Assignment: Criminal Justice Databases

My research methods class u)as a really big help for we , and I'll be honest, I did not think that I utould be using this material much because I want to work as a field officer or an agent in local and federal laut enforcement, but I was wrong. My internship this sum- mer atthe attorney general's afficehas allowed me to wark alongside law enforcement, attorneys, detectives, and rnvestigators and I got the internship because af the knowledge I gained from my research methods class. I used these skills almost euery day and euen though the internship is over, they told me I did such a good job that I could come back if I ever wanted a job working utith the sarne superuisor I prevtously had.

Ricky E., Stu dent

I t is a sad reality that there is often a school shooting in the United States after this I textbook goes to press, which means it is impossible to list the most recent school tragedy here. The population of the United States all-too-frequently mourns the deaths of young innocent lives taken in this way. The deadliest elem entary school shooting to date took place on December 11,2012, when a 2}-year-old man named Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school in Newtown, Con- necticut, armed with several semiautomatic weapons and killed 20 children and six adults. On April L6,2007, Cho Seung-Hui perpetrated the deadliest college mass shooting when he kille d 32 students, faculry and staff and left over 3 0 others injured on the campus ofVirginia Tech in Blacksburg, Mrginia. Cho was armed with two semiautornatic handguns that he had legally purchased and a vest filled with ammunition. As police were closing in on the scene, he killed himself. A mass shooting atMarjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14,2018, surpassed the mass murder at Columbine High School in suburban Colorado, which killed 12 students and a teacher, to become the w.orst mass shooting in a high school. A 19-year-old former srudent named Nikolas Crrz entered the Parkland High school just before dismal and opened fire with an AR- 1 5 style semi-automatic weapon, killing 1 7 students and staff members.

None of these mass murderers was a typical terrorist, and each of these inci- dents caused a media frenzy. Fleadlines such as "The School Violence Crisis" and "School Crime Epidemic" were plastered across national newspapers and weekly news journals. Unfofrunately, the media play a large role in how we perceive both problems and solutions. In fact,gi% ofAmericans say that mass media sources such as television and ne\Mspapers are their main source of information on crime and

t!t

sctENcE, socrETY AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRI ME, CRI M I NOLOGY,

AND SOCIAL CONTROL

violence (Surrette 1998). What are your perceptions of vio- lence committed by youth, and how did you acquire them? What do you believe are the causes of youth violence? Many factors have been blamed for youth violence in American sociery including the easy availabiliry of guns, the lack of guns in classrooms for protection, th. use of weapons in movies and television, the moral decay of our nation, poor parent- ing, unaware teachers, school and class size, rucial prejudice, teenage alienation, the Internet and the World Wide Web, anti-Semitism, and rap and rock music, and the list goes on.

You probably have your own ideas about the factors related to violence in general and youth violence in particular. However, these beliefs may not always be supported by empirical research. In fact, the factors often touted by politicians and the media to be related to violence are not always supported by empirical evidence. In the rest of this chapter, you vrill leam how the meth- ods of social science research go beyond stories in the popular media to help us answer questions such as "What are the causes of youth violence?" By the chapter's end, you should understand how scientific methods used in criminal justice and criminology can help us understand and answer research questions in this discipline.

REASONING ABOUTTHE SOCIAL WORLD

The story of one murderous youth raises many questions. Take a few minutes to read each of the following questions about Nikolas Cruz, the l9-year-old apprehended for killing 17 people in February2018, atMarjory Stoneman DouglasHigh SchoolinParkland,Florida. Dontruminate about the questions or worr), about your responses. This is not a test; there are no wrong answers.

r Howwouldyou describe Nikolas Cruz? . Why do you thin-k Cruz wanted to kill other students? r Was Cruz typical of other perpetrators of school shootings? . In general, why do people become murderers? o How have you learned about youth violence?

Now let us consider the possible answers to some of these questions. Cruz did not have an a:rest record before the shooting but he did have a troubled life. He and his brother were adopted, and when their father died in 2004, they were raised by their mother, who died in November of 2017.Manywho ftnew Cruz said he tookher death veryhard.Aneighbor believed that Cruz had been diagnosed with autism and had trouble controlling his temper. The neighbor said that when he was younger, Cruz had gone to a school for students with special needs and, "Kids were really picking on him andwould gangup on him and beathim up a litde" @aussetand Kovaleski 2018).

Do you have enough information now to understand why he went on a shooting rampage in his school?

Cruz was expelled from Stoneman Douglas High School the year before the shootings allegedly for fighting with his ex-girlfriend's new boy&iend and for possessing a knife in school. In September of 2017, he made a postunder the name o'nikolas cruz" on aYouTirbe channel that stated, "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" @ausset and Kovaleski 2018). The post was flagged and submitted to a local Federal Bureau of Investigation @BI) ofEce inMississippi. After the shooting, the FBI reported that nothing could be done about the posting because "no otler information was included in the comment which would indicate a particular time, location, or the true identity of the person who posted the comment." Now can you construct

,

CHAPTER 1 o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL

an adequate description of Cruz? Can you explain the reason for his murderous rampage? Or do you feel you need to lnow more about him?? We have attempted to understand one person's behavior, and already our investigation is spawning more questions than answers.

Questions and Answers

We cannot avoid asking questions about the actions and attitudes of others. We all try to make sense of the complexities of our social world and our position in ig in which we have quite a per- sonal stake. In fact, the more you think like a social scientist, the more questions will come to mind.

But why does each question have so many possible answers? Surely our individual per- spectives play a role. One person may see a homicide offender as a victim of circumstance, while another person may see the same individual as inherendy evil. Answers to questions we ask in the criminological sciences vary because individual life experiences and circumstances vary. When questions concern not only one person but many people or general social pro- cesses, the number of possible answers quickly multiplies. In fact, people have very differ- ent beliefs about the factors responsible for mass shootings. Exhibit 1.1 displays Gallup Poll results from the following question: "Thinking about mass shootings that have occurred in the U. S. in recent years, from what you know or have read, how much do you think each of the following factors is to blame for the shootings?"fu you can see, a large percentage blame the mental health system; four out of ten blame easy access to guns as well, but nearly one out of five blame inflammatory language from political commentators.

Avoiding Errors in Reasoning

We all have different ideas about the factors related to things, but most of the time, these ideas are not based on evidence. It is simply too easy to make errors in logic, particularly when we xe rrnalyzing the social world in which we ourselves are conscious participants. We

Source:Reprinted with permission from Gallup.

SECTION I O FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

Exhibit 1.1 Responses to the Question, "Thinking About Mass Shootings Tlrat Elave Occurred in the U. S. in RecentYears, From WhatYou Know or Have Read, How Much DoYou Think Each of tl.e Following Factors Is to Blame for the Shootings?"

/ {

can call some of these eneryday eTyors,becatse they occur so frequendy in the nonscientific, unreflective discourse about the social world that we hear on a daily basis. In fact, in the last decade, tens of books have been written that focus on how and why our judgments are usually irrational and sometimes extremely biased. These errors in reasoning have been given marry fancy names, including the following: anchoring bearistic, base rate fallary, ilhuory correlation, jast-world. phmon enon, omission bias, self-refermce ffix, and so on (Flertenstein 2013). In this section, we more generally describe the four areas where we typically make errors: overgen- eralizaion, selective or inaccurate observation, illogical reasoning, and resistance to change.

Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization, an error in reasoning, occurs when we conclude that what we have observed or what we know to be true for some cases is true for all cases, We are always draw- ing conclusions about people and social processes from our own interactions with them, but sometimes we forget that our experiences are limited. The social (and natural) world is, after all, a complex place. We have the ability (and inclination) to interact with a small fraction of the individuals who inhabit the social world, especially in a limited span of time.

Selective or lnaccurate Observation

Selective obserrration is choosing to look only at things that are in accordance with our preferences or beliefs. When we are inclined to criticize individuals or institutions, it is all too easy to notice their every failing. For example, if we are convinced in advance that all kids who are violent are unlikely to be rehabilitated and will go on to commit violent offenses in adulthood, we will probably find many confirming instances. But what about other youths who have become productive and stable citizens after engaging in violence as adolescents? Or the child who was physically or sexually abused and joined a gar,g to satisf, the need for a family surrogate? If we acknowledge only the instances that confirm our predispositions, we are victims of our own selective observation. Exhibit 1.2 depicts the difference between overgeneralization and selective observation.

(}vergeneralization:

fr,* *rrttr in r*'amntngthn, *{:*r}r* w*tNt \ftri t{}'il*iLti* that what ru * liitu t: rs'rs** r'.t *r: rsr kn*w !* ls* tru* t*r a *xl**rll ',sl r:r:*** ltrsfuJs !ru*

ir:r th* xrt:ir* s*t.,

Selective ohservation:

*ls s * r rt tili * "t*

r:h t: r: *: n

t;s*r:a.url* i,hxy ar* ln n*r:*rr| witis th* Str*i*r***** *r l:*li*fs *l ln,t r:*r;bru*r

Overge neralization: "Those people

are never satisfied."

a

CHAPTER 1 o SCIENCE, SOCtETv, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL

Selective Observation : "Those people

.or'"***ooo*o'*'oo are ngver satisfied."n' 't^ r' u*o .if' , ttt"E t **,fE+.. 'l

1r ,i$ !... ., ,-o\**o*,u,,*.'ll o',

ir TX**..****-*""t- u

Exhibit 7.2 The Difference Betureen Overgeneralization and Selective Obserwation

Visual Cortex

Fight or Flight Response: Heart rate and blood pressure increase. Large muscles prepare for quick action.

