offenders to reduce their level of abuse that they were willing to allow an experiment to test the effect of different policies.
Chapters 6 and 7 will give you much more understanding of how some features of a research design can help us evaluate causal propositions. IIowever, you will also learn that the solutions are neither easy nor perfect: We always have to consider critically the validity of causal statemenB that we hear or read.
Authenticity The goal of authenticity is stressed by researchers who focus attention on the subjective dimension of the social world. An authentic understanding of a social process or social set- ting is one that reflects fairly the various perspectives of participants in that setting (Gubrium and Holstein 1997). Authenticity is one of several different standards proposed by some as uniquely suited to qualitative research; it reflects a beliefthat those who study the social world should focus first and foremost on how participants view that social world, not on developing a unique social scientists' interpretation of that world. Rather than expecting social scientists to be able to provide a valid mirror of reality, this perspective emphasizes the need for recog- nizing that what is understood by participants as reality is only a social construction of reality (Kvale 2002).
For example, instead of focusing on IPV victims who sought help from police, Moe (2007) interviewed victims who sought help from domestic violence shelters. She explained her basis for considering the responses of women she interviewed to be authentic: "Members of marginalized groups are better positioned than members of socially dominant groups to describe the ways in which the world is organized according to the oppressions they experience" (682).
Causal validity (internal
validity): Th* tif:* *f ,;alidir,r; thntin r.t*li*,;*tj tt;h*n a *rsn*l**i*n a,ltal *n* #h*n tsr**n*rt l*nrJs t* *{ r**tslt* i* a.* rslhr:r rsh*r, *n*n* il--*fi r rj**s*'t.l*atJ lts rsr r*r,ult in
a**th*r ^ iE c* rre*t ,
Authenticity:
W h r, n tlt * tsn * * r sl a.* *in o;
*t rt *rs*ial sr*r;*** rsr ***ial **ltin* i* *** t?u,t r*{l*r:i,'t txirllt lk* v*.ri*q:*
ss * r,*,;t * r;lirt * r, *i ft *r i r *i p aut*, i* that **ttinfi,
CHAPTER 2 o THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 53
Moe's (2007) assumption was that "battered women serve as experts of their owr lives" (682). Adding to her assessment of authenticiql Moe found that the women "exhibited a great deal ofcomfort through their honesty and candor" as they produced "a richly detailed and descriptive set of narratives" (683). You will learn more about how authenticity can be achieved in qualitative methods in Chapters 9 and 15.
CONCLUSION
Criminological researchers can find many questions to study, but not all questions are equally worthy. The ones that warrant the expense and effort of social research are feasible, socially important, and scientifically relevant.
The simplicity of the research circle presented in this chapter belies the complexity of the social research process. In the following chapters, we will focus on particular aspects ofthat process. Chapter 4 examines the interrelated processes of conceptualization and measure- ment, arguably the most importajnt part of research. Measurement validity is the foundation for the other two aspects of validity. Chapter 5 reviews the meaning of generalizability and the sampling strategies that help us achieve this goal. Chapter 6 introduces causal validity- the third aspect of validity-and illustrates different methods for achieving it, with particu- lar emphasis on experimenal designs. The following four chapters then introduce different approaches to data collection, including surveys, qualitative research methods, secondary data analysis, and evaluation research, that help us achieve validity in different ways.
As you encounter these specifics, do not lose sight ofthe basic guidelines t-hat research- ers need to follow to overcome the most cofirmon impediments to social research. Owning a large social science tool kit is no guarantee of making the right decisions about which tools to use and how to use them in the investigation of particular research problems. More importandy, our answers to research questions will never be complete or entirely certain. Thus, when we complete a research project, we should point out how the research could be extended and evaluate the confidence we have in our conclusions. Recall how the gradual elaboration ofknowledge about the deterrence of domestic violence required sensitivity to research difficulties, carefirl weighing ofthe evidence, and identification ofunanswered ques- tions by several research teams.
Ethical issues also should be considered when evaluating research proposals and com- pleted research studies. fu Chapter 3 will show, ethical issues in social research are no less complex than the other issues that researchers confront. And it is inexcusable to jump into research on people without any attention to ethical considerations.
You are now forewarned about, and thus hopefully forearmed against, the difEculties that scientists (and criminologists in particular) face in their work. We hope that you will return often to this chapter as you read the subsequent chapters, when you criticize the research literature, and when you design your own research projects. To be conscientious, thoughtfrrl, and responsible is the mandate of every social scientist. If you formulate a feasible research problem, ask the right questions in advance, try to adhere to the research guidelines, and steer clear of the most corlmon difEculties, you will be well along the road to firlfilling this mandate.
