types of research in criminology

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Criminology research methods.

This section provides an overview of various research methods used in criminology and criminal justice. It covers a range of approaches from quantitative research methods such as crime classification systems, crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, and experimental criminology, to qualitative methods such as edge ethnography and fieldwork in criminology. Additionally, we explore two particular programs for monitoring drug abuse among arrestees, namely, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM). Finally, the article highlights the importance of criminal justice program evaluation in shaping policy decisions. Overall, this overview demonstrates the significance of a multidisciplinary approach to criminology research, and the need to combine both qualitative and quantitative research methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of crime and its causes.

I. Introduction

• Brief overview of criminology research methods • Importance of understanding different research methods in criminology

II. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

• Definition and purpose of DAWN and ADAM • Methodology and data collection process • Significance of DAWN and ADAM data in criminology research

III. Crime Classification Systems: NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR

• Overview and purpose of each system • Differences between the systems • Advantages and limitations of each system

IV. Crime Reports and Statistics

• Sources of crime data and statistics • Limitations of crime data and statistics • Use of crime data and statistics in criminology research

V. Citation and Content Analysis

• Definition and purpose of citation and content analysis • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of citation and content analysis in criminology research

VI. Crime Mapping

• Definition and purpose of crime mapping • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of crime mapping in criminology research

VII. Edge Ethnography

• Definition and purpose of edge ethnography • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of edge ethnography in criminology research

VIII. Experimental Criminology

• Definition and purpose of experimental criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of experimental criminology in criminology research

IX. Fieldwork in Criminology

• Definition and purpose of fieldwork in criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of fieldwork in criminology research

X. Criminal Justice Program Evaluation

• Definition and purpose of criminal justice program evaluation • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of criminal justice program evaluation in criminology research

XI. Quantitative Criminology

• Definition and purpose of quantitative criminology • Methodology and data collection process • Applications of quantitative criminology in criminology research

XII. Conclusion

• Importance of understanding different research methods in criminology • Future directions for criminology research methods

Criminology research methods are crucial for understanding the causes and patterns of crime, as well as developing effective strategies for prevention and intervention. There are various methods used in criminological research, each with its own strengths and limitations. Understanding the different research methods is essential for conducting high-quality research that can inform policies and practices aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety. This overview provides an overview of some of the most commonly used criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork in criminology, and quantitative criminology. The survey highlights the importance of understanding these methods and their applications in criminology research.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) are two important research methods used in criminology to collect data on drug use and abuse among the population.

DAWN is a national public health surveillance system that tracks drug-related emergency department visits and deaths in the United States. The system collects data on drug-related medical emergencies and deaths from a variety of sources, including hospitals, medical examiners, and coroners. The purpose of DAWN is to provide information on drug use trends and the impact of drug use on public health and safety.

ADAM, on the other hand, is a research program that collects data on drug use and drug-related criminal activity among individuals who have been arrested and booked into jail. The program is designed to provide information on the prevalence of drug use and abuse among individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

Both DAWN and ADAM use similar methodology and data collection processes. Data is collected through interviews with individuals who have been involved in drug-related incidents, and through the analysis of drug-related data collected from medical and criminal justice records.

The significance of DAWN and ADAM data in criminology research is twofold. First, the data provides valuable information on drug use trends and patterns, which can inform the development of drug prevention and treatment programs. Second, the data can be used to understand the relationship between drug use and criminal behavior, and to inform criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

Overall, the use of DAWN and ADAM in criminology research has contributed significantly to our understanding of drug use and abuse among the population, and has helped inform public health and criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

The classification of crimes is an essential component of criminology research. The three main crime classification systems used in the United States are the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The NCVS is a victimization survey that collects data on the frequency and nature of crimes that are not reported to law enforcement. The survey is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and includes a sample of households and individuals. The NCVS provides valuable insights into crime victimization patterns and trends.

The NIBRS, on the other hand, is a more detailed crime reporting system that provides a comprehensive view of crime incidents. It captures more data than the UCR, including information on the victim, offender, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The NIBRS is being adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country and is expected to replace the UCR as the primary crime reporting system.

The UCR is the longest-running and most widely used crime reporting system in the United States. It collects data on seven index crimes, including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The UCR provides an overview of crime trends and patterns at the national, state, and local levels.

Each system has its advantages and limitations. For example, the NCVS provides valuable information on crime victimization that is not captured by the UCR or NIBRS. The NIBRS provides more detailed information on crimes than the UCR but requires more resources to implement. The UCR is widely used and provides long-term trends but does not capture detailed information on each crime incident.

Understanding the differences and similarities between these classification systems is important for criminology research and policy development.

Crime reports and statistics are essential sources of data for criminology research. Law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems, and government agencies collect and analyze crime data to develop policies and strategies to reduce crime rates. However, crime data and statistics have several limitations that researchers should consider when interpreting and using them in research.

One limitation of crime data and statistics is that they rely on the accuracy and completeness of reported crimes. Not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and those that are reported may not be accurately recorded. Additionally, the police may have biases in their reporting practices, which can affect the accuracy of the data.

Another limitation of crime data and statistics is that they do not always provide a complete picture of crime. For example, crime data may not capture crimes that occur in private places or are committed by people who are not typically considered criminals, such as white-collar criminals.

Despite these limitations, crime data and statistics are still valuable sources of information for criminology research. They can help researchers identify patterns and trends in crime rates and understand the factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Crime data can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Researchers should be cautious when using crime data and statistics in their research and acknowledge the limitations of these sources. They should also consider using multiple sources of data to triangulate their findings and develop a more comprehensive understanding of crime trends and patterns.

Citation and content analysis are research methods that are increasingly used in criminology. Citation analysis involves the systematic examination of citations in published works to determine patterns of authorship, influence, and intellectual relationships within a given field. Content analysis, on the other hand, involves the systematic examination of written or visual material to identify patterns or themes in the content.

In criminology research, citation and content analysis can be used to study a wide range of topics, including the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. These methods can also be used to identify gaps in the literature and to develop new research questions.

The methodology for citation analysis involves gathering data on citations from published works, including books, articles, and other sources. This data is then analyzed to determine patterns in the citations, such as which works are cited most frequently and by whom. Content analysis involves the systematic examination of written or visual material, such as news articles or social media posts, to identify patterns or themes in the content. This process may involve coding the content based on specific categories or themes, or using machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in the data.

Citation and content analysis are important tools in criminology research because they provide a way to examine the influence of research and ideas over time, as well as the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. However, these methods also have limitations, such as the potential for bias in the selection of sources or the coding of content.

Overall, citation and content analysis are valuable research methods in criminology that can provide insights into the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media.

Crime mapping is a criminology research method that visualizes the spatial distribution of crime incidents. Crime mapping involves the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other digital mapping tools to display crime data. The purpose of crime mapping is to provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the spatial patterns of criminal activity in a given area.

Methodology and data collection process for crime mapping involve the collection of crime data and the use of GIS software to display the data in a visual format. Crime data can be collected from a variety of sources, such as police reports, victim surveys, and self-report surveys. Once the data is collected, it is geocoded, or assigned a geographic location, using a global positioning system (GPS) or address information.

The applications of crime mapping in criminology research are numerous. Crime mapping can be used to identify crime hotspots, or areas with a high concentration of criminal activity, which can help law enforcement agencies allocate resources more effectively. Crime mapping can also be used to identify crime patterns and trends over time, which can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop strategies to prevent crime. Additionally, crime mapping can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention strategies.

In conclusion, crime mapping is a valuable criminology research method that can provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with important insights into the spatial patterns of criminal activity. By using GIS and other digital mapping tools, crime mapping can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop effective crime prevention and intervention strategies.

Edge ethnography is a criminology research method that focuses on studying the behaviors and social interactions of people on the fringes of society. It is often used to explore deviant or criminal behaviors in subcultures and marginalized groups. Edge ethnography involves immersive fieldwork, where the researcher actively participates in the activities of the group being studied to gain a deeper understanding of their values, beliefs, and practices.

The data collection process in edge ethnography involves participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. The researcher spends a considerable amount of time in the field to gain the trust and respect of the group members and to observe their behaviors and social interactions in a naturalistic setting. The researcher may also collect artifacts, such as photos and videos, to provide additional insights into the group’s activities.

Edge ethnography has many applications in criminology research. It can be used to explore the social and cultural contexts of criminal behaviors, as well as the experiences of marginalized groups in the criminal justice system. It can also be used to identify emerging trends and subcultures that may be associated with criminal activities.

However, edge ethnography also has limitations. It can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring the researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field. It may also raise ethical concerns, particularly if the researcher is studying criminal activities or subcultures that engage in illegal behaviors. Therefore, it is important for researchers to carefully consider the ethical implications of their research and to take steps to protect the privacy and safety of their subjects.

Experimental criminology refers to the use of scientific experimentation to test theories related to crime and deviance. The goal is to isolate the effects of specific factors on criminal behavior by manipulating one variable while holding others constant. Experimental criminology can involve lab experiments, field experiments, and quasi-experiments.

The methodology involves randomly assigning participants to different groups, manipulating the independent variable, and measuring the dependent variable. The data collected can be both quantitative and qualitative.

Experimental criminology has been used to test a variety of theories related to crime, including deterrence theory, social learning theory, and strain theory. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions, such as drug treatment programs and community policing initiatives.

Despite the potential benefits of experimental criminology, there are limitations to its use. For example, it can be difficult to generalize the findings of a lab experiment to real-world situations, and ethical concerns may arise when manipulating variables related to criminal behavior. However, experimental criminology remains a valuable tool in the criminology research arsenal.