I naccu rate observation:

*ls*er'; atia n s l:asrd rsn ta*li.y p*r**tlf i*nt *f *mi:iri*al r*,slitv

lllogical reasoning: Prcmature i? jumpinU t* *rs**lulii*ns anri arfi ur nij

*,t th* ?srtxi* *f i nval id a,g'**n'#tirsn*,

Source: Adapted from "Emotion, Memory and the Brain,"Joseph E. LeDoux, ScientificAmerican,2T0 (6),June t994.32-39. Reprinted with permission from the illustrator Roberto Osti.

Recent research on cognitive functioning ftow the brain works) helps explain why our feelings so readily shape our perceptions (Seidman 1997). Emotional responses to external stimuli travel a shorter circuit in the brain than do reasoned responses (see Exhibit 1.3). The result, according to some cognitive scientists, is that "what something reminds us of can be far more important than what it is" (Goleman 1995,29+-295). Our emotions can influence us even before we begin to reason about what we have observed.

Our observations also can simply be inaccurate. If a woman says she is hungry and we think she said she is bunted, we have made an inaccurate observ"ation. If we think five people are standing on a street corner when there are actually seven, we have made an inaccurate observation. Such errors occur often in casual conversation and in everyday observation of the world around us. In fact, our perceptions do not provide a direct window into the world around us, for what we think we have sensed is not necessarily what we have seen (or heard, smelled, felt, or tasted). Even when our senses are functioning fully, our minds have to inter- pret what we have sensed (flumphrey 1992). For example, when looking at the optical illusion in Exhibit 1.4, your visual system deceives you so that the monster in the background seems larger, even though the two monsters are exacdy the same size.

lllogical Reasoning

When we prematurely jump to conclusions or argue on the basis of invalid assumptions, we are using illogicat reasoning. For example, it is not reasonable to propose that depictions of violence in media such as television and movies cause violence if evidence indicates that the majority of those who watch such programs do not become violent. flowever, it is also illogical to assume that media depictions of gratuitous violence have no effect on individuals.

SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

Exhibit 1.3 Anatomy of an Emotional Hijacking

Of course, logic that seems impeccable to one person can seem nvisted to another; the problem usually is reasoning from differ- ent assumptions rather than failing to think straight.

Resistance to Change

Resistance to changE the reluctance to change our ideas in light of new information, may occur for several reasons:

Ego-Based Commitments, \ re a[ learn to greer with some skepticism the claims by leaders of companies, schools, agencies, and so on that people in their organtzation are hrppy, that revenues are growing, that services are being delivered in the best possibl e wzg and so forth. We know how tempting it is to make statements about the social world that conform to our own needs rather than to the observable facts. It also can be difficult to admit that \Me were wrong once we have staked out a position on an issue.

Excess ive Devotion to Tradition: Some degree of devotion to tradition is necessary for the predictable functioning of society. Social life can be richer and more meaningful if it is allowed to flow along the paths charted by those who have preceded us. But too much devotion to tradition can stifle adaptation to changing circumstances. When we distort our observations or alter our reasoning so that we can maintain beliefs that, for instance, "were good enough for my grandfather, so they're good enough for me," we hinder our ability to accept new findings and develop new knowledge. The consequences can be deadly, as residents of Hamburg, Germany, might have realned in 1892 @reedman 1991). Until the last part of the 19th century people believed that cholera, a potentially lethal disease, was due to minute, inanimate, airborne poison particles Qniasru.as).In 1850, English researcherJohn Snow demonstrated that cholera was, in fact, spread by contaminated water. When a cholera epidemic hit Hamburg in 1892, the authorities did what tradition deemed appropriate: diggrrg up and carting away animal carcasses to prevent the generation of more miasmas. Despite their efform, thousands died. NewYork City adopted a new approach based on Snow's discovery which included boiling drinking \Mater and disinfecting sewage. As a result, the death rate in New York City dropped to a tenth of what it had been in a previous epidemic.

lJ ncritical Agreement With Authority; If we do not have the courage to evaluate critically the ideas of those in positions of authority, we will have litde basis for complaint if they exercise their authority over us in ways we do not like. And if we do not allow new discoveries to call our beliefs into question, our understanding of the social world will remain limited. As we will see in Chapter 3, an extreme example of this problem is obedience to authority figures that can harm and kill others, including acts of genocide.

Now take a minute to reexamine the beliefs about youth violence that you recorded ear- lier. Did you grasp at a simple explanation even though reality was far more complex? Were your beliefs influenced byyour own ego and feelings aboutyour similarities to or differences from individuals prone to violence? Are your beliefs perhaps based on depictions ofviolence in the media or fiction? Did you weigh carefully the opinions of authority figures, including politicians, teachers, and even your parents, or did you accept or reject those opinions out of hand? Could knowledge of research methods help improve your o1w,n understanding of the

Besistance to change:

?rrJ ti r:t'-afi t * lrs **a* g t: i * * "tt'* :.. t'. ^.t^i ^ f. .- ^... : . f *ffn,Slirt*llt fiUl* tJt 11*\it 11,,,.,,,,,,o,,,,,,

i|tst:1* *u{}-rJa**ti t:'*

tY v,tlitrn o r*r*, fry{J'* ti fiiu * t:rr'.'rfiinn Irt irsriittrrn rir \jat{\17)lt l\J i.r (.t!ritl\-!t111 \,tt

u rt * r iTt *, al afrr * {:ffi{: t}i willj *tilhnriii*c,_LUt,tt\J1 iLl\)t),

CHAPTER 1 . SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL

Exhibit 1.4 An Optical lllusion

Socialscience:

Th* *r* *l rir;i*rtritt* ryi*t"ltrsrJ*,

s rs *i *li *9,'*rs d *'* r:i al

,;st {ti:****ti, i n t I i; rl i * g {.}ittrr;t"i*ri*

r r tl al'* d !"r: * r iiy ii r t *i tt *,t

a*rj r:r: ;r,ktr'.| }*:*iii *,a', t n * L"lt,Sritit:fJ,J* pf **l*r:* '',*,; t?f:,f,+ i*u'**tig"tit*n*,

Science:

i" **i *i it:git:;:i, ti,f v;'i*rri;:,';ir:, ii r: i, i:trt * r,!,* rl r. i r,ll l * rls I * r

i n vu lti i *att*tj tl?,,Lur {i ititl t: ;1fu r rii {} t * * * ti::i *.9', t"lt *

kr i *wl rt,J g r: p r,* ti'* r; * rJ by

tl: tt* * i {i,i tt si,i {s i,,ii * rsti,

Epistemology:

h h r';,"t i *l: *t r:l tiis'*rsrfi;ru {liat Elri*irn'fi*w tr:*wi *ri g c ! s 't"&lti* {i r$ ?t*{}Ui{ *ii,

Transparent:

firi itts'fi;sr lmil i*altir * r:t tl* * r:i **li{ t* tlt*ir. r:rJ'tltnl r *,4tur * ;i y r li t: * |tx *'s . t I t ttt l i t: rJ'*, ai #, rirtT;t :-rn l: lri:l+t nI ;t*:t c'.liril,,t'i {t ai!+.i/- i{{ tt1,.

i 1-)t\.

br: irr:ir:filrXi f,irtari,i !*f t*r:

ft it { 11 r s5g3,ll f t:'*ii t:::;1t',5*,

Peer review:

li, lil ii t.) li,ill i i t .tfi i t:i i rt" 1{:U i {i'i}l

*dit* r * *rt 11* a *ulsrnits*ri arii r:t r:

1r: t't,l{},}t L{v a'c *,y.iJbfi* wY tr:

ju tl fi ,t wi t *t * * r',1 i * fr i t.l} {: i :ii t t.t t ii t } h* i:*r:r: tsl*d, r *u i'*r: d e*,t

{,ililihtiliiitJrJ,i:t"t*i',}t:,Lritl,litr}

exi;;*r i,c, *i** x r:vi,l* * * n;ng,ntt i* rtv.l:l'*ir i til*u' t.ir, t itir:r' nitC

*,sitJ* 3;1y v s,iit:i rsiil",

Pseudoscience:

* *l:si rs t:,rt "'* ttt i nr; r,i n r.r:r: i r: g ..i.'-i.rr* i'1r..+

",r,", *n,tr.. I *",LitilillS LliJt\ {,.lti LiJLtLijt-i d::

" gt;i *tr1il'r*n'tly is r rx o ri" at \{i

l:ttiri .*r*rl ls,t i*r'rtiil . S:is'r:itr: l:.t'*lini**ia1*,st; ls *li *T r:r't r#l t rs l',,r',,. {l,r'.'' { }r,r * /.i,. \r t-, (\, i r' n,, r', i, i (l'i l, i i i .1 I.i i Ctl it"i 4 /.1..1 Y i t Y, 1 t i., rj

',*f ''ttU,l*

r;1'.;rf';t*,fl Ir: ?ffi'.;*

titilii **';t: fr ili ri frils,t*rit'ii* i} iJ il',

|i{iw*ut:{, tc,itt:?l *,I.r.i*r:r:* 4 i{:1 lsistir:rj lsn i.ltr; pti,*r:ip*:r; ',*i

il i * * r:i * nlili';, r* *,th',: d,

Phrenology: ,+ fit,,tr rjt*ftrtr! ti*lr| fi c:fiirlit

tvt ttv<.j vt vrtr.fil;

i:i lit;: i L';llt *ttnlitt";i i'i';':;i 1tr:,iri. ;:f f,::L? t,.-Jttl lJ\_ti!Li,tt

l1t1ilrLt- ia'.j:U

t.t.. -., i^. -..^ ,1 l:.. ,...i +1. ^ltt -ii ll!ii\,lt\!,Jt1!l 11..:r.!ltl i,\.' i Ji .t1;f.ititi. lJUiilllJ (.iit'\t 11,..i*l;i ri+ \.)l ..i1\.)

r ;;u.li tl t:,, i: r r ii r t * tl tii r: tl; r r:, t t i: i * r ;:liiti l]{i{LrJrr;"litu tti ti t*rstri,

factors related to violent behavior? By now, we hope that you will see some of the challenges faced by social scientists studying issues related to crime and the criminal justice system.