54 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH
Anomalous findings (serendipitous findings) 43
Authenticity 53 Causal validity (internal validiry) 53 Constant 4+ Cros s - p o pula ti on gener alizabiliw
(external validity) 52 Deductive reasoning 43 Deductive research 44 Dependent variable 44 Direction of association 44
Empirical gen eruhzations +6 External validity (cross-population
generalizabilitv) 52 r
Falsifiable 4l GeneralizabiliW 52 Hypothesis ++ Independent variable 44 Inductive reasoning 43 Inductive research +5 Measurementvalidity 51 Negative relationship 45
Positive relationship +5 Refereed journals 32 Replication 27 Research circle +3 Research question 28 Sample generalizability 52 Serendipitous findings (anomalous
findings) +3 Theoretical constructs 40 Theory 40 Variable ++
credibility than those that have been tested with data collected for the purpose of the study.
The scientific process can be represented as circular, rn ith connections from theory to hypotheses to data to empirical gene rahzatrons. Research investigations may begin at different points along the research circle and traverse different portions of it. Deductive research begins at the point of theorv; inductive research begins with data but ends with theory.
Replications of a study are essential to establish its generalizablliqr in other siruations. An ongoing line of research stemming from a particular question should include a series of srudies that collectively traverse the research circle multiple times.
Valid knowledge is the central concern of scientific research.'Ihe three components of validity are measurement validiw, general izabiliqr (both from the sample to the population from which it was selected and from the sample to other populations), and causal (internal) validity. The goal of authenticity is to reflect fairly the perspectives of participants in a setting that we study.
ir. Pick out one question that seems feasible and that your other coursework suggests has been the focus of prior research or theo rizing.Write this research question in one sentence. Elaborate on your question in a single paragraph. List at least three reasons why it is a good research question to investigate.
Research questions should be feasible (within the time frame and with the resources available), sociallv import arrt) and scientifi cally relevant.
A theory is a logically interrelated set of propositions that helps us make sense of many interrelated phenomena and predict behavior or attitudes that are likely to occur when certain conditions are met.
Building criminological theory is a major objective of criminological research. Investigate relevant theories before starting criminological projects, and draw out the theoretical implications of research findings.
The type of reasoning in most criminological research can be described as primarily deductive or inductive. Research based on deductive reasoning proceeds from general ideas, deduces specifi. .*p..tations from these ideas, and then tests the ideas with empirical data. Research based on inductive reasoning begins with specific data and then develops general ideas or theories to explain patterns in the data.
It may be possible to explain unanticipated research findings after the fact, but such explanations have less
i " State a problem for research related to a criminological topic or issue of intere.st to
{r.". Write down as many
questions as you can about this topic.
s. Considering your interest, /our opporrunities, and the work of others, which of your research questions does not seem feasible or interesting?
)t;lTcqf'your'understand ing'pj:the'chap .er,centCnt;',[.gke $'lae pf ectibe quiE
CHAPTER 2 . THE PROCESS AND PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY 5:S
,, :9
.: 5 ,',
r ,,
; ;=
] li:
tl: i:i
ii: li+
:1 ,:
tl, ::
i
. .
: -:
:) --
.: ::
r: .f ()
.: ,: :
.. :. -:
:! i
-, ,J
,:
:ii :.
ii: ii:
:: O
:i: ii:
ir ii:
::
:i: ;: :: t: :: ,1
;: i{ i!:
r: i:1
:
,, ,',
,, ,',
,'( D
L ,,
,, ,,
:l: :. rr
:, :r
:, 9 ),
,, :i
t, ,: i
1 '.,
1 .. :. .
.i. i
'( Q
:: :r
1 :l
iQ ,"
.
i:l ..
.o j:,
.ii :i
.. lie
.l: .l.
.
ii, l,,
i.i ff i.l
ii. ii:
:t t ::
t: :t
t: fD
:: t:
.!
:: !t
:: i
g 1 :
:: :,
r :. <
:. :: :
,. K
: ::
:: r
,
:t ,:
|it :
l
i;i i,i
lt, ,li
:i( :i;
;, ;; :: :: :
]: :i]
:: :!
:] tt
]i: :l;
]i| :ii
:: :
:: ;: :t g D
ri :t t: :t t: jt:
:: ::
:i: l::
tlt !ll
ln ::
:! :1
:l
i:t ;:
:l: :,
:, ,t
,il t',
,: ,
,: l::
:: ,:
:: ,i#
,: :;
,: ::
:
ti' 9
*, '
:: ;
:: iii
.| i:i
i:. :; :] iil
iii li:
ili :: ii:
,
:: {:
:} .
1
: r:
f :
.: ::
7 1
5 --
.
I '+
.: :. Y
.. .'.
.:
I '
\. r.
.+ r.
':. 1
, --
|:
-: ;! J,
,
,l
:- t'
'g o
; .
+ ;. ""
"+ '::
: I
l, ,''
r .1
., .
1
:/ i:\
.. :
i.: :: :
:: =
. :<
':. :
:
lt: t:
'O ti:
:r t:
:lt t.
t. :t
E S
:t ;:
:ii ;:
i:t
l
:: r:
rE [)
-. :;
:] !:
ri li.
ir 'I:
':' t:
l:: rr
:: r;
.l
i.. i,.
' i'.
,, .. .. i
,. .i.
'.. .. .. .
:] i:l
:: 5
tt i:l
ti: t,
i:t ti!