Fieldwork is an integral part of criminology research that involves researchers immersing themselves in the settings they are studying to gather firsthand information about the social and cultural dynamics of the phenomenon being studied. Fieldwork in criminology can be conducted through various methods such as participant observation, ethnography, case studies, and interviews.

The purpose of fieldwork in criminology is to gain a deeper understanding of the social and cultural factors that contribute to criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system. Fieldwork also provides insights into the lived experiences of those involved in the criminal justice system and how they perceive and experience law enforcement, punishment, and rehabilitation.

The methodology and data collection process in fieldwork in criminology involve a range of activities, including developing research questions, selecting research sites, building relationships with research participants, conducting observations and interviews, collecting data, and analyzing data. Researchers may also use various tools such as field notes, audio and video recordings, photographs, and maps to document their observations and experiences.

Fieldwork in criminology has various applications, including exploring the social and cultural dynamics of crime and criminal justice, evaluating criminal justice programs and policies, and understanding the experiences of victims, offenders, and criminal justice professionals. Fieldwork is particularly useful in gaining insights into the perspectives and experiences of marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as those living in poverty, incarcerated individuals, and communities that experience high rates of crime.

Overall, fieldwork in criminology is a valuable research method that provides rich and detailed information about the social and cultural dynamics of crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system. It allows researchers to gain insights into the experiences and perspectives of those involved in the criminal justice system and provides opportunities to evaluate and improve criminal justice policies and programs.

Criminal justice program evaluation refers to the systematic assessment of programs and policies implemented within the criminal justice system to determine their effectiveness in achieving their intended goals. The evaluation process involves collecting and analyzing data to assess the program’s impact, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency. Program evaluation is an essential tool for policymakers and practitioners to make informed decisions about criminal justice policies and programs.

The methodology used in program evaluation varies depending on the program or policy being evaluated. However, the process typically involves identifying the program’s goals and objectives, determining the program’s theory of change, identifying the target population, developing measures to evaluate the program, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting the findings.

Criminal justice program evaluation can be used to assess a wide range of programs, including correctional programs, law enforcement initiatives, and community-based programs. Evaluation findings can be used to determine the effectiveness of the program in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, or achieving other goals.

In recent years, criminal justice program evaluation has gained increasing attention as policymakers and practitioners seek evidence-based solutions to address the challenges facing the criminal justice system. The use of program evaluation has been instrumental in identifying effective interventions and programs, as well as those that are ineffective or even counterproductive.

Overall, criminal justice program evaluation is a critical tool for improving the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs. By providing policymakers and practitioners with evidence-based information, program evaluation can help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively to promote public safety and reduce crime.

Quantitative criminology is a research method that involves the use of statistical data and techniques to analyze and understand crime patterns and behavior. It focuses on measuring and analyzing crime trends and patterns, identifying risk factors, and evaluating the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention programs.

Quantitative criminology involves the use of numerical data to understand crime and its correlates. The purpose of this research method is to test theories and hypotheses about the causes and consequences of crime, identify patterns and trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Quantitative criminology uses a variety of research methods and data collection techniques, including surveys, experiments, observations, and secondary data analysis. Researchers use statistical analysis to identify patterns, trends, and relationships among variables, such as crime rates, demographic characteristics, and socioeconomic factors.

Quantitative criminology has been used to study a wide range of topics, including the relationship between crime and social inequality, the effectiveness of community policing programs, and the impact of incarceration on recidivism. It has also been used to develop and test theories of crime, such as social disorganization theory and strain theory.

Quantitative criminology has contributed significantly to our understanding of crime and criminal behavior. It has provided valuable insights into the causes and consequences of crime and helped to inform the development of effective crime prevention and intervention programs.

The study of criminology is a complex field that requires a variety of research methods to understand and analyze the causes and patterns of crime. This article has provided an overview of several important criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR, crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork, and criminal justice program evaluation. Each research method has its unique strengths and limitations, making it important for criminologists to choose the appropriate method for their research question.

As the field of criminology continues to evolve, it is important for researchers to consider new and innovative research methods. Future directions in criminology research may include advances in technology, such as the use of big data analytics and machine learning algorithms, as well as an increased emphasis on interdisciplinary collaborations between criminologists and experts in fields such as psychology, sociology, and public health.

Overall, the study of criminology requires a diverse range of research methods to fully understand the complex nature of crime and its causes. By utilizing these methods and continuing to explore new avenues for research, criminologists can make important contributions to our understanding of crime and help inform policies and interventions aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety.

References:

• Aebi, M. F., Tiago, M. M., & Burkhardt, C. (2018). The future of crime and crime control between tradition and innovation. Cham: Springer.
• Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2013). Environmental criminology. In The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 387-408). Oxford University Press.
• Clarke, R. V. (2017). Situational crime prevention. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 124-136). Routledge.
• Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review, 44(4), 588-608.
• Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Criminal justice research methods: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. D. (2017). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (10th ed.). Routledge.
• Eck, J. E. (2017). Problem-oriented policing. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 137-150). Routledge.
• Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (2015). What is problem-oriented policing?. Crime and justice, 44(1), 1-54.
• Felson, M. (2017). Routine activity theory. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 79-92). Routledge.
• Fox, J. A. (2015). Trends in drug use and related criminal behavior. In Drugs and crime (pp. 19-47). Springer.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
• Hagan, F. E., & Foster, H. (2017). Crime and inequality. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 47-62). Routledge.
• Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 493-521.
• Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Simon and Schuster.
• Maguire, M., & Snider, L. (2017). Understanding criminal justice. Routledge.
• Mazerolle, L., & Rombouts, S. (2017). Experimental criminology. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 93-107). Routledge.
• Mazerolle, L., & Roehl, J. (2008). Policing, crime, and hot spots policing. Crime and justice, 37(1), 315-363.
• National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Crime mapping research center. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/maps/Pages/welcome.aspx
• Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. Oxford University Press.
• Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Research Methods for Criminal Justice Students

(3 reviews)

Monica Williams, Weber State University

Copyright Year: 2022

Publisher: Monica Williams

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Kelly Arney, Dean of Behavioral Sciences, Associate Professor, Grace College on 12/15/23

This textbook covers topics needed for criminal justice students to understand as they are going to be doing continual research in their field. Most of the examples cover criminal justice-specific real work examples with an emphasis on law... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This textbook covers topics needed for criminal justice students to understand as they are going to be doing continual research in their field. Most of the examples cover criminal justice-specific real work examples with an emphasis on law enforcement. Interestingly, this could be utilized for a larger behavioral science class as it encompasses the foundations of research that can be applied to most degrees in behavioral sciences. It places a large emphasis on the scientific method, how to design research, and data collection. It differs from other textbooks by not exploring the specifics of experimental designs, nonexperimental designs, quasi-experimental strategies, and factorial designs. The integration of real-world examples throughout each chapter will likely help students to grow in their willingness to engage in research that is necessary to the profession. Emphasis is placed on finding, understanding, and utilizing research.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The content was accurate and error-free. No biases material or examples were identified.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The content was relevant and recent. The foundational terminology spans the last two decades. This book was originally based on Bhattachergee's 2012 Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practice and Blackstone's 2012 Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. This material was built on and this textbook is accurate with more recent examples. It has devoted a chapter to ethics in research which I found particularly relevant. It not only covers ethical standards such as the Belmont Report but also dives deep into ethics surrounding the specifics of those requirements. It has a section for research on humans, the Stanford Prison Experiment, Institutional Review Boards, informed consent, vulnerable populations, and the professional code of ethics. This textbook explores these areas in depth. Compared to other textbooks, this has devoted a substantial area to these topics that seem especially relevant recently and particularly important to emphasize for the criminal justice student.

Clarity rating: 5

This textbook seems to make research a little easier. The author has bolded the terminology words for students and created a nice and simple way of organizing the areas of study. The author has multiple categories inside each chapter that give meaning to the section. It is clear what each chapter is about, then each section inside that chapter. Research Methods can be a world of confusing terminology, but this author has simplified this and taken it to a level that students can easily follow. The Key Terms and Discussion Questions at the end of each chapter are also a nice guide for students to clarify what they read in each chapter.

Consistency rating: 4

Consistency is a difficult task in research methods because terms are interchangeable. Some of the terminology was inconsistent, but it described the same things and did not seem confusing. This textbook was the easiest to read when compared to the other textbooks on Research Methods. The sentences were simple and to the point. The book was not overrun with examples or mathematical equations that tend to confuse students. The instructor of the class may need to work to create the standard terminology they want to be used in class. This textbook explores the different terminology, so that can be a learning experience for students in and of itself. People use different terms in real life. It is an easy read as far as research goes. The clarity in the sentences and larger categories is apparent.

Modularity rating: 5

This is one of the largest strengths of this textbook. The text is easy to follow. The author did an excellent job of dividing the chapters into categories that divide the content into smaller readable sections. This makes smaller assignments much easier to assign to instructors. The sections have nice bolded titles and clear spacing between them with bolded words inside the sections. This makes pulling out specific areas and the relevant terminology much easier than in a traditional textbook. It is clear the author put time into organizing this textbook in a student-friendly way.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The topics are organized well. The chapters flow in a way that seems relevant to how it should be taught in the classroom. It is logical in that flow. The chapters are encompassed into larger sections: Think like a researcher, Research design, Qualitative data collection and analysis techniques, A qualitative and quantitative data collection technique, and finally Quantitative data collection and analysis techiniques. Inside each of these larger 5 sections are the chapters that expand on that idea. It is wellorganized.