You do not have to be a scientist or use sophisticated research techniques to recogn-ize and avoid these four errors in reasoning. Ifyou recognize these errors for what they are and make a conscious effort to avoid them, you can improve your own reasoning. In the process, you will also be heeding the admonishments of your parents (or minister, teacher, or other adviser) to refrain from stereotyping people, to avoid jumping to conclusions, and to look at the big picture. These are the same errors that the methods of social science are designed to help criminologists avoid.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH

The social science approach to answering questions about the social world is designed to gready reduce tlese potential sources of error in everyday reasoning. Science relies on logical and systematic methods to answer questions, and it does so in a way that allows others to inspect and evaluate its methods. In the realm of social research, these methods are not so unusual. After all, they involve asking questions, observing social groups, and counting people, which we often do in our everyday lives. flowever, social scientiss dwelop, refine, apply, and report their understanding of the social world more qzstematically or specifically thanJoanna Q. Public does:

r Social science research methods can reduce the likelihood ofovergeneralization by using systematic procedures for selecting individuals or groups to study that are representative of the individuals or groups that we wish to generalize.

r Social science methods can reduce the risk ofselective or inaccurate observation by requiring that we measure and sample phenomena sy.stematically.

o To avoid illogical reasoning, social researchers use explicit criteria for identifring causes and for determining if these criteria are met in a particular instance.

. Because they require that we base our beliefs on evidence that can be examined and critiqued by others, scientific methods lessen the tendency to develop answers about the social world from ego-based commitrnents, excessive devotion to tradition, andl or unquestioning respect for authority.

Science Versus Pseudoscience

In philosophical terms, the scientific method represents anepistemology, away of knowing that relies on objective, empirical investigation. Its techniques must betransparent so that the methods, procedures, and data analyses ofany study can be replicated. This transparency allows other researchers to see ifthe same results can be reproduced. Iffindings can be repk- cated, we have greater confidence that the findings are real and not based on bias. Tianspar- enry also relies onpeer rwiew, the process by which other independent researchers evaluate the scientific merit of the study. (You will learn more about this in Chapter 16.)

In contrast, ifwe relied on findings based on intuition, gut reactions, or our own experi ence, we would be open to the errors we covered above, If we based findings on these, it would not be science but instead would fall under the classification ofpseudoscience. Pseudoscien- tific beliefs are not based on the scientific method but rather on claims that may be touted as 'oscientifically proven," only bolstered by testimonials of believers who have firsthand experi- ence or who have claimed to have witnessed the phenomenon (I.{ester and Schutt 2012).

Of course, todayt pseudoscience could be yesterday's science. In criminological research, phrenology is a good example. Phrenology is the belief that bumps and fissures of the skull determined the character and personality of a person( In the 1 9th cennrry, doctors doing entry

SECTION l. FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

examinations at American prisons would examine a new inmate's head for bumps or cavities to develop a criminal profile. Advances in cognitive psychology and neurology have largely discredited phrenology and placed it within the domain of pseudoscience. It didn't take a genius to question phrenology-merely a group of researchers adhering to the scientific method. When inmates'heads \Mere compared to individual heads in the general population, they were found to be essentially the samel

Criminal rlustice and Criminology Research in Practice

Let's get back to our topic of youth violence.This topic is not a new phenomenon of interest. It has always been a popular topic of social science research. Iloweveq the sharp increase in this violence in the United States that began in the late 1980s along with the increased number of school shootings in recent decades was unprecedented. Predictably, whenever a phenomenon is perceived as an epidemic, numerous explanations emerge to explain it. Unfortunately, most of these explanations are based on the media and popular culture, not on empirical research. Unlike the mass media, which has floated anecdotal information, social scientists interested in this phenomenon have amassed a substantial body of findings that have refined lnowledge about the factors related to the problem and shaped social policy (T"nry and Moore 1998). These studies fall into the four categories of purposes for social scientific research:

Descriptive Research

Defining and describing social phenomena of interest is a part of almost any research inves- tigation, but descriptive research is the primary focus of many studies of youth crime and violence. Some of the central questions used in these studies were "How many people are vic- tims of youth violence?" o'What percentage of adolescenB have committed a violent offense?"

"What are the most cofirmon crimes committed by youthful offenders?" and "How many youths are arrested and incarcerated each year for crime?" Measurement (see Chapter 4) and sampling (see Chapter 5) are central concerns in descriptive research.

CASE STUDY

How Prevalent ls Youth Violence?

Poliee Reports

One of the most enduring sources of information on lethal violence in the IJnited States is the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). Homicide victimization rates indicate that for those under the a'ge of 24, vulnerability to murder increased dramatically from the mid- 1980s tfuough about 1994, when rates began a steady decline, but increased slighdy in 2016 (FBI 2018). Data measuring the prevalence,of nonlethal forms of violence such as robbery and assaults are a bit more complicated. How do we lnow how manyyoung people become victims of assault each year? People who report their victimizations to police represent one avenue for these calculations.The FBI compiles these numbers in its Uniform Crime Report- ing (JCR) system, which is slowly being replaced by the National Incident-Based Reporting System (fiIBRS). Both of these data sources rely on state, county, and city law enforcement agencies across the United States to voluntarily participate in the reporting program. Can you imagine why relying on these data sources may be problematic for estimating prevalence rates of violent victimizationsl If victimizations are never reported to police, they are not counted. This is especially problematic for victimizations of intimate partners and for other offenses such as rape, ofwhich only a fraction are ever reported to/police.

Descriptive research: t.j ,.. ^ -. - ,. -.

i^. i. . .,,".,:. -.1,..?..J:\\'* 14 ! 1t IIt \t\!t|1l'|! I ii.J t.)\.tU;l 4,.! I i i I f i't 1 iI \t I i

,-,l, n r'.' I rli fr /. 4 ., * r,. .-i ",{r

r'- -^ ri n rt,,}i ii \lr i 1l lJ 1.t" I 1 /! ,4 I *\ I 17" I 11llrt | /l 1 ll i iJrlt':1!*/1 :iUlll.r ail'; trVltll*'A +41 lt,1'rl,*tt:r|***,

CHAPTER'l o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL

Exploratory research:

?r*,o,*arr:h rt w*i*h .g*cial ph*ntsrnrr#.'a{ * i n vest i il atr d withaul a tsrirui *xfr**txtirs*s

in rsrd*r i,* t\*ur:ttfr

*xftl'an'atits*s i: f th*r*,

Surveys

Instead, most social scientists believe the best way to determine the magnitude of violent victimizationis through random sample surveys.Whilewewill discuss surveymethodology in greater detail in Chapter 8, this basically means randomly selecting individuals in the population of interest and asking them about their victimization experiences. The only ongoing survey that does this on an annual basis is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is sponsored by the U.S. Department ofJustice's Bureau ofJustice Statistics (BJS). Among other questions, the NCVS asks questions such as "FIas anyone attacked or threatened you with a weapon, for instance, a gun or knife; by something thrown, such as a rock or bottle; include any grabbing, punching, or choking?" Estimatei indicate that youth aged 12 to 24 have the highest rates of violent victimization of any age group, and these rates have been declining steadily since the highs witnessed in the early 1990s, although recent increases have been observed in homicide rates for this age group in some locations.

Another large research survey that estimates the magnitude of youth violence (as well as the prevalence of other risk-taking behavior, such as taking drugs and smoking) is called the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which has been conducted every two years in the United States since 1990. Respondents to this suwey are a national sample of approximately 16,000 high school studens in Grades 9 through 12. To measure the extent of youth violence, students are asked the following questions: "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?" "During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight?" "During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight in which you were injured and had to be seen by a doctor or nurse?" "During the past 30 days, how many times did you carry a rreapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property?" "During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property?" and "During the past 12 months, how many times did someone threaten or injure you with a gun, knife, or club on school property?"

Of course, another way to measure violence would be to ask respondents about their offending behaviors. Some surveys do this, including the National Youth Survey QrtrYS) and the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS). The RYDS sample consists of 1,000 students who were in the seventh and eighth grades of the Rochester, New York, public schools during the spring semester of the 1988 school year. Staff with dris project have interviewed the original respondents at 12 different times (we will discuss longitudinal research of this kind in Chapter 6); the last interview took place in 1997, when respondents were in their early 20s (Thornberry Krohn, Lizofre, and Bushway 2008). As you can imag- ine, respondents are typically more reluctant to reveal their offending behavior than they are to reveal their victimization experiences. Ilowever, these surveys have been a useful tool for examining the factors related to violent offending and other delinquenry. We should also point out that although this discussion has been specific to violence, the measures we have discussed in this section, along with their strengths and weaknesses, apply to measur- ing all crime in general.