.f fi
:: :;
:: :;
l;i @
.; l:;
ll; 1
1 .;
,6 i..
.. ..
'. r.
.. .. :: :. :. i..
'- i- ;l
:. .,
:, r r:
.: .:
( J,
,, :,
:: "
s.
"' A
{. "
:. ."
: i- :. :
:. : lU
:: :.
,, =
i u )
,, :;
:1 :
:( P
',, .; ^j
',. :(
.)
r
,, 3
. 9
". ,
6 7
.1 '::
:': :9
0 '
.il i.i
.ii 5
il: ;i:
ii: :r
ci li:
i:, :ii
:il
:lr rl t:
:( },
:, ,:
,: ,,
,, ,,
{f r
',, ,, .: ., ,, ,
:: ,i,
,. ,f fi
:: l::
:, ri :
r( D
.i: i:,
:: li:
:; i:
:'( f-
, ;; Q
Q ;
;: ;,
:g D
:: : :,
8
,:
.. ff
i.. ii8
.. tt
,i :l
!: :i!
!l! ]l.
:lr i:l
t: j:.
::
:: :: i.:
E D
'], :, .
|, ]r
r :l:
: ; ::
t: i::
t: ,i:
to l::
:: t:
:l
tii ,, ,i:
j i:j
:: :l:
,:
:: ::
:. ::
:lt C
I- i:
ti, i,!
:: ,,
, ::
,* ,,
,, ',.
.
. ..
: ':.
:: r1
l: :t
;. ,, ,
.. ,, .$
., 1
6 s:
:, 1
.. .l+
: l:.
::
.r ,
:+ ;
!
l': -
i,. ,. :
! .: .. l1
., :
.. :
l: ,:
: :: (
ll: :
:
l: "
". r
:. .. :. 1 ".
:. '..
t. .
." '''
.. .. .. .
l:. ::
: ,: ,. 4 0 .: .
:
l:' r.
:: :
:'i +
:. :
l:: :
:: ''
(P :: I
1 ..
.. .:
.: :.
. .Q
Q .. .:
l' :: r:
r. .'!
'.. '..
: l:,
,: ::
' "
:'c ') :
::
l: :i
:: . , 6 ,,
, t. .. .
;. t. .
I .:
: :: .: :J
i.:
I: :
:: : ::
: C
:\ :
:
l.: .: .
:; :;
:: :,
:: (D
:,
l,' ' ,'
, ,, 5
,, ..
l. -:
.. :
: :: :
:.
.: i:
+ :. r:
l,, :i:
' ' cn
-, .. til
:lF r:
:1 .:
: -!
r:
:
t: :: i::
l:: jl:
:: l:+
+ iia
:! :'i
!: ii
i:: tt
:': i:,
i:j i( D
itt i
:i. :, :: l
ii: lt:
ili :]
l:: :f
fi lii
:i i;:
,. 'i.
.i .i'
i.. .i,
@ .. .. ,. .. ,
.. .
l:l :li
: ::
:t !:
!t K
,: !li
tlt ii:
:
':: :,
i
:': lt'
:1 t, ,6
0 ,1
,, ,, ,, ,t 1 li
:: ., ,1
i.: ,
::
:; ,
i:! :i:
i;: ;: i:;
: ::
:i: ::
l::
:l: i:l
:: :
.: ,. .o
-, .,
: :, i) ,ii
,, ::
:: i::
i::
,1 :: :i:
jie :r
:, :, :: ::
,: :, E
i!] :
,, ., ,/ \, :
:: :
.: :.
:: r
:. i:i
:
,. ,, ,, ,f (-
:] ).
1 :.
ii: i:!
: i!:
t i:t
:i: i
i:l :i:
:: ::
:l ::
:| i:i
: i
itr l:!
!t !!
!l: !r
it$
): ti:
:ii ::
:: l
,1 i
,, .,
., . &
); ,il
:i: ,i:
:, ,: ,-
:- <
.. .
:: :<
., ,. :
:: .: .. .: .+
::
.: :
,', ,',
,Q ,"
:, .1
::
.1 lc
sl .:
:: l::
:i
'.' 5
.. 'l
. r:
' I,
f. .:
I :,
:: C
D
,I I
J) :l
'
'.' t
. I.
n o :
l. .t
,:
l:
N I:
I :
() l
ll
,, d ,
I :
: ':.
;; *
:l ,o
: .l
,, . t',
,{ ,(
O I
t, ',(
D ,''
',' ,1
:: :I
:, I
:: c)
: .
I
., 'Q
'l l
',, ,9
:l ,-
i, l
C D
. .I
:. .'.
(I ):
, I
l,O 'l
|o 1
l', $
,'l I
co '1
l:i ::
):
I l:.
:
ia ;{
'' I
l;: *
:: :
l
l :(
) :l
l& .:
:il lq
',. 1
l,o ,,
l l:,
t: i',
1
1 ., ., Q
t, .l
I, ,
(D ,
, ,]
l., 3
,, ,, ,]
[: rq
p :
I
t L ':i
I, ,C
D ,
,
l'. 8 ,. ,, ,
1 , ,'f
)' ,i
[" il.