Interface rating: 5

The digital pdf and the online versions of the textbook did not have any navigational problems. This textbook has some illustrations that worked well. No issues were noted with the interface.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing in this textbook was straightforward and clear. I did not find any typos or grammatical errors. This was an easy-to-read textbook.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This textbook was culturally inclusive. I did not find any of the materials in this book to be insensitive or offensive. The examples in this textbook were general examples and did not associate with a cultural component. The only area I think that encompassed this was the vulnerable population section. That was very generalized and mostly suggested students consider who would fall into the vulnerable population category given what they want to research. The chapter on Research Questions (CH 4) did dive into the idea that students are social scientists and use their bias for their research projects. This was more about observing the world around them and then asking questions. It did not dive into cultural sensitivity any further.

I would recommend this book for research in behavioral science college-level classes. This book can be applied to students well beyond the criminal justice major. Many of the examples can be used for psychology, sociology, law, political science, and social work students. Don't let the criminal justice part of the title limit you. This is an easy-to-read and well-organized research textbook with helpful review guides included at the end of each chapter.

Reviewed by Mari Sakiyama, Associate Professor, Western Oregon University on 12/14/23

Each chapter of the textbook included the objectives, summary, key terms, and a few discussion questions. The key terms used in the book were in bold and were easy to identify. The chapters covered in the textbook are appropriate, and they are... read more

Each chapter of the textbook included the objectives, summary, key terms, and a few discussion questions. The key terms used in the book were in bold and were easy to identify. The chapters covered in the textbook are appropriate, and they are grouped in sections. Given that the provided examples throughout the textbook are CJ related, the major specific students can relate themselves to the course materials and it is easier for them to apply their conceptual CJ research ideas to research questions or a proposal. Glossary with definitions at the end of the book was not listed.

Content Accuracy rating: 2

I thought the content was accurate, and the author put the book together in an error-free manner. However, I thought that the textbook was slightly qualitative research heavy as opposed to quantitative research. Also, in the sampling section, I probably would not label non-probability and probability sampling for inductive qualitative and deductive quantitative research, respectively.

Given that research methods is generally required at all 4-year CJ programs and the majority of the concept of the course does not get outdated, the textbook definitely meets both relevancy and longevity.

Despite research methods tend to be full of jargon and technical terminologies, the material was written and introduced in a very reader-friendly and lucid manner. Perhaps, this book might had been the easiest read amongst all the research methods books I have read.

Both terminology and framework were internally consistent throughout the textbook. Although research methods consist with many interchangeable terms that describe the same thing, the author did a great job maintaining its consistency. In addition, the format for each chapter was also consistent and was easy to follow.

Modularity rating: 4

The textbook contains 15 chapters and are grouped in 5 different sections. Each chapter or even within those chapters can be divisible into smaller segment to fit instructors’ existing course structure. However, as mentioned earlier, the textbook was more qualitative research oriented and I thought some of the sections could be combined (i.e., III & IV). In addition, I think sampling could be its own section. Nonetheless, with the divisibility as well as the author’s permission to reuse and modify with attribution, the issues could be easily resolved.

The textbook was well-organized and -structured. I generally do not cover different designs until after midterm but I personally like the flow of this textbook.

Interface rating: 3

The textbook did not have any navigation problems, since each chapter’s organization is consistent. Some of the tables that provided key summaries of strategies/designs or its comparison of strengths/weakness are very helpful to learners. The author did a great job creating charts and diagrams, bur there could be more of them. Also, the number of illustrations/photos were limited but that could be easily adjusted when incorporating the textbook.

The style of writing was appropriate and straightforward. I did not find any typos or grammatical errors. I believe that the textbook would be an easy read compared to other publishers’ research methods textbooks.

I did not find any of the materials in the textbook that were culturally insensitive nor offensive. Examples throughout the textbook were general examples that did not necessarily associate with cultural component.

While there have been OER research methods books for Sociology and Psychology, I think this is the first OER book for CJ research methods, at least that I know of (and kudos to the author)! It would be an excellent material for undergraduate CJ students. I definitely consider using this book for my class.

Reviewed by Youngki Woo, Assistant professor, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 12/16/22

The textbook covers most areas of research methods in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Like other textbooks, each chapter identifies the learning objectives and showed it in the beginning. At the end of each chapter, there are... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The textbook covers most areas of research methods in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Like other textbooks, each chapter identifies the learning objectives and showed it in the beginning. At the end of each chapter, there are several discussion questions for students. Each chapter is comfortable to follow and addresses all the learning objectives to provide a straightforward response to the discussion questions. In addition, each chapter covers ideas of the subject appropriately and provides an effective index, key terms, and glossary.

Content is accurate and it is easy to read and follow.

Each chapter addresses fundamental concepts and techniques that students should know about research methods in social sciences. The book is published in 2022, indicating that content is up-to-date.

The text is simple and well-written, and content is informative and straight-forward.

Consistency rating: 5

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework. The author did a great job in providing summary at the end of the chapter that tied along with the learning objectives that are provided at the beginning of the chapter.

There are five parts in the textbook and each part is easily divisible into smaller reading sections that can be assigned at different points within the course (please see the Table of Contents). Personally, chapter 4 and 5 covers relevant information, but they could have gone more in depth when describing the different techniques along with a variety of research examples.

The topics in the text are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The logical organization carries students through the sequence of the research process. As an instructor, I like the organization that is flexible and helps students better understand the fundamental research skills in criminal justice.

Personally, I would suggest the author to add more photos/images/charts to give examples of what each objective talk about on each chapter. It would help the reader to figure out some methodological techniques with a visual representation. Nonetheless, the text is free of significant interface issues, including navigation problems and any other display features that may distract or confuse the reader.

There are no typos or technical/grammatical errors that I am aware of in the textbook.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The text is not culturally insensitive and offensive as the text discuss mainly about research methods. Some examples in the textbooks are children and family.

Overall, this book contains information that could help students understand the knowledge about methodological terms and skills. This book would be suitable for undergraduate methods courses in most social sciences.

Table of Contents

• 1. Scientific Research
• 2. Paradigms, Theories, and Research
• 3. Ethics in Research
• 4. Research questions
• 5. Research approaches and goals
• 6. Research methodologies
• 7. Measurement
• 8. Sampling
• 9. Focus groups
• 10. Field research
• 11. Qualitative data analysis
• 12. Interviews
• 13. Surveys
• 14. Experiments
• 15. Quantitative data analysis

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This book is based on two open-access textbooks: Bhattacherjee’s (2012) Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices and Blackstone’s (2012) Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. I first used Bhattacherjee’s book in a graduate-level criminal justice research methods course. I chose the book because it was an open educational resource that covered the major topics of my course. While I found the book adequate for my purposes, the business school perspective did not always fit with my criminal justice focus. I decided to rewrite the textbook for undergraduate and graduate students in my criminal justice research methods courses. As I researched other open- educational resources for teaching social science research methods, I found Blackstone’s book, which covered more of the social science and qualitative methods perspectives that I wanted to incorporate into my book.

As a result, this open-access textbook includes some content from both previous works along with my own additions based on my extensive experience and expertise in conducting qualitative and quantitative research in social science settings and in mentoring students through the research process. My Ph.D. is in Sociology, and I currently teach undergraduates and graduate students in a criminal justice program at Weber State University. Throughout my career, I have conducted and published the results of research projects using a variety of methods, including surveys, case studies, in-depth interviews, participant observation, content analysis, and secondary analysis of quantitative data. I have also mentored undergraduates in conducting community-based research projects using many of these same methods with the addition of focus groups and program evaluations.

About the Contributors

Monica Williams, Ph.D ., Associate Professor, Weber State University

Contribute to this Page

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice

• Ronet D. Bachman - University of Delaware, USA
• Russell K. Schutt - University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
• Description
• Assignable Video with Assessment Assignable video (available in SAGE Vantage ) is tied to learning objectives and curated exclusively for this text to bring concepts to life. Watch a sample video now .
• LMS Cartridge: Import this title's instructor resources into your school's learning management system (LMS) and save time. Don't use an LMS? You can still access all of the same online resources for this title via the password-protected Instructor Resource Site. Select the Resources tab on this page to learn more.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Supplements

• Editable chapter-specific PowerPoint® slides
• Lecture notes
• Instructor's Manual
• All tables and figures from the textbook

The digital content on the website for instructors is very helpful. The book is well written and organized with a nice blend of examples and illustrations. I'll most likely adopt this one should I teach another research methods course.

We were notified by the bookstore that copies of the 7th edition would no longer be available for our students. We also acknowledge new content and updated examples in the latest version.

• The new edition is available in SAGE Vantage , an intuitive learning platform that integrates quality SAGE textbook content with assignable multimedia activities and auto-graded assessments to drive student engagement and ensure accountability. Unparalleled in its ease of use and built for dynamic teaching and learning, Vantage offers customizable LMS integration and best-in-class support. Select the Vantage tab on this page to learn more.
• An entirely new Chapter 2 describes the process of both inductive and deductive research using recent examples related to police behavior including body worn cameras.
• New sections throughout reflect new developments in research methods such as revised federal guidance on ethics, and new methods that have come to the fore such as visual criminology and photo voice.
• Expanded chapters with new sections highlight the importance of making sure samples, measurements, and methods are inclusive and sensitive to the diverse nature of our society .
• New coverage on Writing a Journal Article and new developments that impact research, such as the revision to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.
• The authors have included contemporary examples throughout , such as the increase in the use of social media, the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, mass participation in social movements including Black Lives Matter, increasing hate crimes across the globe, and increasing incidents of mass shootings in the U.S.
• Each chapter includes an in-depth substantive research example from the real world , highlighting researchers' decision-making processes in their own words.
• Updated "Careers in Research" feature highlights a researcher who has used the methods described in that chapter, demonstrating the use of research methods within a variety of professions.
• New empirical datasets are now included in the Student Study Site, and each chapter contains new IBM® SPSS® Statistics or Excel exercises that correspond to the chapter material.
• Effective study aids include end-of-chapter summaries and key terms that are bolded on first use, listed at the end of each chapter, and defined in a glossary.