Exploratory Research

Exploratory research seeks to find out how people get along in the setting under ques- tion, what meanings they grve to their actions, and what issues concern them. The goal is to answer the question, "What is going on here?" and to investigate social phenomena without expectations. This purpose is associated with the use of methods that captune large amounts of relatively unstructured information. For example, researchers investigating the emergence of youth gangs in the 1980s were encountering a phenomenon with which they had no direct

10 SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

I {

experience. Thus, an early goal was to find out what it was like to be a gang member and how gang members made sense of their situation. Exploratory research such as this frequendy involves qualitative methods (see Chapter 9).

CASE STUDY

How Did Schools Avert a Shooting Rampage?

Research that is exploratory in nature is generally concerned with uncovering detailed information about a given phenomenon and learning as much as possible about particular people and/or events. While there have been far too many school shootings in the United States during the past decade, there have also been numerous incidents in which students were plotting to kill their peers or faculty members, but these plans came to the attention of authorities before they could be carried out. To examine how these incidents were stopped, Madfis (2014) selected 11 schools where a mass shooting had been diverted between 2000 and 2009 and conducted intensive interviews with people who were involved, including 11 principals and 2l other administrators, teachers, and police officers. He also corroborated the interview data with newspaper reports and, where possible, court transcripts and police incident reports.

Madfis's (2014) research was truly exploratory. You will leam much more about qualitative research in Chapter 9, but for now, we simply want to higtrlight how this study is different from the other research qpes above. He let the people he interviewed speak for themselves; he didnt come with questions tllat were designed before the interviews to measure concepts such as violence or delinquenry.After examining all ofthe interviewtranscripts,Madfis developed themes that emerged among them all. This is what made the research etcploratoTy'trstead of explananry.

Five out of the 11 school shootings were thwarted by other students who were not direcdy involved or entrusted by the accused students but who came about the information indirecdy. For example, one student reported the existence of disturbing posts and images on another student's network website. The second most common category of intervention involved people who had been told direcdy about the planned attacls by the students accused of plotting them. For example, after one student was sent threatening messages, she told her mother, who then called the police. When the accused student was questioned, he confessed, and weapons were discovered in his bedroom.

School administrators believed that students were more likely to come forward with information about their peers since the Columbine High School shootings than they had been before this catalyzing mass shooting. One school principal stated, "Columbine abso- lutely made kids much more vigilant about things going on around them . . .I think it made kids less afraid to speak up if something wasn't sitting right with them" (Madfis 2014,235). Another theme that was clear from the interviews was that if school environments were going to break the "student code of silence," they must be supporting, cohesive, and trusting. For example, another principal stated, "The best mechanism we have as a deterrent for these sorts ofviolent acts is good relationships between kids and adults, because kids will tell you" (235).

fu you can see from tlis discussion of Madfis's results, the goal of his research was to explore the factors related to instances where a school shooting had been successfully thwarted. He did not go into the school with a survey filled with questions, because the exist- ing literature reveals that litde is knorm about these factors. For this reason, the investigation was explorative in nature. It is different from a descriptive investigation, because an estimate of the prevalence of some phenomenon is not the goal. Rather, a deeper understanding of the processes and perceptions ofstudy participants is the desired outcome in exploratory research.

a

CHAPTER 1 o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 1l

ExBlanatory research:

ffi*searrh ihal sscks tr i,J*r{itu ca ils*$ a**l rsr

*ffccts *l s*tial {sh*rtrsrs*ria,

Evaluation research:

?, * * * ar *h rsls * uT "o,rs

*i al

W * *{ a?i* * r int *r'; *r\;it} tl't,

Explanatory Research

Many people consider explanation to be the premier goal of any science. Explanatory research seeks to identi!, causes and effects of social phenomena to predict how one phenomenon will change or vary in response to variation in some other phenomenon. Researchers adopted explanation as a goal when they began to ask such questions as "Why do people become offenders?" and "Does the unemployment rate influence the frequency of youth crime?" Methods with which to identifi. causes and effects are the focus ofChapter 6.

CASE STUDY

What Factors PredictYouth Delinquency and Violence? When we move from description to exploration and finally to explanation, we want to under- stand the direct relationship between two or more things. Does r explainy? Or if r happens, isy also likely to occur? \4{hat are some of the factors related to youth violence? Fontaine and her colleagues (2016) were interested in how several factors, including parental supervision and attachment to school, affected the probability of adolescents engagrng in violent behav- ior. They used a longitudinal data set collected in Montreal, Canada, which followed boys from kindergarten until they were 17 years old. By following this sample of boys over time, the researchers could determine that parental supervision and attachments to school came before the violent offending, which is extremely important when attempting to determine factors that predict violence.

Parental supervision was assessed at ages ll,12,14, and.15 years and was based on the following questions: "Do your parents know where you are when you are outside the house?" and "Do your parents know who you are with when you are outside the house?" School engagement and attachments were assessed at these same ages and included six items such as "Do you feel thatyou do your best at school?" Self-reported violent offending was assessed at age 17 and included fist fighting, gang fighting, carrying a deadly weapon, using a deadly weapon, threatening someone to force him her to do something, attacking someone, and throwing an object at someone. Several other variables were included in Fontaine et al.'s (2016) predictive models, including whether the boys had been rriolent as young children, family structure, and attitudes toward legal authorities, among others. Results indicated that boys who had greater parental supervision and school engagement were less likely to engage in violent delinquency compared to their less supervised and engaged counterparts. In fact, while boys who had been aggressive as children were more likely to be violent as adolescents, the relationship between childhood and adolescent vio- lence was virtually eliminated for those boys who had high levels of parental supervision and school engagement.

Evaluation Research

Evaluation research seeks to determine the effects of a social program or other types of intervention. It is a qpe of explanatory research because it deals with cause and effect. How- ever, evaluation research differs from other forms ofexplanatory research because evaluation research considers the implementation and effects of social policies and programs. These issues may not be relevant in other types of explanatory research. Research that examines cause and effect questions is reviewed in Chapter 6, which covers experimental design, and in Chapter 12, which covers evaluation research.

12 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

CASE STUDY

How Effective Are Violence Prevention Programs in Schools?

fu many school administrators will tell you, there are direct mail, e-mail, and in-person direct sales efforts to sell them programs that reduce violence, increase empathy among students, promote a positive school environment, promote other forms of mental well-being, and on and on. IJnfortunately, not many of these programs have been rigorously evaluated to ensure they actually do what they promise. One program that has been the target of rigorous evaluationis GangResistance Education andTi'aining (GREAI),whichis a school-based gang and violence prevention program. Among other things, this program'teaches students about crime and its effects on victims, gives them skills to resolve conflicts without violence, and helps them improve individual responsibility through goal setting. It addresses multiple risk factors for violent offending among three domains: school, peer, and individual. Because it is based in the school curriculum, it does not address risk factors in the family or neighborhood. It is a l3-week program taught in sixth or seventh grade and attempts to affect several risk factors, including school commitrnent and performance, association with conventional or delinquent peers, empathy, and self-control, among others.

Esbensen and his colleagues (2013) waluated the long-term effecs of the GREAI program in seven cities across the United Sates. Schools selected for the evaluation randomly assigned some seventh grade classrooms to participate in the program (e4perimenal groups) while the other classrooms did not (control groups).As you vrill later learn, this is called a tnte etcperimeiltal deign.It is an extremely strong research method for determining the effects of programs or policies, because ifgroups are truly randomly assigned, there is a strong reason to believe that differences between the groups after program implementation, zuch as reduced violent offending are a result of the program and not some other factor that existed before the introduction of the treatnent.

Both experimental and control group students in the study (Esbensen et al. 2013) com- pleted four follow-up surveys annually for four years. The researchers examined 33 outcome measures, including general delinquenry, violent offending, gang afEliation, associations with delinquent peers, empathy, impulsivity, and problem-solving behavior, among others. The statistical methods employed by Esbensen and his colleagues ate very complicated and beyond the scope of this text, so we will simply highlight the general findings. When the data for all seven sites were combined, no differences were revealed in violent offending between experimental and contol group students over the four-year period. Those studenrc who par- ticipated in the GREAI program, however, were less likely to become members of gangs, had higher levels of altruism, felt less anger, had fewer risk-taking behaviors, and had more favorable attitudes toward the police, among other differences.

With these results, would you deem the GREAT program a success? These are the important questions evaluation research must address. Esbensen et al. (2013) agree that the program did not reduce general delinquenry or violent offending but note that it was effec- tive in reducing gang membership, which is also a risk factor for violent offending

ALTE R NATIVE R ESEARCH ORI ENTATI ONS

Your preferences for particular research methods will be shaped in part byyour general assump- tions about how the social world can best be investigated-by yotr social researcb philonplry.The scientific approach reflects the beliefthat there is an objective reality apart from the perceptions of those who observe it. This is the philosophy traditionally associated with natural science and

r' a

CHAPTER 1 . SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 13

Positivism: t,!t* l:*lt*i, Shiir*sj l1t; i{ri},tii r,r;i*rtrisl*, rhat r"n*{* ir, ?t ,.rrrrli+., *l',*.1 ",,,i'ti :t .triirr rr,n.'. n1'1{dll'L\i LI|LLi 4},13\i t4iliLti (t!.t7ri t.

f ,; *r;* r;*r *w ft '{}*t t *r;!.i t}n {)I :i - lLi- * .. -.L- ^ .... i..^ .-...1 ^ ^1 ^. *ll ')lrtlrl!llill tl1!l l! ii,lihi1l-tr7l 1l-t I i", tllt!lU1JiJ1i rJt.).i f\iiUlti l\rLii-JU

ttl tl:is rialitl {fik',t t:*}\idt\t}r: **{rt'tl*l*,

Postpositivism: 1''rt.n l'*liri ti;tt *ltfirq:, i,1 ;,,1

! llt ,JUlrlJi LlrlAL Llt 1.ri'J tU? L+!J

*I trn 1 ri * L,l r * ;t1itu r: tti';ln1 t: * r fiiii.)*iit?iri*itig *t i! ii; illTiit*{i ISU it* {:'tt{i1rSi*iti| r*f, i:ri tlit lsi e* rts zJ1 u {}L?1 * ( I trc,iL; 1; i tt * g

*t r***ar**,*rri.