, l:
O :
:r
I: '.5
.: .:
|, ,.
'.i l'
'.
I. .:
E .
.l. .. i
.'' ,t .. ,. l..
. l::
ri :D
r ::
:! :r
i:: r:
:, ff
i,: :
i:,
';z f
r: -l
:
-: -:
.1 :
:: ::
:( }i
iit iti
:: ii
): tl:
:: ::
::
, 0 )
:: .
. :'s
. ,.
,: :: ;-
+ ' \
+ a
'. :
(D -,
ca , ,d
' .
rr :\
.. :
.1 .
.:
,Q
cD '
,, ,, ,, ,
:\ J:
:,
:l
? ' '
d l,
.. u :
:2 5
-, ,. r
: +
:.
1 .Y
:. '.:
':l
o ,
,f ;
.: :t !: tI E
:: :r
:r r:
:r :
:i: ::
r
,i, i( },
',, ,,
,, ,,
,, ,,
:, ,,
,, ,
,( -
:, ,
.' :.
.: "
IO .
i:i .:
:i@ .l:
j.: :.
:t .D
:i. l:l
ii
:'l Z
f:
,: c+
.. :
,: Q
,: , fl,
. ;, .f i.:
,. .E
,: .f
,, ,C
D .,
.. 5 f ,,
,I :' j1
\:
:'C Ji
:': "1
,: g D
,, ,
Q .. ,1
,. .$
., .'.
'q ,l
t' '&
.: ..
.. .: '..
:. :: l
[: 'g
: ':f
:: l
[C I:
, o '
l In
,c .,
l
[. '[.
,, ,$
:, ,.
,. ,1
[. :: .! J:
], .
.. "I
:, :':
l [: :l-
) j:
C D
'': ' l
[, ..
F .,
*. ,:
l [,
c+ [
,, ,, ,1
[. ff ,, ,I '" "1
[, .:
.$ .,
., $ ,]
[: ::
Q :
,: :t t: :]
I -:
5 : :: :5
: ::
:l I
'- h
,, ,'
(8 ,, ,,
I
I (D
,, ,''
.X )
l
I, , €
,: ',.
9 ,1
,', ,]
I, ', fD
, ,;
;, ,
1
[: :F
: :
(S :
:']
I. '
:. :
.( :)
' !
I ,:
:l: , i,
,: !
,'. ,
:: :
: .
.. :
I .
''' 4 "
.
I: :: :. ., :: .r
:: i:+
::
l
l:r .:
: :'c
:'' :':
f: :
:: :
:, {:
): :: ':
l:: :
:: :,
: :'
r: <
I i
::
. .
:: .
.+ :. '.
.:
f : :
:5 :: :
:
l. :, ,
(Q ,
:, :,
I, ,
., ..
.. .:
.:
:. .
: ., :, .r
,' ,,
I r' .. r
: r:
r: ..
r: (J
. :
::
I: :
:: :: :: '( D
::
I
| ,
'1 ",
t', ,, :
.r i,i
,. ..
.iH '.;
i. :, ;. ,
tlt :: :il
:li t: i.(
:D :: ,l:
lt! :: :! i.
:. :, ,, Q
:, :
., /^
,: ::
;: li;
:i: tl
:: !: ti:
tt :ij
ii! tii
:ii :: ii
l.l ,. .l.
..
'
!: ,: :; i:!
l:: :j:
!; :iK
:! :! !!
i::
:: i1
:i: rf
fii l
i:: l:i
:ii :: li.
iii i:(
D .i.
.i. ,. l.
:, ::
'( D
,: r:
!:
l:: ;, i;|
1 :
:li l:f
fi1 1 .. .1
. .. .
.n :
f'T ,:
F V
:: \
. .
i- :
,: :t
,: ,C
I: l:,
: :it
t: t :t D
:: ::
: ::
l
io ,
Q ,
,1 ,
*{ ,,
I I: !: ,: :, :: il
:: l:;
::
:t ::
ti: :<
ti: !li
i:
H -,
, ',f
D ,'
, --
a 1 -1
.: :. .-
;. .. .
6 '- H s
*, 0 9 .
.Y .
.. r
-l
l'h :
, (D
, ,"
j- ..
u c
't) ..
t :. :, 'lD
.: :
:
.: G
.f fi,
, :it
;, ti@
:: ti:
lr ;;
:: :t
:@
:; :i:
,, ),
, ,,
,, :
.- :. \
): --
J g
:: .. -
)'
J.
i: l:J
,,
F +
. l
t.
). .'1
9 1
l
[: (D
6 t
J.
.'* .'
I, ,, A
':: J'
t. : ,; .. .L
_
:
f. "-
+
" j
[: 5
i:: [@
. 5
[, Q
(D ,,
[ '- -t
i :i.
; t
.. r
.. ::
:. ..
.. .:
[: -
-1
C ):
[(
n ,
::
.. .. .1
.1 \:
:
.8 Q
. : -.