Sample Materials & Chapters

Chapter 1. Science, Society, and Research

Chapter 2. The Process and Problems of Research

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

Shipped Options:

BUNDLE: Bachman, The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice 8e (Vantage Shipped Access Card) + Bachman, The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice 8e (Loose-leaf)

Related Products

Advertisement

Mixed Methods Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice: a Systematic Review

• Published: 07 January 2021
• Volume 47 , pages 526–546, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Nicole Wilkes 1 ,
• Valerie R. Anderson 1 ,
• Cheryl Laura Johnson 2 &
• Lillian Mae Bedell 1  

3393 Accesses

8 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The field of criminology and criminal justice encompass broad and complex multidisciplinary topics. Most of the research that falls under these areas uses either quantitative or qualitative methodologies, with historically limited use of mixed methods designs. Research utilizing mixed methods has increased within the social sciences in recent years, including a steadily growing body of mixed method research in criminal justice and criminology. The goal of this study was to examine how mixed method designs are being employed within research related to criminal justice and criminology. Our systematic review located 327 mixed method articles published between 2001 and 2017. Findings indicated most criminology and criminal justice research is being conducted within the specialty area of victimology. This study provides an overview of mixed methods research in criminology and criminal justice and also illustrates that most publications are not including methodological concepts specific to mixed methods research (e.g., integration). Along with our systematic review, we offer a series of recommendations to move mixed methods research forward in criminology and criminal justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media

The Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance

Labeling theory.

Aarons, G. A., Fettes, D. L., Sommerfeld, D. H., & Palinkas, L. A. (2012). Mixed methods for implementation research: Application to evidence-based practice implementation and staff turnover in community-based organizations providing child welfare services. Child Maltreatment, 17 (1), 67–79.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city . New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, V. R. (2015). Introduction to mixed methods approaches. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (pp. 233–241). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bazeley, P. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Brent, J. J., & Kraska, P. B. (2010). Moving beyond our methodological default: A case for mixed methods. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21 (4), 412–430.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research . London: Routledge.

Buckler, K. (2008). The quantitative/qualitative divide revisited: A study of published research, doctoral program curricula, and journal editor perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19 (3), 383–403.

Burrell, N. A., & Gross, C. (2018). Quantitative research, purpose of. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1378–1380). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016 .

Campbell, R., Fehler-Cabral, G., Bybee, D., & Shaw, J. (2017). Forgotten evidence: A mixed methods study of why sexual assault kits (SAKs) are not submitted for DNA forensic testing. Law and Human Behavior, 41 (5), 454–467.

Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Feeney, H., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2020). Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: The joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. American Journal of Evaluation, 41 (1), 125–144.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1 , 37–46.

Copes, H., Beaton, B., Ayeni, D., Dabney, D., & Tewksbury, R. (2020). A content analysis of qualitative research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2010 to 2019. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45 , 1060–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09540-6 .

Copes, H., Brown, A., & Tewksbury, R. (2011). A content analysis of ethnographic research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2000 to 2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22 (3), 341–359.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences . Washington, DC: National Institute for Health https://www.obssr.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Best-Practices-for-Mixed-Methods-Research-in-the-Health-Sciences-2018-01-25.pdf .

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crow, M. S., & Smykla, J. O. (2013). A mixed methods analysis of methodological orientation in national and regional criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24 (4), 536–555.

Culbert, G. J., Bazazi, A. R., Waluyo, A., Murni, A., Muchransyah, A. P., Iriyanti, M., Finnahari, Polonsky, M., Levy, J., & Altice, F. L. (2016). The influence of medication attitudes on utilization of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Indonesian prisons. AIDS and Behavior, 20 (5), 1026–1038.

Curry, L., & Nunez-Smith, M. (2015). Mixed methods in health sciences research: A practical primer . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Eadie, D., MacAskill, S., McKell, J., & Baybutt, M. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to a criminal justice tobacco control coordinator: An innovative approach to supporting smoking cessation among offenders. Addiction, 107 (2), 26–38.

European Commission JRC. (2007). Quantitative versus qualitative methods. Retrieved from http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_quanti-quali.htm .

Fàbregues, S., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality and Quantity, 51 , 2847–2863.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms: New directions for evaluation, 74 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255–274.

Hart, L. C., Smith, S. Z., Swars, S. L., & Smith, M. E. (2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education (1995–2005). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (1), 26–41.

Heap, V., & Waters, J. (2019). Mixed methods in criminology . Routledge.

Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7 (2), 103–109.

Hovey, A., Rye, B. J., & Stalker, C. A. (2013). Factors influencing perceptions of abuse victims: Do therapists’ beliefs about sexual offending affect counseling practices with women? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22 , 572–592.

Hovey, A., Stalker, C. A., & Rye, B. J. (2014). Perpetrators of sexual abuse and considerations for treatment. Asking women survivors about thoughts or actions involving sex with children: An issue requiring therapist sensitivity. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23 , 442–461.

Howe, K. R. (2016). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17 (8), 10–16.

Howell Smith, M. C., & Shanahan Bazis, P. (2020). Conducting mixed methods research systematic methodological reviews: A review of practice and recommendations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820967626 .

Islam, F., & Oremus, M. (2014). Mixed methods immigrant mental health research in Canada: A systematic review. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 16 , 1284–1289.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133.

Kleck, G., Tark, J., & Bellows, J. J. (2006). What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34 , 147–152.

Maruna, S. (2009). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 123–140). New York: Springer.

Miller, H. V., Miller, J. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46 , 129–136.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), 1–6.

Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Fetters, M. D. (2016). Mixed methods research prevalence studies: Field-specific studies on the state of the art of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868981663670 .

Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaw, C. R. (1966). The jack-roller: A delinquent boy’s own story . University of Chicago Press.

Sullivan, C. J., & Maxfield, M. G. (2003). Examining paradigmatic development in criminology and criminal justice: A content analysis of research methods syllabi in doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14 (2), 269–285.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods [editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (3), 207–211.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Vanzile-Tamsen, C. (2011). Advancing the study of violence against women using mixed methods: Integrating qualitative methods into a quantitative research program. Violence Against Women, 17 (2), 236–250.

Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16 (2), 265–279.

Tewksbury, R., Dabney, D. A., & Copes, H. (2010). The prominence of qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice scholarship. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21 , 391–411.

Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action: Stickups and street culture . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate Christina Poole’s assistance with coding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Teachers-Dyer Complex, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 2610 McMicken Circle, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

Nicole Wilkes, Valerie R. Anderson & Lillian Mae Bedell

Department of Sociology, Hartwick College, P.O. Box 4022, Oneonta, NY, 13820, USA

Cheryl Laura Johnson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Wilkes .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

(DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wilkes, N., Anderson, V.R., Johnson, C.L. et al. Mixed Methods Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice: a Systematic Review. Am J Crim Just 47 , 526–546 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09593-7

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2020

Accepted : 13 November 2020

Published : 07 January 2021

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09593-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mixed methods
• Methodology
• Criminal justice
• Criminology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• My library record
• ANU Library
• new production templates

Criminology

Research methodologies.

• Dictionaries
• Encyclopedias
• Books and e-books
• Journals and e-journals
• Audio-visual resources
• Sample ANU Theses
• Associations and Societies
• Domain names
• Open Educational Resources
• Requesting resources

A research methodology describes the specific process used to collect and evaluate information and data. This may involve a variety of qualitative and quantative techniques such as surveys, interviews, experiments, measurement and statistics, and publication research. The texts below are a selection of titles that may help you to design your own research methodology.

• << Previous: Audio-visual resources
• Next: Statistics >>
• Last Updated: May 13, 2024 4:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.anu.edu.au/criminology

Responsible Officer: University Librarian / Page Contact: Library Systems & Web Coordinator

• Contact ANU
• Freedom of Information

+61 2 6125 5111 The Australian National University, Canberra CRICOS Provider : 00120C ABN : 52 234 063 906

• Open access
• Published: 12 August 2014

Innovative data collection methods in criminological research: editorial introduction

• Jean-Louis van Gelder 1 &
• Stijn Van Daele 2  

Crime Science volume  3 , Article number:  6 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

11 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Novel technologies, such as GPS, the Internet and virtual environments are not only rapidly becoming an increasingly influential part of our daily lives, they also have tremendous potential for improving our understanding of where, when and why crime occurs. In addition to these technologies, several innovative research methods, such as neuropsychological measurements and time-space budgets, have emerged in recent years. While often highly accessible and relevant for crime research, these technologies and methods are currently underutilized by criminologists who still tend to rely on traditional data-collection methods, such as systematic observation and surveys.

The contributions in this special issue of Crime Science explore the potential of several innovative research methods and novel technologies for crime research to acquaint criminologists with these methods so that they can apply them in their own research. Each contribution deals with a specific technology or method, gives an overview and reviews the relevant literature. In addition, each article provides useful suggestions about new ways in which the technology or method can be applied in future research. The technologies describe software and hardware that is widely available to the consumer (e.g. GPS technology) and that sometimes can even be used free of charge (e.g., Google Street View). We hope this special issue, which has its origins in a recent initiative of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) called CRIME Lab, and a collaborative workshop together with the Research consortium Crime, Criminology and Criminal Policy of Ghent University, will inspire researchers to start using innovative methods and novel technologies in their own research.