I ntersu bj ective aUreement:

h U r * *m * r|t, * *liv'i * * ".;

st i * *l i rts aYst:ril l\r: ;*1*r * rs! r*elit.,i, tifl{}ri *fiil{*ld a* n

il1fri * { *iL**nfrbi* u*al t r:r * tr t t; r', tr r: il i n rt t t r!.: i r: iir,'r'tt n r t ! J V I tr 1 | lJ ir L I I r"Ll 1 1_r tJ 1 i.dl, I ! t-! .i"U \J U L

,.,",,..1^',,..,J,i,, ^ .,.. ^li +,,dll ut.lir!'J*v fi i 4 4t tiy,

lnterpretivism: -f i^,. {^ -l', ^i iL^+ -.".h i:r,, :^I lll) llrr!lUl ltl',1 , t L\'.ltlit.i i1.l 1 lltJ LJ\.tlii.t1 lllr-t-\., I i.t!.i111.? t,,J

s * {:i ?Lll,s t ts rislr u r;trt * i'* t.l ln'.t t t'+ r. rt rr,. i + 4 r, ; r a i \l. r-,. r' i * rrti ;,,t r.t 1. I | * U tJ *i \i i :i 1.t'w i L), i +\, 1 5 t 1 i.i.3 t. t]

i't l* '*trrl*rcta*{1. wwrt. it1ttiilii rig,; 1l * tl si't r: *ii * t i: 1'* ?:i r*nlitv,

Critical theory:

? rs r*r; ** * {} * y,afiti {1i {1 {S

slr u r:i* {',t *, t}'Jttt* | t1?,, nfi 4

it,*il*iT ,gt; lt;lt t*,,\,1.1 {til

lll r: p r *rt',t't r: i,ltat fi *tl {: i tii i : r: f +: {1 {: {: 5'{1 ;i,li * *li t4: rl ti th * r, * ltt r t.t r;l * r *r; r: rtij fi'etltttl*,

Feminist research:

?,r:r:mrtlt wilh a't*r:'m *ri 'ti,:titieti' ri liu r,s illl.ti r:it r:rr

i ts r;i,,1 rJ r* * iS,* rs f i ;:: *!:i*.i rs n 't* s *r fi *rral xrp,sri t n **,, c. i ti',i $ t I ni,t rrri crti,tii r,r',a il', a ;t.a tJ j, U t I \i'\; Q i I\.i I ti.i.rl.I 1.) t 11,J I t.l t\.J

.- t. .. .",,. ."1 -. .... *1.^ ,-:.,.; * ... -lI *r..\L_!',iI t ,t/.Jr \_\ \.1t')tttl!ir\i1t: ',Jt:11 1,\JVr,J"i LrIIL,i + Jt'-.Ll|L.li.-t1.j1III j rLti\)

... ^ ^. t : ,. ,.. ,..f,}\ul.firi15,

with the belief that scientis* must be objective and unbiased to see reality clearly fltr/eber 1949, 72).Positivism asserts that a well-designed test of a specific prediction-for example, the pre- diction that youth who are more attached and supervised by their parents will be less likely to engage in violent behavior--can move us closer to understanding actual social processes.

Fostpositivism is a philosophy that is closely related to positivism because it also assumes an external, objective realiqr, but postpositivists acl,mowledge the complexity of this reality and the limitations and biases of the scientiss who study it (Guba and Lincoln 1994, 109-1 11). For example, postpositivists may worry that researchers, who are healy computer users themselves, will be biased in favor of finding positive social effects of computer use. As a result of concerns such as this, postpositivists do not think we can ever be sure that scientific methods allow us to perceive objective reality. Instead, they believe that the goal of science is to achieveintersubjective agreement among scientists about the nature of reality (Wallace 1983,461). We can be more confident in the community of social researchers than in any individual social scientist (Campbell and Russo 1999,I44).

In contrast to these,interpretivism is a research philosophy that emphasizes the impor- ance of understanding subjective meanings people give to reality;unlike positivism and post- positivism, it does not asslrme that social processes can be identified objectively. Here's the basic argument: All empirical data we collect come to us through our own senses and must be interpreted with our own minds. This suggests that we can never be sure that we have under- stood reality properly, that we can, or that our understandings can really be judged more valid than someone else's. Concerns like this have begun to appear in many areas of social science and have begun to shape some research methods. From this standpoint, the goal of validity becomes meaningless: "Thrth is a matter of the best-informed and most sophisticated con- struction on which there is consensus at a given time" (Schwandt 1994, 128).

It is tempting to think of positivism and postpositivism as representing an opposing research philosophy to interpretivism. Ffowever, if we view them as completely distinct, we would be forced to choose the philosophy that seems closest to our own preferences and con- demn the other as unscientific, uncaring, or perhaps unrealistic. Fortunately, contemporary researchers often understand the strengths of multiple philosophies and select their research methods accordingly. In fact, research can often be improved by drawing on insights from both positivist and interpretivist philosophies. In the words ofJLrner (1980), "The distinctive empirical concerns of ointerpretive' and 'statistical' research, usually thought of as antithetical or mutually irrelevant, can be made to mesh" (99). Before we move on, we also want to high- light three different orientations to research that are not so much philosophies as they are value orientations: critical theory feminist research and participatory action research (PAR).

Similar to interpretivism, critical theory focuses on examining structures, patterns of behavior, and meanings but rests on the premise that power differences, often manifested by discrimination and oppression, have shaped these structures and patterns. What is observed and described at a particular moment in time is the result of differential power relationships that have solidified over time. How people are socially located in a particular situation will construct their meanings and interests (I(eenan 2004). Researchers committed to this per- spective see research as a way to challenge societal structures that reinforce oppression.

Feminist research also provides a critical lens to doing research and is a term that is often used to refer to research done by feminists (Reinharz 1992). Similar to critical theory, it is not a research method, as feminists utilize all types of methodologies. However, many feminist scholars share the interpretivist concern with personal experience and subjective feelings and with the researcher's position and standpoint. Feminist researchers Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007) emphasize the importance of viewing the social world as complex and multilayered, of sensitivity to the impact of social differences, of being an "insider" or an "outsider," and of being concerned with the researcher's position. African American femi- nist researcher Patricia Hill Collins (1991) suggests that researchers who are sensitive to their "outside" role within a social situation may have unique advantages: "Outsiders within

14 SECTION lo FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAI- RESEARCH

occupy a special place-they become different people and their difference sensitizes them to patterns that may be more difficult for established sociological insiders to see" (53).

Whyte (1991) proposed a more activist approach to research calledparticipatory action neseard (PAR).fu the name implies, this approach encourages social researchers to get'(out of the academic rut" and bringvalues into the research process (285). In PAR, the researcher involves some members of the setting studied as active participants. Both the organizational members and the researcher are assumed to want to develop valid conclusions, to bring unique insights, and to desire change, butWhyte (1991) beliwed these objectives were more likely to be obained if the researcher collaborated activelywith the persons he studied.Wewill talk aboutPARin Chapter 16.

MORE ON THE ROLE OFVALUES IN RESEARCH

As you may perhaps notice, there is some variation across these perspectives in the ways in which values play a role in research. The positivist and postpositivist philosophies consider value considerations to be beyond the scope ofscience: "An empirical science cannot tell anyone what he should do-but rather what he can do-and under certain circumstances-what he wishes to do" QV'eber 1949,54).The idea is that developing valid knowledge about how society is organized (or how we live our lives) does not tell us how socieq, should be organized or how we should.live our lives. The determination of empirical facts should be a separate process from the evaluation of these facts as satisfactory or unsatisfactory flVeber 1949, 1 1). The idea is not to igrrore value considerations but to hold them in abeyance during a research prqect.

There has always been tension between tlris "value-free" orientation to social research and a more "value-conscious" or even activist approach such as PAR. In the 19th century social researcher Lester Frank Ward argued that "the real object of science is to benefit man. A science which fails to do this, however agreeable its study, is lifeless" (1Vard 1897, ouit). In 1929, atother researcher, William Fielding Ogburn, vehemendy argued that social research should be value-free and not concerned with making the world a better place, "Science is interested direcdy in one thing only, to wit, discovering new knowledge" (Ogburn 1930, 300-301). Does one approach make more sense to you?