.. (
'.. '..
'.:
:: :':
:i i.i
i::
i:. :: lif
fi ili
l:: l
' ( D
o ),
, :C
D :: .
_ +
F
,r F
,r '
'
,s 8
:' ,,
{,
O ,,
: (\
) :: -{
: : r*
. C
): :
S ,"
Q '.
O . 3
, :, =
ti ;: -.
:r :, ], :: ,,
., ,,
f ':
,O ,, (D
' :
: '-
:- 7
-1 rr
l .-
,r
t{ i,
: -J
:: /1
:. :l
,l C
) ,.
X '
-: ::
.. :
;r :{
: tO
,, :
(D '
,
.: :G
), :. ., c1
:: ,, ,, #
, ..
l: 1 p :: g
::
[, cn
,, :
$ '
[, !:
:, .:
]r 1
x$ iii
:: ::
:: :
i:
[, +
, Q
,r l:'
rl ,: r:
:: :; ;, ,f :':
I :v
:J
l!i t. -
't.
.: :-
-: :
[, .: ;1
; .; :;
t '( D
,', Y
'r ,,
[, .{
,, ,, ,, -,
,1 :
[, ,f
i, , <
, [, -
', ,1
() [: :, :: ,: 6
.D ::
l.. .. .'.
"
-) '
.il l,l
i:i .i.
i€ l.i
i;, :;
l:: ':i
iit ,:
i:: :ii
'r D
ii] iil
lii li:
il
:: .1
:. :. fo
'.: :. :: i
:: ::
:, ::
:; A
:': ,,
: :ii
:: r:
:: :: :: i
:: :i:
.: :: :: :: :i:
:: :: :r
:: r:
:
ltl ,:
:i: 1 i::
H ':l
:: rl ::
:; rl .;
!if
ir r!
;r ::
li: r:
:: rr
:: rr
:: ii:
rr i;l
., ..
:1 ."
.1 u
.. ..
1 .i.
.t .I
.. 'i
:" .: .: A
:: :, ,, .. ,:
:
i:L ., 1
.' :. :
il: :: :A
:l: :: :
:: l:!
!:
!: !i
,: :v
:, ,, ,, ,:
. r.
.q :. .. '.:
.' :. r.
: :.
:
r: it:
.ii :ii
'
iil lir
ri rl iir
:i: !: ii:
ir l:i
:: ri il
:: :;
:: :: :: i,:
ri l,l
:a ,i:
i:: ,j:
l: ::
r ::
:l: ::
i:: ,
:l
,. A
ii r:
:l! l
:: :: :: :[ +
: ,, ,, ',
:: :
:C D
:, :, :
: ::
: ::
,: ,
. :q
l::
:. :.
:: .:
:. ::
.: :
:
:: ::
: l:
ta :
:t ?
.; ,.
*. 1
:, ,t
:: ,1
:, 1
:: :
:l L t)
: :)
:: :t
: :: ,:
:lt t)
:li +
:l:
:l :
,E J,
:, :, :: :: :, :
,: :
,i. t',
'.i ,.
6 ,,
.. '.'
i:i '.i
ii. t.
i,i ll
.,
.: :
,h :
:: .: ., :l
r .
A il.
!. :, :1
., ::
!
,, ,, ,v
,, ,, ,,
i t:
:, t:
: l:t
':i +
i:: l::
t: ::
tli
l:! lr i:,
ii, l:i
:i
:t jr i::
:: iit
: lin
6 {i :i:
tt i:,
:! :t t! :: :i!
ri lli
:! ii
. . -\
- I :: :: ::
:
., \Y
':
:! il:
! ::
: <
4 :
:: :
:: .
:', ::
: -:
j. -4
. ':.
:. ".
".
.'
.: :: :l=
i'; .
:: :. :
r ,
li' ,: '..
.: :
:. ':,
.
i r:
:. P
j' r:
:: :: ,
rt ::
l:. q H
.': .l'
:ll ::
ll: :.
':, ::
:l: l.:
:, H
:
j.\ r.
, .. i'
:. :
.:
:: l
t: :i!
rt :! iE
)! r:
i!:
:! ri :ji
:t :
:; r:
!t r:
: !:
i:! :
r: li,
f ..
: r:
: :
:d ::
:: :
.l: ::
:: :
:: ;j:
l r!
:l !:
l:l rl :!
:l: :
::
:i: i
:j. i::
::
:: i:1
,: :l:
:
,. .4
.: .:
.. ..
.. ..
i!. 1
,, ,
u /,
.: ::
,: :
:: :: lil
il: : i!!
iiX f:
llr !:
,i! :t
:: :
:: :i:
:ii ::
r: :t
:
., .. :4
.. .. ,. ,; ,. ,
t
' ':A
\: .
:: .'.
."
'.. :
,. H
,, ,: :
:
: :li
.: :
:. :: :
:. ::
1 ":
l |
"' j
:l
t- .''
: '
ilt
:! !