Issues and challenges facing crime researchers

Applied methods of scientific research depend on a variety of factors that play out at least in part beyond researcher control. One such factor regards the nature and availability of data, which largely determines the research questions that can be addressed: Data that cannot be collected cannot serve to answer a research question. Although this may seem like stating the obvious, it has had and continues to have far-reaching implications for criminological research. Because crime tends to be a covert activity and offenders have every interest in keeping it that way, crime in action can rarely be observed, let alone in such a way as to allow for systematic empirical study. Consequently, our knowledge of the actual offending process is still limited and relies in large part on indirect evidence. The same applies to offender motivations and the offending process; these cannot be measured directly in ways similar to how we can observe say the development of a chemical process or the workings of gravity. This has placed significant restrictions on the way crime research has been performed over the years, and most likely has coloured our view of crime and criminality by directing our gaze towards certain more visible elements such as offender backgrounds, demographics and criminal careers.

Another factor operating outside of researcher control regards the fact that the success of scientific analyses hinges on the technical possibilities to perform them. Even if researchers have access to particular data, this does not guarantee that the technology to perform the analysis in the best possible way is available to them. The complexity of the social sciences and the interconnectivity of various social phenomena, together with the lack of a controlled environment or laboratory, require substantial computational power to test highly complicated models. For instance, the use of space-time budgets, social network analysis or agent-based modelling can be quite resource-intensive. Adding the complexity of social reality to the resulting datasets (e.g. background variables related to social structure, GIS to incorporate actual road networks, etc.) puts high pressure on the available computational power of regular contemporary desktop computers. Addressing these challenges has practical and financial consequences, which brings us to the third issue, which although more mundane in nature is by no means limited to the applied sciences: a researcher requires the financial and non-financial resources to be able to perform his research.

All three factors have a bearing on the contents and goals of the present special issue. More specifically, the methods that are discussed and explained in different articles in this special issue each address one or more of these factors and have, we believe, the potential to radically change the way we think about crime and go about doing crime research. The methods and technologies are available, feasible and affordable. They are, so to speak, there for the taking.

Notes on criminological research methods

The above factors have contributed to a general tendency within criminology to stick to particular research traditions, both in terms of method and analysis. Although these traditions are well-developed and have undergone substantial improvement over the decades, most changes in the way research is performed in the discipline have been of the ’more of the same‘ variety, and most involve gradual improvements, rather than embodying ‘scientific revolutions’ and ‘paradigm shifts’ that have radically changed how criminologists go about doing research and thinking about crime.

With respect to methodology, since the field's genesis in the early 20th century, research in criminology has largely spawned studies using similar methods. In a meta-analysis of articles that have appeared in seven leading criminology and criminal justice journals in 2001-2002, Kleck et al. ([ 2006 ]) demonstrate that survey research is still the dominant method of collecting information (45.1%), followed by the use of archival data (31.8%), and official statistics (25.6%). Other methods, such as interviews, ethnographies and systematic observation, each account for less than 10% (as methods are sometimes combined the percentages add up to more than 100%). Furthermore, the Kleck et al. meta-analysis shows that as far as data analysis is concerned, nearly three quarters (72.5%) of the articles published uses some type of multivariate statistics. As such, it appears that criminology has developed a research tradition that started to dominate the field, though not to everybody's enthusiasm. Berk ([ 2010 ]), for example, states that regression analysis, in its broad conception, has become so dominant that researchers give it more credit than they sometimes should and take some of its possibilities for granted. Whereas certain research traditions may have a strong added value, they run the risk of being used more out of habit than for being the most appropriate method to answer a particular research question. As innovation influences our daily lives and how we perform our daily activities, there is no reason why it should not influence our way of performing science as well.

Innovation and technology in daily life and their application in criminological research

Novel technologies, such as GPS, the Internet, and virtual environments are rapidly establishing themselves as ingrained elements of our daily lives. Think, for example, of smart phones. While unknown to most of us as recently as ten years ago, today few people would leave their home without carrying one with them. Through their ability to, for example, transmit visual and written communication, use social media, locate ourselves and others through apps and GPS, smart phone technology has radically changed the way we go about our daily routines. The research potential of smart phone technology for improving our understanding of social phenomena is enormous and includes a better understanding of where, when and why crime occurs through automated data collection, interactive tests and surveys (Miller [ 2012 ]). Yet, so far surprisingly few crime researchers have picked up on the possibilities this technology has to offer.

A similar point can be made with respect to the Internet. While most researchers have made the transition from paper-and-pencil questionnaires to online surveys and online research panels may have become the norm for collecting community sample data, much of the potential of the Internet for crime research remains untapped. Think, for example, of the possibility of using Google Maps and Google Street View for studying spatial aspects of crime and the ease with which we can virtually travel down most of the roads and streets to examine street corners, buildings and neighbourhoods. The launch of Google Street View in Belgium stirred up controversy because it was perceived by police officers as a catalogue for burglars and was expected to lead to an increase in the number of burglaries. While it is not clear whether this has actually happened, crime studies reporting these tools in their method sections are few and far between.

In addition to novel technologies, several innovative research methods, such as social network analysis, time-space budgets, and neuropsychological measures that can tap into people's physiological and mental state, have emerged in recent years and have become common elements of the tool-set used in some of criminology's sister disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and neuroscience. Again, while often highly accessible and relevant for crime research, these methods are currently underutilized by crime researchers. The promising and emerging field of neurocriminology is an important exception in this respect (see e.g., Glenn & Raine [ 2014 ]).

To revert back to the three issues that have restricted the gaze of criminology mentioned at the outset of this article: accessibility of data, type of data analysis, and availability of resources, the new methods and technologies seem to check all the boxes. Much more data have become accessible for analysis through novel technologies, new methods for data-analysis and data-collection have been developed, and most of it is available at the consumer level. In other words, this allows for collecting and examining data in ways that go far beyond what we are used to in crime research. For example, methods combining neurobiological measurements with virtual environments can tell us a lot about an individual's mental and physical states and how they go about making criminal decisions, which were until recently largely black boxes. Finally, novel technologies are often available on the consumer market, such as smart phones, tablets, and digital cameras, and require only very modest research budgets. In some cases, such as the automated analysis of footage made by security cameras, simulations, or the use of honeypots that lure cyber criminals into hacking them, they even allow for systematically examining crime in action.

Goals of this special issue of Crime Science

The principal aim of the present special issue is to acquaint crime researchers and criminology students with some of these technologies and methods and explain how they can be used in crime research. While widely diverging, what these technologies and methods have in common is their accessibility and potential for furthering our understanding of crime and criminal behavior. The idea, in other words, is to explore the potential of innovative research methods of data-collection and novel technologies for crime research and to acquaint readers with these methods so that they can apply them in their own research.

Each article deals with a specific technology or method and is set-up in such a way as to give readers an overview of the specific technology/method at hand, i.e., what it is about, why to use it and how to do so, and a discussion of relevant literature on the topic. Furthermore, when relevant, articles contain technical information regarding the tools that are currently available and how they can be obtained. Case studies also feature in each article, giving readers a clearer picture of what is at stake. Finally, we have encouraged all contributors to give their views on possible future developments with the specific technology or method they describe and to make a prediction regarding the direction their field could or should develop. We sincerely hope this will inspire readers to apply these methods in their own work.

While not intended as a manual, after reading an article, readers should not only have a clear view of what the method/technology entails but also of how to use it, possibly in combination with one or more of the references that are provided in the annotated bibliography provided at the end of each article. The contributions may also be useful for researchers already working with a specific method or students interested in research methodology.

Article overview

Hoeben, Bernasco and Pauwels discuss the space-time budget method. This method aims at retrospectively recording on an hour-by-hour basis the whereabouts and activities of respondents, including crime and victimization. The method offers a number of advantages over existing methods for data-collection on crime and victimization such as the possibility of studying situational causes of crime or victimization, possibly in combination with individual lifestyles, routine activities and similar theoretical concepts. Furthermore, the space-time budget method offers the possibility of collecting information on spatial location, which enables the study of a respondent's whereabouts, going beyond the traditional focus of ecological criminological studies on residential neighborhoods. Finally, the collected spatial information on the location of individuals can be combined with data on neighborhood characteristics from other sources, which enables the empirical testing of a variety of ecological criminological theories.

The contribution of Gerritsen focuses on the possibilities offered by agent-based modeling, a technique borrowed from the domain of Artificial Intelligence. Agent-based modeling (ABM) is a computational method that enables a researcher to create, analyse and experiment with models composed of agents that interact within a computational environment. Gerritsen explains how modeling and simulation techniques may help gain more insight into (informal) criminological theories without having to experiment with these phenomena in the real world. For example, to study the effect of bystander presence on norm violation, an ‘artificial neighborhood’ can be developed that is inhabited by 'virtual aggressors and victims’, and by manipulating the agents’ parameters different hypothetical scenarios may be explored. This enables criminologists to investigate complex processes in a relatively fast and cheap manner.

Since the pioneering early studies of the 1990s hinted at its promise as a method for social scientific research, Virtual Reality (VR) technology is increasingly used as a research tool by social scientists from various disciplines such as psychology and sociology. Given recent developments that have greatly enhanced the realism, reduced costs, and increased possibilities for application, it seems well on its way to become an established method in the social sciences. In their contribution Van Gelder, Luciano and Otte explore the potential of VR as a tool for research in criminology. Their article offers a description of how virtual reality has been used in social scientific research before discussing the potential it holds for criminology. By way of illustration, the authors describe a recent case study that has used immersive virtual reality for theory testing, which gives an idea of the unique possibilities of VR for studying crime.

Cornet also draws from criminology's sister disciplines in her article on neurobiological measurements observing that while the literature on the relationship between neurobiological factors and antisocial behavior has accumulated in recent years, the use of neurobiological measurements does not yet play a central role in criminological research. One of the underlying reasons Cornet identifies is the idea among criminologists that it is complicated to use these techniques compared to sociological, psychological and behavioral instruments. This article aims to provide an overview of the most commonly used neurobiological measurements, their added value and, importantly, how they can be relatively easily implemented in criminological research.

