DB #1 Students Post

Gerald Steckmeister

YesterdayMay 10 at 4:37pm

Manage Discussion Entry

                In the criminal justice field, both quantitative and qualitative research is important. As in any endeavor, it is essential to use the right tool for the right job. Quantitative measures are useful in telling us what is happening, but not necessarily why. Each type of research has strengths and weaknesses, so it is often a matter of utilizing the right tool for the right job. This selection is often context-dependent, as it may depend on the maturity of the current research. At one point, qualitative studies may be more appropriate, but that could possibly change as the research into the subject evolves.

Strengths of Quantitative Research

Groeneveld et al. (2015)found that qualitative studies generally outnumber quantitative studies in public administration. However, the authors suggest that quantitative research is on the rise. They note that quantitative studies research is well-suited to attitudes and behavior. Criminal justice is basically a study of behavior. For example, it examines why some commit crimes while others do not and which factors increase or decrease deviant behavior. Meier et al. (2015) opine that quantitative studies have better precision and can demonstrate variability in a variable. Creswell and Creswell (2018) note that quantitative studies are best utilized when the variables can be measured in numerical form. In addition, they suggest that quantitative studies are generally employed in mature subject areas, where existing theories are going to be tested. The authors state that these types of studies generally have an extensive literature review. A good example of quantitative research in criminal justice is the work of Bandes et al. (2019) in identifying community-wide consequences of stop and frisk programs.

Weaknesses of Quantitative Research

                Maxfield and Babbie (2018) note that quantitative studies are less effective at defining the meaning behind non-numerical data, such as words or phrases. While it is possible to quantify many non-numerical variables, the authors note that the “quantitative measures will be more superficial than qualitative descriptions” (p. 39). Another weakness of quantitative research is that the results are only as good as the data set. For example, if one wanted to study federal environmental crimes, it might be tempting to use data from the Environmental Protection Agency. However, Greife and Maume (2020) note that this would exclude data on environmental crimes that were initiated by other federal agencies.

Application

                The subject of mental health stigma in law enforcement provides a good example of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative methods. Prior theories were based on the assumption that mental health stigma served as a barrier to help-seeking in law enforcement populations, so it was hypothesized that lowering the stigma would increase help-seeking behavior. However, Drew and Martin (2021) found that the evidence did not support the latter. Creswell and Creswell (2018) note that when quantitative studies are as effective as qualitative when, “the available theory may be inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect or biased” (p. 104). Similarly, Hofer and Savell (2021) note that quantitative studies are less effective at discovering factors and influences in complex and dynamic environments (see also Tuffour, 2017). Therefore, the initial studies into this phenomenon will most likely be qualitative.

                However, qualitative studies into mental health stigma in law enforcement populations will not be definitive. Qualitative studies have their own weaknesses. For example, they generally have sample sizes that are significantly smaller than quantitative studies (Levitt et al., 2018; Rajasinghe, 2020). This creates potential problems with generalizability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Therefore, once a new theory is formed, quantitative studies may be useful in improving the generalizability and external validity of the research by testing the new theory and hypothesis. This does not mean that quantitative studies always need to follow qualitative research; they can be used concurrently. For example, Backes et al. (2020) utilized both methods for a systemic review of intimate partner stalking.

Christian Worldview

                The English Standard Bible (2016) teaches: “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Together, these quotes support the use of empirical study, particularly using the correct method at the right time. The Bible also notes that “Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way” (Proverbs 19:2). For criminal justice practitioners, this means that policy should be based on research and best practices.

Conclusion

                Quantitative and qualitative studies both have strengths and weaknesses. Quantitative studies are useful in determining the effects of numerical data and are generally have more precision than qualitative studies. Even where qualitative studies have an advantage, quantitative studies can be used to mitigate the former’s weaknesses and improve the validity of a study.