!! tll
lji [I X
t i:t
:: :: :: ti:
l:: :il
i t:
ti: :
i:
.. :. .: :. .r
# ,
,, ":
,' -
.\ J.
r: :
: i
:
lli :t :i:
,: !: :: :: F
# l:!
tit ,, :: itl
:l: :t :: j,:
:li :
:: i.:
t! :] :i:
ii: ,f .: iD
i:l iit
ii; :i:
: i:i
t: :t
i:i
i:t :t
:t :!
:t :t :: :: :: ,: t: ltl
l) ,t |: .t t: :, tt :; tt .: :)
t: :: ,: :: ::
:,
,, i,.
':'
:: ,
: :
t. ,. '.-
,t .
f; l*
$ -f
fi$ E
F H
g '| :.
H d
E E
E $ '
H r
F $
$ E
E ilE
$
E €
E g
fi$ g
g g
g g g .g
g g
-+ c:
:i: E
$ s
ff i$
-+ 'fi
E E
-- H
-* l'=
H l
E $
' Ij
fi, ,,
X .
,i ',
,: i:,
.: r
:r :: :
:: l
:
i:: :l:
:: :: :: :: :, ::
,, \ -,)
iJ :: ;i:
f, ,E
,: :i:
:
l* :: :t :: tt :: !: tt
:: :, c.
:} .ll
i:: l.:
i4 i
:: lv
l rr
t. ::
r$ l::
l:, :l
t: tH
:t :
::
., :, l:(
;- -l D
: ::
:': ,:
C h
',: r,
l:i |: ft
:. :!
]l. :
d , i
, .,
: i:i
i:$ 1
:: ;:
!l
i:; ll:
tt =
,i! l
!: :: :r
:. -D
,: .: :: t,
:: :1
,( r,
,, ,, t, ,
.\ .:
i:: t:
: ,: l::
'll (\
. .
C i::
,: :
,, +
,. ,C
,, .
.r i'l C :
.. s.
: :.
:'l sl
: \i{
,
< i,,
,, .\
{i '
:i\ 1 \l
:
i';
i:t i::
til ti:
!t ,"
,!
:: :: i!!
lS )i :: ,i:
l
P :r
a --
\ :
, :(
4 ..
:: :'
.. : ::
!! I,
'l
' :' t-
iir
'.' :
:: :l\
::
':: :r
:: :q
d i,'
l
:. 1
,. ',l
t* ,,
,, ,
, .S
\: ',
:. :,
.n 1
,'. ::
., ;
',: $
{J ,: r
i'. '- .. '..
.' iil
ili :t :: il
:i: ,:
:: :!
!. ,:
!: !:
!
:l: :l:
t: l',
ll: :i:
:: i::
:t .: ,: i:l
t! .: ,, :
i i:,
: :: :: :: :li
!t iii
iii :i:
:: i
!: ,:
!
r: t: rl
ll: l:l
ti: :li
;; ii:
:: ii:
:i! :ii
!: l
!: lt;
: i!:
ii
:: tt
:: tt
:: :,
:, :,
.lt l,:
t: ,,
t, !:
t:
'.l .'.
.. ..
.. .. .. .
i i.,
jti :ii
it, ii:
i:l i:l
ltr i
:l+ .. :. .. ',.
,; ,. .',
.'l
i.. ,.
.'. ..
.
'.1 .'t
1 .i.
l.l i,,
.l :: l::
:it iii
llt i::
iii t: :: iit
ili !
:t i::
i:i :i:
i:l :i:
iii il:
!: l:i
:i. .
*=
: ::
t ii:
l:i tl:
it, :] tit
lil :it
,: i
i:: t; t: ii:
,t ,: ii:
,t ,ii
], :i
i:! lt:
l:t :i:
:: :: l::
i:: l::
::
., '.
. ,.
',, .
,, t
.a ,
., ,,
,. ,
,, ,
' ,
., .
,, ,-
,. ,.
., . .. ,, t
l,' , ,, -
.. ,.
,, -.
,. ,;
,. .,
' ., ,. ,. ,, ,; :',
,: ,
:: :. ',.
.. :. ,: :: :. :
: :
:': E
l:: .:
.: ::
.: .
:' '
': ::
:: .:
,. .,
# ..
i:. ., H
.. ','
,, ','
fi. ','
. ' .
.': #
',' ,V
,, '[:
,, ,, ,: _
{, :: :
,, ,: [, ,
: ::
:S ,:
,, ,
, E
li, ,. ,, ,L
f, ,t Q
i,. ,, ','
',: 6
; ;: ;, ,: ,: ,, f ",
., ,
. i3
, ,
,, ,, 9
,, ,,
,, fl,
,ii ,, ff ,, ,
,H :
,: , ,f
fi ,, .,
ff .,
. .'f
f :, ,
,$ .
., .,
: . ,, , fl.
.. :.
,. .]
,. .,
fi, ,,
' , ,',
,, 'ff
i,l ,,
,, ,, ,-
E -l r,
i, ,*
-- ,, ,
,, i,'
,: E
' ',
,. ,
,', ,,
.: t
: :i-
+ .'
: ..