Vandeviver explains the possibilities and merits of online mapping applications such as Google Maps and Google Street View. While these technologies have evoked concern from law enforcement agencies that offenders could exploit them, Vandeviver notes that for criminologists they also open up several new perspectives to conduct research. Elaborating on results from prior studies in related fields and personal research experience, three potential uses of Google Maps and Google Street View in criminological research are explored and discussed. In particular, this article deals with how these online mapping applications can generate new research questions, how they allow revisiting and re-assessing established theories in criminology and common research practices, and how they should be considered an essential part of the methodological toolkit of criminologists.

Lemieux, also taking a spatial approach, describes how digital cameras with integrated GPS units can be used to collect useful data for criminological purposes observing that while visual observations have traditionally been an important method of criminological research, when combined with spatial data, such observations become a particularly useful way to describe how crime and disorder are distributed. Lemieux describes the utility and ease of using geo-tagged photographs and GPS tracks for monitoring illegal activity in urban and rural settings presenting case studies from Uganda and Amsterdam.

Vander Laenen discusses a method of qualitative criminological research, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), which is not necessarily innovative by and of itself, but which has hardly been applied in criminology. The NGT is a highly structured technique with characteristics of an individual survey and a focus group. However its structure limits the influence of the researcher and of group dynamics and guarantees equal participation to all group members and equal influence of (conflicting) values and ideas. The NGT forms an ideal technique for gathering and prioritizing ideas and for innovative solution planning. Furthermore, despite the structure of the procedure, the technique can be modified and easily be applied in a mixed-methods research design. By means of an example, Vande Laenen reports on the use of the NGT in a study on the needs assessment of drug (prevention) policy.

In the final contribution to this special issue on innovative methods of data collection in criminology, De Bondt suggests solutions for doing cross-border criminal policy research and the confusion in wording and interpretation that emerge when comparing different legal systems. Correctly interpreting foreign information and using it as a valid source to substantiate analyses on where, when and why crime occurs and/or how to improve the fight against crime, often requires the expertise of people that are very familiar with a certain legal system. Based on a literature review and a number of successful experiences with the method in past research projects, the strengths and weaknesses of working with (predominantly) multiple choice based questionnaires sent to a single point of contact in each of the EU member states is elaborated upon.

Authors' contributions

Both Jean-Louis van Gelder and Stijn van Daele contributed to all aspects of the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Berk R: What you can and can't properly do with regression. J Quant Criminol 2010, 26(4):481–487. doi:10.1007/s10940–010–9116–4 doi:10.1007/s10940-010-9116-4 10.1007/s10940-010-9116-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Glenn AL, Raine A: Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15(1):54–63. doi:10.1038/Nrn3640 doi:10.1038/Nrn3640 10.1038/nrn3640

Kleck G, Tark J, Bellows J: What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice? [Article]. J Crim Justice 2006, 34(2):147–152. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007 doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.007

Miller G: The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012, 7(3):221–237. doi:10.1177/1745691612441215 doi:10.1177/1745691612441215 10.1177/1745691612441215

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081, HV, The Netherlands

Jean-Louis van Gelder

Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

Stijn Van Daele

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Louis van Gelder .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

van Gelder, JL., Van Daele, S. Innovative data collection methods in criminological research: editorial introduction. Crime Sci 3 , 6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-014-0006-1

Download citation

Received : 17 April 2014

Accepted : 30 April 2014

Published : 12 August 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-014-0006-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Crime Science

ISSN: 2193-7680

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication

Criminology

• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Qualitative Methods in Criminology

Introduction.

• Chicago School
• Mid-20th Century
• Current Status
• Qualitative Research and Life-Course Theory
• The Lived Experience of Crime
• The Lived Experience of Criminalization and Punishment
• The Law in Action
• Ethnography
• Interview-Based Studies
• Content Analysis
• Case Studies
• Focus Groups
• Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
• Positivist versus Post-Positivist Approaches
• Inductive versus Deductive Approaches
• Cases and Generalizability
• Internal Validity
• Anthologies of Qualitative Research in Criminology
• Continued Challenges for Qualitative Research in Criminology

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Active Offender Research
• Critical Criminology
• Measuring Crime
• Narrative Criminology
• Self-Report Crime Surveys
• Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
• Street Code

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Education Programs in Prison
• Juvenile Justice Professionals' Perceptions of Youth
• Juvenile Waiver
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Qualitative Methods in Criminology by Jamie Fader LAST REVIEWED: 26 July 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 26 July 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0225

Qualitative research formed the basis of much of the early American criminological canon. In the mid-20th century, however, criminology took a decidedly quantitative turn with advanced analytical technology and increased federal funding for survey research. As criminology has fully embraced positivism, qualitative research has been generally marginalized and practicing scholars have struggled to publish or secure funding. Quantitative standards of evaluation are often incorrectly applied to qualitative work. In the last two decades, we have seen a re-emergence in qualitative research in criminology, accompanied by a new appreciation for its unique value for generating and refining theory, as well as documenting the lived experience of offending and criminal justice system involvement. The ascendance of the life-course paradigm is both a cause and consequence of the renewed status of qualitative research. Although qualitative researchers are enjoying a renaissance within the field of criminology, they also face serious obstacles erected by demands for increased speed and volume of publications, heavy reliance on seemingly objective metrics of publication quality, and human subjects concerns.

American criminology can trace its roots to University of Chicago Sociology Department, which produced several decades of urban research starting in the early 20th century known as the Chicago School tradition. Robert Ezra Park, one of the department’s founders and a former journalist, urged his students to leave the comforts of the university behind and engage directly in the surrounding communities, documenting social disorganization, community institutions, social inequality, gangs, and other forms of crime and vice.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Criminology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Adler, Freda
• Adversarial System of Justice
• Adverse Childhood Experiences
• Aging Prison Population, The
• Airport and Airline Security
• Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
• Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
• Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
• Animals, Crimes Against
• Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
• Bail and Pretrial Detention
• Batterer Intervention Programs
• Bentham, Jeremy
• Big Data and Communities and Crime
• Biosocial Criminology
• Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
• Blumstein, Alfred
• Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
• Burglary, Residential
• Bystander Intervention
• Capital Punishment
• Chambliss, William
• Chicago School of Criminology, The
• Child Maltreatment
• Chinese Triad Society
• Civil Protection Orders
• Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
• Collective Efficacy
• Commercial and Bank Robbery
• Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
• Communicating Scientific Findings in the Courtroom
• Community Change and Crime
• Community Corrections
• Community Disadvantage and Crime
• Community-Based Justice Systems
• Community-Based Substance Use Prevention
• Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
• CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
• Confessions, False and Coerced
• Conservation Criminology
• Consumer Fraud
• Contextual Analysis of Crime
• Control Balance Theory
• Convict Criminology
• Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
• Corporate Crime
• Costs of Crime and Justice
• Courts, Drug
• Courts, Juvenile
• Courts, Mental Health
• Courts, Problem-Solving
• Crime and Justice in Latin America
• Crime, Campus
• Crime Control Policy
• Crime Control, Politics of
• Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
• Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
• Crime Prevention, Situational
• Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
• Crime Trends
• Crime Victims' Rights Movement
• Criminal Career Research
• Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
• Criminal Justice Data Sources
• Criminal Justice Ethics
• Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
• Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
• Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
• Criminal Records
• Criminal Retaliation
• Criminal Talk
• Criminology and Political Science
• Criminology of Genocide, The
• Cross-National Crime
• Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
• Cultural Criminology
• Cultural Theories
• Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
• Cycle of Violence
• Deadly Force
• Defense Counsel
• Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
• Developmental and Life-Course Criminology
• Digital Piracy
• Driving and Traffic Offenses
• Drug Control
• Drug Trafficking, International
• Drugs and Crime
• Elder Abuse
• Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
• Employee Theft
• Environmental Crime and Justice
• Experimental Criminology
• Family Violence
• Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
• Felon Disenfranchisement
• Feminist Theories
• Feminist Victimization Theories
• Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
• Firearms and Violence
• Forensic Science
• For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
• Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
• Gender and Crime
• Gendered Crime Pathways
• General Opportunity Victimization Theories
• Genetics, Environment, and Crime
• Green Criminology
• Halfway Houses
• Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
• Hate Crime Legislation
• Healthcare Fraud
• Hirschi, Travis
• History of Crime in the United Kingdom
• History of Criminology
• Homelessness and Crime
• Homicide Victimization
• Honor Cultures and Violence
• Hot Spots Policing
• Human Rights
• Human Trafficking
• Identity Theft
• Immigration, Crime, and Justice
• Incarceration, Mass
• Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
• Income Tax Evasion
• Indigenous Criminology
• Institutional Anomie Theory
• Integrated Theory
• Intermediate Sanctions
• Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
• Interrogation
• Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
• Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
• Investigation, Criminal
• Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System, The
• Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
• Labeling Theory
• Labor Markets and Crime
• Land Use and Crime
• Lead and Crime
• LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
• LGBTQ People in Prison
• Life Without Parole Sentencing
• Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
• Lombroso, Cesare
• Longitudinal Research in Criminology
• Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
• Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
• Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
• Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
• Mental Health and Crime
• Merton, Robert K.
• Meta-analysis in Criminology
• Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
• Migrant Detention and Incarceration
• Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
• Money Laundering
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Multi-Level Marketing Scams
• Murder, Serial
• National Deviancy Symposia, The
• Nature Versus Nurture
• Neighborhood Disorder
• Neutralization Theory
• New Penology, The
• Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
• Offense Specialization/Expertise
• Organized Crime
• Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
• Panel Methods in Criminology
• Peacemaking Criminology
• Peer Networks and Delinquency
• Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
• Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
• Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
• Phenomenological Theories of Crime
• Plea Bargaining
• Police Administration
• Police Cooperation, International
• Police Discretion
• Police Effectiveness
• Police History
• Police Militarization
• Police Misconduct
• Police, Race and the
• Police Use of Force
• Police, Violence against the
• Policing and Law Enforcement
• Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
• Policing, Broken Windows
• Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
• Policing Cybercrime
• Policing, Evidence-Based
• Policing, Intelligence-Led
• Policing, Privatization of
• Policing, Proactive
• Policing, School
• Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
• Policing, Third Party
• Polyvictimization
• Positivist Criminology
• Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
• Pretrial Diversion
• Prison Administration
• Prison Classification
• Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
• Prison Education Exchange Programs
• Prison Gangs and Subculture
• Prison History
• Prison Labor
• Prison Visitation
• Prisoner Reentry
• Prisons and Jails
• Prisons, HIV in
• Private Security
• Probation Revocation
• Procedural Justice
• Property Crime
• Prosecution and Courts
• Prostitution
• Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
• Psychology and Crime
• Public Criminology
• Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
• Public Order Crimes
• Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
• Punishment Justification and Goals
• Qualitative Methods in Criminology
• Queer Criminology
• Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
• Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
• Racial Threat Hypothesis
• Racial Profiling
• Rape and Sexual Assault
• Rape, Fear of
• Rational Choice Theories
• Rehabilitation
• Religion and Crime
• Restorative Justice
• Risk Assessment
• Routine Activity Theories
• School Bullying
• School Crime and Violence
• School Safety, Security, and Discipline
• Search Warrants
• Seasonality and Crime
• Self-Control, The General Theory:
• Sentencing Enhancements
• Sentencing, Evidence-Based
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Sentencing Policy
• Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
• Sex Trafficking
• Sexual Revictimization
• Situational Action Theory
• Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
• Social Construction of Crime, The
• Social Control of Tobacco Use
• Social Control Theory
• Social Disorganization
• Social Ecology of Crime
• Social Learning Theory
• Social Networks
• Social Threat and Social Control
• Solitary Confinement
• South Africa, Crime and Justice in
• Sport Mega-Events Security
• Stalking and Harassment
• State Crime
• State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
• Strain Theories
• Street Robbery
• Substance Use and Abuse
• Surveillance, Public and Private
• Sutherland, Edwin H.
• Technology and the Criminal Justice System
• Technology, Criminal Use of
• Terrorism and Hate Crime
• Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
• Testimony, Eyewitness
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence
• Trajectory Methods in Criminology
• Transnational Crime
• Truth-In-Sentencing
• Urban Politics and Crime
• US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
• Victim Impact Statements
• Victimization, Adolescent
• Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
• Victimization Patterns and Trends
• Victimization, Repeat
• Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
• Victimless Crime
• Victim-Offender Overlap, The
• Violence Against Women
• Violence, Youth
• Violent Crime
• White-Collar Crime
• White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
• White-Collar Crime, Women and
• Wilson, James Q.
• Wolfgang, Marvin
• Women, Girls, and Reentry
• Wrongful Conviction
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