By the time you finish reading dris text, we know you'll have a good understanding of the dif- ference between these orientations, but we cant predict whether you'll decide one is preferable. Like us, we hope you will conclude that each has some merit. We believe there is value to both positivist and interpretivist philosophies and that there are good reasons to prefer an integrated philosophy. Researchers influenced by a positivist philosophy should be carefirl to consider how their own social background shapes their research approaches and interpretations, just as inter- pretivist researchers caution us to do. Researchers influenced more by an interpretivist philoso- phy should be carefirl to ensure that they use rigorous procedures to check the trustworthiness of their interpretations of data (Riessman 2008). If we are notwilling to askhard questions about our research and the evidence we collect, we are not ready to investigate the social world.

QUANTTTATTVE AN D QUALTTATTVE METHODS

As you might expect, different research philosophies often are related to the selection ofdif- ferent research methods. Importandy, howeveq we want to make clear that the research ques- tion or pnrpose should always dictate the research method. This will become more obvious when you read each specific methodology chapter. However, in general, research methods can be divided into two somewhat different domains called quantitative research methods and qualitative research methods. Did you notice the difference.between the types of data

ParticiBatory action

research (PAB): ll I ti n n ( t{ { t,r.: ;,,:. r ;. i i r,,.', ti:ti r'rtti lti l:tJ \il l1;j,i'ilLLl uil iii ii!1111-,11

tit* r ***ar *h*)r in t tsit *ri *{:tTil* ,-tv rt r' .1i',., r'i,tr, n1 n, r.n \. n r., \ i i A (l l l l I.:t'; 1 1\t i l il I i t ll'l t lrJ fi l :)

i).:;'i{;i.i'; r: ilt{ ii r;iy: Ar tt*

',1 { r}l i r;1 i* tlt'ti} it i}l fi t', fr ii!: {:i r.r, r ri,ri t-, rl .1 4 rr ;- |i/t{iil :,ii frfi. th*i:,li)t.i\ltl\.j frli \1it-),t,,;r4!i, i v,t j t,i\r

ltTni ii ti':itii*rJ tlt*?,tytt:: irt i;i't i: tt t' fi': ni I *i rtr: : : | lJ 1.? | 1_41.1. I I 1 t. f.i\ t 1_/ J | |

Quantitative research

methods: i't!, *'fi nri<: r: t t r.li'i *r { r r !'rrjiic't.;tij1.itvt.l\j t.JLt J11 iL.: ..JtJi .!\jl,j 's t; 4 *', il i., t i t\ t.:, n! + ti', i\t i t: t r,^ r rl,t i t <, t 1,) i\l ) i..j t i i l i l-t 1 i a.) t.1 i {}.1. t ij 1.: \j t i.l ,'-,n',.11l*n ir. ,,r,,,i. t t ',it)i ttlii\tit ili '*t:t-,lii 11lt:] ii\

i ;.'.f i t ii::, r iti {,j'i a * ti ri *i; iiti:.t.'-\) ! i 1 l)..i '.J 1 \.J 1.,i l,'\j V \.! I ii ii i tt i li'r:;{ii * r.i fii, 1S tll i4. tllat nr t: l,it:,r"!*{: aT U'tJatt"liia1.i\i .*'i\t:u

*i+,iit; 1iiiil.i'ti*t li il I zl1t l?t\iieii ii',i.r,t ,trtrr, is1. r:r*,#+ri iri i*f f,fi

i 't t

IIi Ii1)tIt.i11ii1L)

Qualitative research

methods: -r,

i1 t::i * iit {:tlt {s ti|,,,,t 1: : mlly I i lN *1'.j i, r :1.1)1 * i'J,1, {i {,i I fr t; ii, ii.t t:;'t i

iii I {: $tt 1 t} n l), i ;,t d iS r:ii,i * r, ii ?,i i) iil fi U,, nl1 * S i f, ir'r'iti.i tX t

!* :i r: t.:i al r:,,s ni:,: zt ?:it rJ

it',smr'it *ult i * r:l.iv tll, anrl

'tii t: fii r:'j.f ii * i;:; ;.i ii|l,i 1 {}'t ij I liijttii:if:*fit:i 1is fr,;*iiiii iittj 1* t

lt-r l.t t t' 1, i, t t, r: t', i i a ii],'t t i'., r., lt n t'iiii*ii tt i\";,, \/_titLttl.;Li.f i* llili..1

. .,+i.. .,..,.. i.i.,, l.: t\i" ? {t?r* r_ir.t4.i* ili\j:jl 1'! \iYi 11.i4,, w, t,trvli\.r,1

w {} 1' dt} iir *,}**r \i aji rs isr; 'irtr.tt ijr: nrSt,lttAUr: 'A *i{r')*it

ii ttil'l'rl t i t iJi i tl't * t'fi r {}i i)i.i * ri,

15CHAPTER'l o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL

M ixed-methods research:

fr, * r; * r:.r r:lt i fi rit. * rs ryt|si r, t't: to

rJti:"1 :tali't {: ;t!1d fl :arlit aii',i i:

rri +:1n * rl r; i r, iln i rtu'*'ili'ir,li tt *

trt l.llt: tiitt{i* r:r ,;*}r!,r:tl

r *ii *'*r *l t rj* * *ti * |l't't, l,

Triangulation: -i?.t*

ttri* rsl r**ttirl* r**tli*#* trs :iturj,i rJ{l* r rr**'al r;h

tli )'i,s;ii ts tl .'A1 s r.s tt t; rt tl i rt l'lt {i fi .ri 'in-1 liii* *l twts {}i {r't*lt} 'Jitt *r *itt xti*?ttitir ** rsi r.h * *{1.m{: UAri'ehi*,

Experimental approach:

{\* n{slJr ttr; r:;ft i*'u'ni r;h

'th * r r*r;* ar u:it r, r at;'*i "rin't inr|i'iiilual* lrs i.wrs rlr rY,t{}r{}

frr{}L)lis iri a tt;:;g i.ilet, ryit:;sltti l,it't Ll i;Lrd,: t*risti,:'t *l indr;irl*al* irt tltx u{{}{i'*t} irt'titll ?j **lilirt tltt*'ir: *t *{r{ii i ntr',*.rl t*r U;:.fia',1'ln tft\Jt t..Jt

/J,,;;,,LJVtJt, t,.-tr

ii\A it(L\l1t\<1 {)\itlfi.:" " t' ^ +l ''iitYr ljt tJrlLi-\ i:hi|1.)7til U t''j tlitj

i nrj r:',,t rt * d * nt v ar i af,l *,

the earlier case studies used? The data collected in the YRBS were counts of the responses students gave on the survey. In contrast, Madfis's (2014) exploratory study used in-depth interviews with school administrators who had helped prevent an attempted school shooting. This methodologywas designed to capture the social reality of the participants as they experi- enced it in their own words rather than in predetermined categories. Because the researchers focused on the participants' words rather than counts and numbers, we say that this study used qualitative methods.

The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods involves more than the type of data collected. Qualitative methods are most often used when the motives for research are description or exploration. The goals of quantitative and qualitative researchers also may differ. Whereas quantitative researchers generally accept the goal of developing an under- standing that correcdy reflects what is actually happening in the real world, some qualitative researchers instead emphasize the goal of developing an "authentic" understanding of a social process or social setting (Gubrium and Holstein 1997). An authentic understanding is one rhatrcflects farrb &" various perspectives of participants in that setting.

As important as it is, we do not want to place too much emphasis on the distinction between qualiative and quantitative methods, because social scientists often combine these methods in order to enrich their research. For example, qualitative knowing about social set- tings can be essential for understanding patterns in quantitative data (Campbell and Russo 1999). Qualitative data can be converted to quantitative data, for example, when we count the frequenry of particular words or phrases in a text or measure the time that has elapsed between different behaviors that we have observed. Surveys that collect primarily quantita- tive data also may include questions asking for written responses, and these responses may be used in a qualitative, textual analysis. As noted above, researchers are increasingly elect- ing to garner the strengths of several research methods combined and, as a result, rely on mixed-methods researchto study one research question. This is sometimes called tri"ngo- latiorr The latter term suggests that a researcher can get a clearer picture of the social reality being studied byviewing it from several different perspectives. Each will have some liabilities in a specific research application, and all can benefit from a combination of one or more other methods (Brewer and }lunter 1989; Sechrest and Sidani 1995).

As you will see in the chapters that follow; the distinction between quantiative and quali- tative data is not always sharp. We'll examine such mixed-method possibilities in each of the chapters that review specific methods of data collection.

HIGHLIGHTING A FEW SPECIFIC TYPES OF RESEARCH METHODS

As you will see in this boolq the data we utilize in criminological research are derived from many different sources, and the research methods we employ in criminology and criminal justice are very diverse. In this section, we are going to highlight a few of the more traditional methods that will be covered later in the book.

fu1 experimental approach is used in criminological research, particularly when the efficacy of a program or policy is being evaluated. As we will see in Chapter 6, true experi- ments must have three things: two groups (one receiving the treatrnent or intervention and the other receiving no treatnent or another form thereof), random assignment to these two groups, and an assessment of change in t-he outcome variable after the treatrnent or policy has been received. Quasi-experimental designs (experiments that lack one of these three ingre- dients) also are used in our discipline. Chapter 11 focuses exclusively on research designs used in evaluation research, which often uti]izes experimental research when determining whether a policy or program had the intended effect (e.g., decreased crime, increased trust in the police).

16 SECTION I O FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

/ ,

fuki^S people questions in surveys, as we highlighted above, is another popular method used by criminological researchers and is probably the most versatile. Most concepts about individuals can be defined in such a way that measurement with one or more questions becomes an option. These surveys can be self-administered by respondents (e.g., through the mail) or can be read by an interviewer (e.g., through a telephone survey).