.'. .:
: ' }3
:' ':
. . !,
,- l::
' :,
',t 1
1 .,
:'' :'
I :r
',: r
:. :'
.( I;
:. '
:'. ':;
., ., ., ;ii
:: :',
,. (
D '
.: '
:. . :. ,
(D .: .
. ,.
. ..
.. ,,
,, .l
!, i..
.. ,,
. '$
,, , ,
, ,S
I. ,
:, .. fr
.,
,. ,. i,i
, :.
' H ,, ., ,, .K
,,
:. ,,
,'f l..
,, .:
,f i
.,
,: ,. ,
:. .:
,1 ,,
9 , ' ,
S ,
,f ii,
, :
:T i
,, ,,
,, ,,
:, ,,
,: ,,
,: ..
.': ,,
,', ..
,, $
.. ,,
,, ,,
,', ,f
;i .'.
., ,5
., .
,i, i,
', ,
,, ,H
:, ,,
, A
+ ,',
, ,,
,g ,
,, ,
, ,F
,
,. ,.
.. .,
,. .,
:, !.
f. ,'.
,. .,
., ,S
., ..
.: , H
,, ,,
,, ,r
E '
, ,'
F F
-i '
,, $ ,.
' , , "Q
''" ''g
l ,
.', .
,', , ,. ,*
, ,
.. .',
^$ ,';
,, ..
.', E
['; ' ,. *.
:, .. .. .: .. ,. ,, .. ':.
.: fi
,, ,i.
:'. $
. ..
, ..
F ..
.: ..
,: .:
,. ,f
i.: '
:; :. :; :
:. ;r
': ':'
: ' :
.: '::
: S
S : ,, ,, ,',
'H ,
,'t ,,
''
"' H
r'
' :'
:, :r
l,: .
. ''2
;': ..
:. .: ,
,, :, ,\
:: :
l+ .
: ,
:. :
:. :.
H .'.
: :
! :.
t. !:
.4 1
:. :
:.
,, ., ,
''f r' ,,
..
,, ,,
:| *|
:: !:
]
i.l i..
i., .i,
,. ..
.. ,'.
.li l.i
i.' i's
d .. li.
.. i,.
l
:i: i::
l :jl
i:: ;
::
:: :r
iit r:
:t iti
:i+
i:l :,
:: i
:. :. :
','
'l! +
.: .1
:, ,:
,, ,
.- lJ
.:
iii ,i.
., i.i
.ii iii
i i..
li, ., i.l
i.. (D
i,. i.,
.. i'.
, 1 ::
:,
A
i:: :
.- :. :
,. ,, ,, ,g
:. ,,
: ,:
, H
.:
,:
!: tt
t; :!
:il tlt
:i: tt
:: ::
:; i:j
i:t (D
r: i:
:! i;
,' ,',
, .(
? ,'r
.. ,, ,, ,
lil !.
:, l:l
:: l!:
:, i:l
!! :i:
tli :t
:i: tii
:1 ils
.J :: r:
i:
, :. .. :. .:
r, !\
-,
., .. :: ,\ Jr
,. .: '
r: :
: .i
. :H
a l!:
; :':
: iip
,, ,, :!
A ]:
:, ,,
,: ,v
,, i:t
:! :: tit
rt :it
:: :i:
:: :t :: tt :: tt :!
ii
. :: '"
.( .t
:. :'
.. .:
':' :
:'i J'
,r
!ii !] ii:
iii !: ii!
jii :ii
:ll :: :l;
:] i:]
::
:ii !]
.: ]
: :':
: .
', : F
): :
:: :
'. ..
'.' .v
). ..
" :.
: .
:: :: :
:. :(
lD :: :
: .r
! .:
.: :l.
i:: ;
:. 'i
': !
:: .: :':
' .:
: !r
,: .:
: l:]
i :: l:.
: i:!
t ::
t, !;
i :t :i:
::
: :!
; t l::
:: :i!
:!
i::
:: i:i
:i ;:
:: ;:
:: ;r
:: ;: :: :: i:;
:li i{
:: l:i
i:
iti :,
ji: li:
: ::
:: ::
t: !:
iti :ii
!: l!!
:li e
$ :: :
:jl ::
:
.. :: :.
d t
l
,,
,,
,, ,.
}3
.: ]
:, 1 {:
:, ,
, .
1 J.
., ,: .,
.: }.
:{ .r
,: ,: :, :, :
:, P
i: itl
:: ;: ::
i:l
!! :t i!
!: !t
ti! i tt !'i
!: t: !: :! :
i:: :
ilt !t
lt! :l:
! !! ,ii
:t i!!
1 !it
ii: t
i:: iii
i:: lt
:
:! ::
itt ti!
:lt !t
,i! :i!
:t i:l
t: :: :l:
:; lil
}l lli
i
,, ,,
,i, ,,
,, ,,
,, ,',
,, ',,
,', ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, sf
, ,, :, ,, ,
I l:.
: E
a l:.