3 Chapter 3: Sampling Methods

Case study : rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders.

Research Study

Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders 1

Research Question

Is the public willing to pay more in taxes for rehabilitation or incarceration as a response to serious juvenile crime?

Methodology

Through a process known as random digit dialing, the researchers of this study randomly sampled 29,532 telephone numbers from four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington). Random digit dialing is a variation of probability sampling (discussed later in this chapter) where researchers utilize a computer program that randomly dials the last four digits of a phone number in a known area code. With this variation of sampling, all phone numbers within a given area code have an equal chance at selection for the sample.

Following the random number selection process, researchers excluded randomly chosen phone numbers that corresponded to fax machines, businesses, government organizations, nonworking numbers, and so on. After excluding these phone numbers, a total of 7,132 eligible phone numbers remained. Of the remaining eligible phone numbers, 2,282 telephone interviews were eventually completed across the four states for an overall response rate of 32%.

The survey instrument administered to respondents inquired about rehabilitation versus incarceration for serious juvenile offenders, as related to an increase in household taxes. Of those respondents who agreed to participate in the telephone survey, one-half were randomly assigned the rehabilitation scenario and one-half were randomly assigned to receive the incarceration scenario. The hypothetical rehabilitation versus incarceration scenarios are as follows:

(Rehabilitation Scenario) “Currently in [state] juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes such as robbery are put in jail for about one year. Suppose [state] citizens were asked to approve the addition of a rehabilitation program to the sentence for these sorts of crimes. Similar programs have reduced youth crime by 30%. Youths in these programs are also more likely to graduate from high school and get jobs. If the change is approved, this new law would cost your household an additional $100 per year in taxes.”

(Incarceration Scenario) “Currently in [state] juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes such as robbery are put in jail for about one year. Suppose [state] citizens were asked to vote on a change in the law that would increase the sentence for these sorts of crimes by one additional year, making the average length of jail time two years. The additional year will not only impose more punishment but also reduce youth crime by about 30% by keeping juvenile offenders off the street for another year. If the change is approved, this new law would cost your household an additional $100 per year in taxes.”

After receiving one of the initial scenarios, respondents were asked: “Would you be willing to pay the additional $100 in taxes for this change in the law?” Those who answered “yes” were then asked if they would be willing to pay $200 for the same change. Those respondents who originally answered “no” to the $100 increase were asked if they would be willing to pay $50 for the same change in the law. Based on the survey, four potential outcomes were measured among respondents: 1) those who said no to $100 and no to $50, 2) those who said yes to $50 but no to $100, 3) those who said yes to $100 but no to $200, and 4) those who said yes to $100 and yes to $200.

Across four states and 2,282 completed telephone interviews, the results of the survey revealed respondents were willing to pay (WTP) more for rehabilitation than incarceration for serious juvenile offenders. Among respondents who were randomly chosen to receive the rehabilitation scenario, 28.5% were not willing to pay any additional taxes. Conversely, roughly 70% were willing to pay at least $50, with nearly 65% willing to pay $100–$200. Among respondents randomly chosen to receive the incarceration scenario, 39% were not willing to pay any additional taxes. Roughly 60% of respondents who received the incarceration scenario were willing to pay at least $50. In short, more respondents were willing to pay (and pay more) for rehabilitation than incarceration for serious juvenile offenders.

Limitations with the Study Procedure

Specific to sampling, perhaps the greatest limitation with this study lies in the relatively high nonresponse rate. In this study, the overall response rate was 32%. This means that nearly 70% of all eligible phone numbers, and hence the perspectives of roughly 70% of randomly sampled persons associated with those phone numbers, were not able to be assessed in the current study. High rates of nonresponse effectively reduce sample size, increase sampling error (the difference in results expected between surveying a sample versus the whole population), and call into question the generalizability of findings since the random sample becomes less representative of the larger population. One relevant question to be considered with high nonresponse is whether those individuals who were eligible to participate in the survey but did not, differ from those who were eligible and did participate. It is possible, for example, that those who were randomly chosen to participate in the telephone interview but did not may hold significantly different attitudes towards rehabilitation versus incarceration compared to those who ultimately participated in the survey. And, if those who refused participation in the survey hold widely different opinions of rehabilitation versus incarceration relative to increasing taxes, the sample (and their results) cannot be said to be representative of the larger population. In sum, such a high rate of nonresponse affects both the representativeness of the sample and hence the ability to generalize the results to the larger population of interest. As discussed in detail in the chapter, a primary advantage of a representative sample is the ability to generalize or apply the results from the sample to the larger population. If in fact large numbers of the sample refuse to participate, this may inhibit the ability of researchers to generalize sample findings to the larger population and may call into question results of a study based on a low response rate.

Beyond response rates and sample sizes, it is important to note other general limitations with survey research such as that highlighted in the current study. As acknowledged by the study authors, it is possible that the hypothetical scenario failed to elicit “real” responses and feelings on rehabilitation versus incarceration from respondents because the scenario was hypothetical, and not a real or genuine proposed change in the law in the states examined. Moreover, surveys in general are replete with potential limitations. While these issues are covered in detail in Chapter 4, it is important to note that surveys may fail to elicit “considered” answers to questions. This potential is particularly relevant in telephone interviews, which are rarely planned ahead of time and therefore respondents might be contacted during a time where they are rushed or otherwise unable or unwilling to provide completely considered answers. More broadly, respondents may not have completely understood the questions being asked. If there was any confusion on the part of the respondents, this could have affected their responses to the questions and ultimately the outcome of the study. Again, these are general limitations of surveys and not necessarily specific to this study. However, such potentials should be considered when interpreting survey results.

Although no research study is perfect, to become an informed consumer of research it is important to be aware of potential limitations not only in sampling, but in response rates and general research methodology. Although this chapter focuses on sampling, knowledge of additional areas often associated with sampling, such as survey limitations, nonresponse or nonparticipation by respondents, and concerns about representativeness and generalizability, allows a clearer picture of the entire research process of which sampling is only one part. In large part, being an informed consumer of research requires more than an understanding of research results; it also requires knowledge of how the results were produced in the first place.

Impact on Criminal Justice

There are many ways in which the highlighted study is important to criminal justice. In one way, this study is important because it was a partial replication of a previous study. 2 Although certain aspects of the current study were modified, the researchers utilized an identical survey instrument. Fully or partially replicating previous research by using the same survey instrument can allow researchers to verify the results of previous studies and have more confidence that the findings are indeed “true” or valid, and not some aberration due to problems in sampling or otherwise.

This study is also important from a policy standpoint. Public opinion often finds its way into policy discussions regarding the will of the public toward any number of pressing criminal justice issues, such as the juvenile death penalty, life without parole for juveniles, and in the current research, whether the public is willing to pay more in taxes for rehabilitation versus incarceration. The current research has the potential to inform the public policy process regarding the desired treatment of serious juvenile offenders and whether or not the public supports funding such treatment with additional taxes.