Although in principle, survey questions can be a straightforward and efficient means to measure individual characteristics, facts about events, level ofknowledge, and opinions ofany sort, in practice, survey questions can result in misleading or inappropriate answers. All ques- tions proposed for a survey must be screened carefirlly for their adherence to basic guidelines and then tested and revised until the researcher feels some confidence that they will be clear to the intended respondents @owler 1995). Some variables may prove to be inappropriate for measurement with any type of question. We have to recognize that memories and perceptions of the events about which we might like to ask can be limited. Specific guidelines for writing questions and developing surveys are presented in Chapter 8.

In other cases, a researcher may want to make her presence lnown and direcdy partici- pate in the activity being observed. Included in this type of research design is particrpant observatioq which involves developing a sustained relationship with people while they go

Surveys: T'*#ul*r aitd

u *r *alil * r *'* *ar';:li ificirt trrtrtntc 1it: \fi 11 :t flI t{-1t:t ItIii I 1 | Q I t t) 1 1 | \) I ! t t) i-t O 1 I t V U_ 7i t.J \-t \.J L t W I i

! rt r r*a.i, {i ur u *,r'i r:',at,,* ttls * r ls * ....1t .^ ;..-,:-.: ^1..-.....-1 .-. .. ^.. ^1 i-.. 5411- L1-llil i i I I I $LU 1 ALI ul I tjJtLl i\i , 1 I i 1 I \ I L1 ? 1 I t tjl.t\r t){

Participant observation : {:, f'rtnr, nt {|*lri r*r;p,:ar"rli inIt \,Yl.t\,.r \Jt 1t\.,1\i i\r\.!ij1,t, I U{l tll

v'ltti tls * { **F:r{ *n* r dr:v r.l *p's ':i t n{}r }i * t: f, + nil i rrl t: n<: ttt t:V 12t-1*1-Al11WU l-illU 1111,\,! rlUl l'k

r *l aJ,i t: n shi f; vt tsh'{} Y, r} # r, iiririln \ltr,,,., n* .ti',rt^trl tli,rir \\t111\.t tlt\.)'i !:j\J t.L'!t\.j lJL lilUlt

t;t {}t {tifrl ar:\ivit i ** "

CHAPTER 1 r SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 17

Grant Bacon graduated with degrees in history, education, and politi- cal science from the University of Delaware in 1998. He initially aspired to give back to the com- munity, especially by helping young people as a teacher. Although he started out teaching, he

found his calling by working more directly with at-risk youth as a court liaison and eventually as a program coordinator for a juvenile drug court/drug diversion program. It was during his time working with these drug court programs that Grant first came into contact with the University of Delaware's Center for Drug and Health Studies (CDHS), which was beginning an evalu- ation of the drug court programs in New Castle County, Delaware. In 2001, he accepted an offer to become a research associate with CDHS, where he has continued to work on many different research projects. Two of his most recent projects include research that investigated the factors affecting the reentry experience for inmates returning to the community and another that evalu- ated the parole program called "DecideYourTime."

Grant is happy to be working in the field on both qualitative and quantitative research. He loves

working with people who share a vision of using research findings to help people in a number of ways and to give back to the world in a meaningful man- ner. Every day is different. Some days, Grant and other associates are on the road visiting criminal justice or health related facilities or are trying to locate specific individual respondents or study participants. Other days, he may be gathering data, doing intensive inter- viewing, or administering surveys. He thinks the most rewarding part of his job is helping people who have been part of the criminal justice system and giving them a voice.

Grant's advice to students interested in research is the following:

If doing research interests you, ask your teachers how you can gain experience through internships or volunteering. Be sure to network with as many people from as many human services organizations as pos- sible. Being familiar with systems like GIS (geographic information systems) and data analyses is becoming important as well. If you did not receive this training during your undergraduate studies, many community colleges offer introductory and advanced classes in GIS, Microsoft Excel, Access, and SPSS. Take them!

Tt

1..

Source: Courtesy of Grant A. Bacon

I ntensive interviewing:

ilile tt-e nrj *rl,r*lativ*ly u*stru*tirr*d qucsticni*U in

"riiich rho interviev;er s*ck*q

in-drpth irf*rmatir:n o* !h* rnl*r,ti*vir*e '* ftl*lin#t, *xp*ri*nr:**, andlrsr

fj*r**#li{}r,9,

Secondary data analysis:

Analysis ti rlata trsll*rfi*rj hy s*ril**nr r:th*r tharr th* r*,r*arche r *i'th* resear*h*r's assistant.

Content analysis:

& r***art;h rn*thr.:rj t*r syste rrrati *al I'l arwl'tzinl arrJ mal,;irig inle r*n*es frrm text,

Crime mapping:

* * * rs r ashi * n1 r*ap pi rs rS

strar*gi*s used t* visuaii:e rr rzurnb*r *t things, i**l*tlnrt itr:ati*n, rJ i rta ** e, ard pattr:r** *t *rimr: r,*d t?t*ir **rr*lat"**,

about their normal activities. In other instances, the subject matter of interest may not be amenable to a survey, or perhaps we want more detailed and in-depth information than ques- tions with fixed formats can answer, In these cases, we flrrn to research techniques such as participant observation and intercive interviewing. These methods are preferred when we seek in-depth information on an individual's feelings, experiences, and perceptions. Chapter 9 shows how these methods and other field research techniques can uncover aspects ofthe social world that we are likely to miss in experiments and surveys.

Secondary data analysis (Riedel 2000), which is the reanalysis of already existing daa, is another method used by researchers. These data usually come from one of two places: official sources such as local or federal agencies (e.g., rates of crime reported to police, informa- tion on incarcerated offenders from state correctional authorities, adjudication data from the courts) or surveys sponsored by government agencies or conducted by other researchers.Vir- tually all the daa collected by government agencies and a great deal ofsurvey data collected by independent researchers are made available to the public tlrough the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), which is located at the University of Michigan. Another type of indirect measurement is called content analysis. In this type of study, a researcher studies represenations of the research topic in such media forms as news articles, TV shows, and radio talk shows. An investigation of the drinling climate on cam- puses might examine the amount of space devoted to ads for alcoholic beverages in a sample of issues of the student newspaper. Campus publications also might be coded to inficate the number of times that statements discouraging substance abuse appear. Content analysis tech- niques also can be applied to legal opinions, historical documents, novels, songs, or other cul- tural productions. Chapter 10 covers these and other research methods that typically rely on secondary data. With the advent of computer technology, crime mapping also has become a popular method for examining the relationship beween criminal behavior and other social indicators. Chapter 11 covers this methodology, along with a few other recent methods that are increasingly being used by law enforcement agencies. Increasingly, researchers are com- bining methods to more reliably answer a single research question. Although examples of mixed-methods research are highlighted in several chapters, Chapter 13 provides an overview of the philosophy and motivation for combining methods, along with the various techniques for doing so.

All research begins with a research question and then a formal process of inquiry. Chapter 2 provides an overview ofthe research circle from both a deductive and inductive perspective using the empirical literature on arrest and intimate partner assault as a case study. All research must also grapple with conceptutlizrtion and measuring constructs, including the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable. Chapter 4 examines these issues followed by a discussion of sampling in Chapter 5. Of course, all research, regardless of the methodology selected, requires that it be carried out ethically with special protections afforded the participants under study. Although every chapter that details a specific tFpe of research method concludes with a section on ethics related to that method, Chapter 3 is devoted exclusively to the steps required to ensure that research is conducted ethically.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH

The four case studies described earlier in this chapter are only four ofthe dozens ofstudies investigating youth violence, but they illustrate some of the questions criminological research can address, several different methods social scientists studying these issues can use, and ways

18 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

tf ,

criminological research can inform public policy. Notice how each of the four studies was designed to reduce the errors common in everyday reasoning:

The clear definition of the population of interest in each study and the selection of a broad, representative sample of that population in two studies increased the researchers' ability to draw conclusions without overgeneralizing findings to groups to which they did not apply.

The use of surveys in which each respondent was asked the same set of questions reduced the risk of selective or inaccurate observation.

The risk of illogical reasoning was reduced by carefully describing each stage of the research, clearly presenting the findings, and carefirlly testing the basis for cause-and-effect conclusions.

Resistance to change was reduced by using an experimental design that randomly assigned classes to an experimenal treatrnent (GREAT) and a control group to fairly evaluate the effrcary of the program.

Nevertheless, we would be less than honest if we implied that you enter the realm of beauty, truth, and light whenever you engage in research or whenever you base your opin-

I {

CHAPTER 1 o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 19

ions only on the best available social research. Research always has some limitations and some flaws (as does any human endeavor), and findings are always subject to differing interpreations. Social research permits you to see more, to observe with fewer distortions, and to describe more clearly to others what your opinions are based on, but it will not setde all argumenm. Other people will always have differing opinions, and some of those others will be social scientists who have conducted their own studies and drawn different conclusions. Do other programs similar to the GREAI program reduce levels of aggression among students? OnIy a handfirl of studies have used randomized controlled designs to examine these programs, and the results of these studies have been mixed. Until more scientific research is conducted to evaluate these programs, it is difEcult to determine whether the money poured into such programs by school districts is well spent.