:l --
g '::
: ,, ,
." ::
. .q
,il {-
:. ',r
:: ,: ,: ]
,:
,'. ,,
,, ,N
,:
l
ilt iii
iti t: !: iii
:i: t: ilj
:i: l::
:: ;: t: .: lt
tii
t(
i:: iii
ii: .t lii
t. :it
lil ii:
lli li:
lii :, l:i
li: :ii
i::
io 0 iii
iir r:
iir iil
iii lir
lir rl :i:
l:l 1 :ii
iii r:
:i:
i:i iii
iii i:i
iit ili
ili iii
t: ff i
il; :: :: :i:
:i, i:i
iii i
:ii iii
iii t: i
:: tli
:: i:!
:: :: :
:lt l:i
;i: :t :: :it
rl n tlt
! :t :i:
,i: ;
:: tii
:: :: :t :: :i:
il
i.. .. ,
'.. i'.
'. .
. ., i,
.. .
.. .. .'.
',
l:: ll:
:] i!:
li! :li
:jl ill
ii] lii
jl: (}
ii: l
:: :: lii
:l i:l
.! :
.! ]l:
!: l:i
'.t .i'
.t i.,
# t. t't
tt ".
i
:i: :, i
:: :: ]ii
:i: :i:
l!] ]t tl]
l:] l!l
:l: !: ]l:
l:l i],
j:l :; ]l
: i;:
.; .ii
ili i:t
i!; li!
t iil
ii: i.;
1 !. .: Ilt
l:: i::
it: .t r:
r: :: r
;: ti!
:1 ,! tr
.
:li :] ili
li] :
]: i]
i :8
,: ]: ]: ]: ]: ]] :] ]ii
]]
iii i:
ili li:
], :i]
ii: :t it]
i:j ii:
U tt ,: :] :: i'
:: ]i:
iii :.
!: ]ii
]; i!]
l
:it i:i
ir :ii
:; !! tit
:i: i:t
:t :ii
iE ;t i:t
t: tt :: ;: :i1
:it t: !t t: .: i:.
i
]i: ] il:
: ]ll
i i:l
IH ':
:ii l:
:] :: ]ii
i
:: iii
:
lli .] ii.
l iil
i.: ii:
.] ,. .ii
i. .. l.o
'ii il'
l.. ,i.
.. .. .. ''.
.i
i.. ii
i:i li:
i i:i
lii tii
l:i i:i
i:! it;
:li E
:: :
:: ti:
:: ;i:
iit l
lil ii;
l i:l
i:
iil iii
i] iii
ii] i]]
i:] ,: ]ii
] i
.ii ]i.
l iii
i] i:l
ii] i
:lt ii:
til li;
: !! :ii
i:! :t ii:
:: l -I
n
i:: :
i; :i:
i:: i::
itl
ti: :t ltl
l
.i. .ii
ii. ii
.. .i.
.ii i.i
i.. ,. ., io
i..
iil iii
i.i i..
., .ii
ii. .ii
.
l.] ll.
.li .ii
l.: l'i
:ll .li
.. .i.
.i. .. 'O
.li ., li.
. .. .i.
ili .. l..
.i. .. l..
l
ii: iii
ili :li
ili :il
l|i lli
jl: iji
:j :: :: :: iii
:: ii:
iil i!l
:il .ii
l
:ii .: li.
:i| .jl
.. ]i.
.li |. li:
!ii jil
o :: ], i
:: :, iil
:. ]. .: i:i
i,i ii
.ii i':
.i. ;. :i:
ii: ,i.
:il ,ll
iil iil
E :i.
i:l i::
:. .: .ii
:ll il:
i': ii'
,. ,, .. ','
. E
. .
.', '
,, ,, ,, ,, ,
l:, :,
: :: !] !: ]
:lt i:l
:: :l:
:ji :: :i:
j:: :: :: ;: :li
!: :t :: ,: iii
t: t: i!t
:! l:!
l:! ;i:
ii: :: :: i::
i
':, ,, ,, ,, ,. ,, ,, ., ,i,
,, ,, i,i
:, Ip
lii ,i,
,, i,,
,, ,, ., ,, ,,
:i: l:!
:l: !t l!:
! .: i:!
,ii iti
tii :jl
Ill :: |lt
i:: :. :lt
!I ::
ilt l!:
lit i
ill
i:i i:i
ii! :i:
,: i:i
ili :il
:: ]ii
] iii
i:: ]i:
i:: :i:
:: i:t
]i: t, :: :
l:: lr :: li:
:t :: lt:
:l:
lt: ii:
tii ltr
l:l i::
t i::
t: :t :: :t t: :
!: l:t
ri
i.i .i.
.. .i.
.. i:.
,'i .ii
i,i .. .. ii
,. .i'
]ii .. l..
.. .ii
.i. l]i
',i i.
:ii :i!
:: t: i:!
:: tt ti!
:: i!:
iti i:t
ic lt:
t: :
;: l
:: :; :t itt
tii ]t i::
t! !
l]l lll
:: ]: l:
:: 1 lll
:i: ]ll
8 ,, :':
:l: :':
:: ]ll
iil i