But even in areas ofresearch that are fraught with controversy, where social scientiss dif- fer in their interpretations ofthe evidence, the quest for new and more sophisticated research has value. What is most important for improving understanding of the social world and issues in criminology is not the result of any particular study but the accumulation of evidence from different studies ofrelated issues. By designing new studies that focus on the weak points or controversial conclusions ofprior research, social scientists contribute to a body offindings that gradually expands our knowledge about the social world and resolves some ofthe dis- agreements about it.

Whether you plan to conduct your own research projects, read others' research reports, or merely think about and act in the social world, knowing about research methods has many benefits. This knowledge will give you greater confidence in your own opinions, improve your ability to evaluate others' opinions, and encourage you to refine your questions, answers, and methods of inquiry about the social world. If that isnt enough motivation to keep read- ing, the skills you learn in this class will also open many doors on your career path. Virtually every career requires some level of research and data analysis skills, as we are living in an increasingly daa-driven and evidence-based world.

A COMMENT ON RESEARCH IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

Research must always strive to reflect our increasingly diverse society, including dimen- sions of racelethnicitg nationality, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities, and religious or political beliefs. Although there is much that we share, there is also an increased awareness that there are distinct cultural, social, structural, and historical contexts that shape group experiences.Just as criminal justice practitioners are expected to engage in cul- turally competent practice, we must recognize that cultural norms impact the research pro- cess, whether it is the willingness to participate in research activities, the meaning ascribed to abstract terms and constructs, the way daita are collected, or the interpretation of the findings. The failure by researchers to adequately address the cultural context impacts the research process in different ways and, ultimately, the validity and generalizability of research findings.

Historically, women and racelethnic minorities have been underrepresented in research studies. In addition, some groups may be reluctant to participate in research for different reasons, such as distrust of the motives of the researchers (Sobec( Chapleski, and Fisher 2003), historical experiences, not understanding the research process, not seeing any ben- efit to participation @eals, Manson, Mitchell, Spicer, and AI-SuperPFP Team 2003), and misuse of findings to the detriment of their communities (Sobeck et al. 2003). Inadequate

20 SECTION I o FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

I ,

representation in research makes it more difficult to conclude that the results of this research can be generalized to the larger diverse population.

Measurement bias can result in misidentifying the prevalence of a condition and assum- ing that relationships exist for all subgroups ofa population or in theories developed using homogeneous samples that do not hold up when more diverse samples are examined. For example, theories based on research using a sample of white males coming of age in tlle 1950s when well-paying industrial jobs were available and who, as a result, appear to have been amendable to changing their criminal behavior through turning points such as employment and marriage (Laub and Sampson 2003; Sampson and Laub 1993) have not always found support using diverse samples of individuals reentering society from prison today Q.{guyen and Loughran 2018).

The quality of information obtained from surveys is also dependent on the questions that are asked; there is an assumption that respondents share a common understanding of the meaning of the question and willingness or unwillingness to answer the question. Yet, questions may have different meanings to different groups, may not be culturally appropriate, and, even when translated into a different language, may lack equivalent connotations (Pasick, Stewart, Bird, and D'Onofrio 2001). For example, we know from the NCVS that American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAI\D populations are at a greater risk of rape and sexual assault compared to other subgroups of the population. However, we also know that the NCVS may not be the best way to accurately measure the true nature of yictimizations for this population. To get a more valid estimate the magni- tude of sexual assault and other victimizations against AIAN populations, the National Institute of Justice along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in col- laboration with tribal leaders, developed a new data collection instrument to ensure that the study would be "violable, culturally and community appropriate, respectful of those involved, and that the information collected would be relevant and helpful" (Crossland, Palmer, and Brooks 2013,775).

As you can see from this brief introduction, the norms that develop within population subgroups have an impact that cuts across tfie research process. As you read each chapter in this book, you will learn both the kinds of questions that researchErs ask and the strategies they use to ensure that their research is culturally competent.

CONCLUSION

We hope this first chapter has given you an idea of what to expect in the rest of this book. Our aim is to introduce you to social research methods by describing what social scien- tists have learned about concerning issues in criminology and criminal justice as well as how they learned it. The substance of social science inevitably is more interesting than its methods, but the methods also become more interesting when they are not taught as isolated techniques. We have focused attention on research on youth violence and delin- quency in this chapter; in subsequent chapters, we will introduce research examples from other areas.

Chapter 2 continues to build the foundation for our study of social research by review- ing the types of problems that criminologists study, the role of theory the major steps in the research process, and other sources of information that may be used in social research. We stress the importance ofconsidering scientific standards in social research and review gener- ally accepted ethical guidelines. Throughout the chapteq we use several studies of domestic violence to illustrate the research process.

,

CHAPTER 1 o SCIENCE, SOCIETY, AND RESEARCH RELATED TO CRIME, CRIMINOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 21

::ji:::i:iii:j:::t:i::::i::::

:I:::::::::::: l-l'l-:::*

il,;.'.ii.U..iil.' .. .i] i.l .i0i

::': : : :: : : : :' ::.:.:.. : :':l-:. :. :' :.':: :' ::. : :a,'

,,,.,. .,.: ,.qJie.ob5i,,.leqrw.pUe..,',l*elp..e.1epie.,eql.s5op:.,.SUoISnirr"oS,...

ii[i$ffi fi x$iug1.tu1rufi ffi dfi ff : :::: ::.::,,::,.:.:::::::.:::':::.:.:::'::'::.::.::..:.::.::::::::::':::::. :::::.:.::: j{: :Q} :: Q}lp1gl r(r il:: ::eItr:] : :.:.:.:.:..: r::,:i j:.:::::r,J j":' ' '': :I L[:E[:: r : r::'.::[:'1r il.l5u --

.Siuo8..,..eql ,loo1u.,,{idnlicoJib:.:oioul .,Ol.a4eru.,.Iflfi...i.5.W,..,.,

,flu,ffi 1.ii.

i|1i.i'iiiiiii.11{{ii.i6ffu$pf#if ..i'.f if..1.fo $af8'1!.u.f*11*u su{....u*.r fbie,.,oi:1:..:...,:.

.....iaisia,noX,p1no6,,[noit,.siSa,i5iu1,,,rsour.,uo!1S.5"*b',gcfffi.,.,:...'i

,iiunruna',i o,',uoiiu uei diS . .' uo.tiuiordxo ..., ,, ,, :,1,jjj,,,,, ,,,,,:;: ,,,,;,,: inopdliS,Sdp:.:,ohliom,,gf.'ieeS5:j.iu5}ejj,!p.,..U,.i5,5,95,f ..,

Throughout the book, we will be discussing the ethical challenges that arise in research on crime and criminal justice. At the end of each chapter, we will ask you to consider some questions about ethical issues related to that chapter's focus. We introduce this critical topic formally in Chapter 3, but we will begin here with some questions for you to ponder.

i. You have now learned about the qualitative srudy by Madfis (2014) that investigated schools that had averted mass shootings in school shooting incidents. We think it provided important information for policymakers about the social dynamics that ffiay help prevent these tragedies. But what would you do if you were conducting a similar study in a high school, and you learned thai a student was planning to bring a gun to school to kill some other students? What if he

was orly thinking about itl Oi ialking wjth his friends, .,,,,,,abO ti.iHdw,i.ne.at...it....*ould..be}......'Caa..y6u inggesi some ,

zuidelinesforres,eardhers! ,i : , : :, ,:.,

,,,,,,,,,,GR8ffi.....fii0$rem,,.,.did.,..not,#educe..+iol0 t...,b'ehadolbut...,.',...

gangs,i fett less,:;ngei,,tnd ha:d:higher -el5 of altruiim.: ,,,,.,.If'.

....#'efe,.ESh.Efi5.efii...*outd.. 4 ..'a hounbe,ioor .,...,.....,.....l:.,:.1,'.l.

,,,,.,..,.fin ifi .s,....in.,a...press,..c0fiferbnee.,...afia..,.encouia,ge, schools to ado-t'thia pio!'iami If t.ou,,*ere a ichool prinCipal ..

,.,,.,.,...#H6,.'Hearil ..[bofit...lthi$.'.. 0$'eefu

ili.'.ffiouX iau,..;,gree to..let.'.

t fidrii eseafcfi i..ildplicilfei.i..ft6.il6d$...the..,$ d# in, our, ,; ,,,,sbh,

Ii'..*i .3dru.e...de5siaoffiq.iidSsighed.,..t0,..raceive, ftd ,

GRE,ffi,piogrtm.randoffil1. ill..ffie..,,..b.aSi$1ldf'..the,.to$sl...Qf.

...:...a.cUiji:llfi ..ii iHHf5i..i..Hot...',.fiIlo--:d :to iedei+e the.piogidffi......i..i

for the ,duration of the study? ' ' '

Write at least four research questions based on the bar chart you've created T.y to make one for each type of social research (descriptive, exploratory, explanatory and evaluative). Think aborr, ,ir. following, Wnu, stands out for you in this graph? What additional information do you need? Who should the research focus on?

Explain the possible reasons (policy, academic, or personal) why we might want to research binge

1:,1

First, load the 2013 YRBS Subsample.sav file and complete the following:

I . Create abar chart of variable Q4a by following the following menu options graphs->legacv dialogues->bar. Select the simple bar chart option, and click the arrow to add Q44 to the category axis text box. At a glance, what does this bar graph tell us about binge drinking among high school srudents? fue the data on the YRBS qualitative or quantitative? How do you know?

2,,,,

3..,j.

24 SECTION I . FOUNDATIONS FORSOCIALRESEARCH