From a methodological point of view, random digit dialing is an interesting sampling variation as used in conjunction with survey research. Random digit dialing has the potential to reach individuals that may be unknown in more traditional population lists or sampling frames, such as phone books, voter registration records, and others. Inasmuch as a phone number selected via random digit dialing serves as a proxy for a person, random digit dialing remedies the problem of unlisted phone numbers and has the ability to capture those individuals who do not have “land” lines but only cell phones, and therefore are not listed in a phone book. As a result, random digit dialing is a viable sampling variation to identify the largest possible number of individuals in the population to be sampled when telephone surveys are utilized.

In This Chapter You Will Learn

About the process of sampling and why it is important to the research process

The difference between a sample and a population

That there are two general types of samples—probability and non-probability samples

About the difference between probability and non-probability samples

About important concepts related to sampling, such as representativeness and generalizability

About basic procedures in drawing a sample

That random selection is a key component in probability samples

That the type of sampling required in a research study is highly related to the research question of interest

Introduction

The case study highlighted above provides one example of how sampling can be utilized in a research study. While not all studies require sampling, in those that do, sampling is a critical consideration in evaluating the results of the study. And when the sampling process breaks down in some way, it can seriously impact the results. It is therefore critical that research consumers have specific knowledge about sampling, including but not limited to the different types of sampling and problems that may directly or indirectly be associated with sampling. The goal of this chapter is to provide that critical insight.

Chapter 3 begins by examining several areas relevant to sampling. This section includes a focus on what sampling is and why researchers typically utilize a sample instead of an entire population. It then discusses the importance of randomness to the sampling process. Although random sampling is not always desired or needed in every research study that must utilize a form of sampling, it is a critical part of many research studies. This section then examines two additional areas relevant to sampling. These areas include the key concepts of representativeness and generalizability, and a brief discussion about sample size and sampling error.

The second section of this chapter examines different types of sampling methods known as probability sampling methods. Although probability sampling methods each have their own distinct features, the consistent link between all of them is that each member of a particular population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample. When researchers are interested in generalizing or applying the research results obtained from the sample to the larger population from which it was drawn (such as in the highlighted study beginning this chapter), probability samples are superior.

Chapter 3 then explores non-probability sampling methods. As opposed to probability sampling methods, non-probability sampling methods do not ensure that every member of a particular population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample. There are various situations in which a non-probability sample may be utilized and be appropriate for a particular research study. Although the various non-probability samples are unique and useful in their own way, the consistent theme among non-probability samples is that the results produced from studies utilizing this form of sampling do not generalize to a larger population. This is because not everyone in the larger population had an equal chance at being selected for the research study.

CLASSICS IN CJ RESEARCH

A Snowball’s Chance in Hell: Doing Fieldwork with Active Residential Burglars 3

The general methodology for this study was to interview active residential burglars about their criminal careers (e.g., number of burglaries, age at first burglary). A main goal of this study was also to shed light on the process of researching active criminals—locating active offenders, obtaining their cooperation, and maintaining an ongoing relationship throughout the study period.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the study was the process of locating active offenders to interview. Unlike prison inmates or police officers or other known populations, there is no list of active offenders, replete with phone numbers and addresses. For this study, the researchers located their sample members by utilizing a form of non-probability sampling normally employed to contact research participants who are not readily known or otherwise absent from a convenient sampling frame. This type of non-probability sampling is called snowball sampling. Procedurally, to facilitate the sample of active residential burglars, the researchers first hired an ex-offender with ties to the criminal world. The ex-offender first approached known criminal associates. The ex-offender then contacted several law-abiding but street-smart friends, explaining that the research was confidential and no police involvement would occur. The ex-offender also explained to the contacts that individuals who took part in the study would be paid a small sum of money.

Over time, the criminal (e.g., low level fence; small time criminal, crack addict) and noncriminal contacts (e.g., youth worker) recruited by the ex-offender were able to identify and make contact with several active residential burglars. Upon their participation, these burglars also referred other residential burglars. In essence, the sample of active residential burglars snowballed through this sort of referral process that started with one ex-offender. All in all, 105 active residential burglars participated in the study.

One goal of the research was to shed light on the offending careers of the residential burglars. Based on their interview questions, the researchers found that the active residential burglars averaged 10 or fewer burglaries a year over the course of their offending careers. They also found extremes among this average. For example, the researchers uncovered a group of extreme offenders, roughly 7% of the sample, who committed in excess of 50 burglaries per year.

Another key finding from this study linked to the arrest patterns of the active burglars. Although most members of the burglar sample had previously been arrested, the researchers did uncover a subgroup of burglars who had not been previously arrested but who had committed a large amount of residential burglaries. Among other things, the results revealed a number of criminals who were not only quite successful in their residential burglary careers, but also successful at avoiding official detection.

Beyond the specific findings relative to the offending patterns of active residential burglars, it is important to note that the qualitative nature of this study also produced important insight. For example, through the process of snowball sampling, the researchers explored ways in which to successfully locate, contact, and recruit hard-to-access active criminal populations. The researchers also explored the difficulty of working with active criminals, developing trusting relationships, and in general, gathering data in ways that are relatively “extreme” compared to other approaches.

Because this was a qualitative research study, an argument could be made that the results may not generalize to all active residential burglars. Indeed, because the sample of burglars was obtained via snowball sampling, a non-probability technique, there is no way to guarantee that the 105 burglars were “representative” of all residential burglars. This is because the sample was not randomly drawn from a larger population. As mentioned, however, it must be considered that no easy or complete list or sampling frame of active residential burglars is in existence. The very nature of this hard-to-access population virtually excludes all other sampling methods in efforts to understand the offending careers of active residential burglars.

The researchers also note some potential limitations. One limitation centered on defining eligible members for the sample. The researchers limited their sample to individuals who were residential burglars and who were currently active, meaning they had committed a residential burglary in the past two weeks. While these sample inclusion criteria appear simple, the researchers note that “in the field” sometimes the burglars were evasive about their activities. To verify their eligibility for the study, the researchers had to rely on confirmation by other burglars. On a broad level then, the limitation associated with this study is one that can be levied at any study where questions are asked of individuals—the ability to trust the responses of others.

This study impacted criminal justice in that it represented one of very few qualitative research studies in criminal justice. As noted by the authors, many criminologists at the time shied away (and perhaps still do) from this type of research based on the belief that it was impractical. Importantly, the authors showed through a unique sampling scheme that this research can be conducted on a practical basis. This research may have also spurred others to conduct qualitative research in criminal justice settings and with other less-researched criminal justice populations:

This research was also only one of a handful of studies that contacted, recruited, and fostered the cooperation of active criminals, as opposed to known criminals such as confined prisoners. Gaining the trust of active criminal populations is extremely difficult because these groups are often highly suspicious of outsiders. The researchers in this case were able to garner the trust of 105 active offenders and interview them about the frequency of their criminality. Their research uncovered a number of important insights about the active criminal. For example, the researchers uncovered a subset of extremely active and successful burglars adept at avoiding apprehension by criminal justice authorities. In other words, there are some criminals for which that old credence “crime pays” rings true. The finding also sheds some light on the notion that official estimates of crime, for example, may significantly underestimate the true level of crime.

What is Sampling?

Generally, sampling refers to a process of selecting a smaller group from a larger group “in the hope that studying this smaller group (the sample) will reveal important things about the larger group (the population).” 4 In some forms of sampling, such as probability sampling, the goal is that the smaller sample is representative of the larger population. For example, officials at your university might select a random sample of criminal justice students and ask their opinion on whether students should have the right to carry weapons on campus. In selecting a sample randomly, university officials’ goal is that the results obtained from the sample of students would be similar to the results obtained if all criminal justice students (the population) were asked their opinion on this topic. If the randomly drawn sample is representative of the population, the opinion results obtained from the sample of criminal justice students can then inform about the opinions of the entire population.

It is noteworthy to consider that sampling is certainly not limited to the social sciences. Indeed, smaller subsets of larger populations are taken in any number of scientific contexts so that researchers might learn things about some larger population. Consider environmental researchers who take core samples from glaciers in Antarctica. Environmental researchers drill deep into the glaciers with hollowed tubes to take core samples of snow and ice that have been compressed over many years. The resulting core samples are then analyzed to gather data in such areas as temperature change and atmospheric conditions over the age of the frozen core samples. Or consider beer brew masters. Brew masters also engage in a process where once a beer batch has fermented and is processed, they take a sample from the massive swirling vats of beer to determine whether the smaller sample (small glass of beer) passes muster. In essence, the small glass of beer serves as a sample of knowledge about how the larger vat of beer (or the population) might taste. The examples above also demonstrate that samples and populations need not be animate objects—samples can be produced from any number of different populations.

In both instances above, researchers as drillers or brew masters are interested in getting a smaller but representative sample of a larger population. Because these researchers are concerned with representativeness, their techniques are in ways variants of probability sampling. For example, the brew master wants to be able to generalize or apply the results of the sample beer to the larger vat of beer. Provided the sample was drawn in a way that makes it representative of the larger vat of beer, such a process negates the need for the brew master to drink hundreds and hundreds of gallons of beer to determine the quality of the batch! In many forms of sampling, especially forms of probability sampling, the nature of the sampling process allows the researcher to take a smaller but representative sample of a larger population of individuals and retrieve results that would be similar as if he or she had utilized the larger population.

Uses of Sampling

Sampling methods can be used in any number of the different research designs that are discussed in Chapters 4–6 of this text. For example, sampling can first be used to retrieve a small representative subset of individuals from a larger population. These individuals might then be randomly assigned to experimental and control groups in an experimental design as discussed in Chapter 5. Sampling can also be used as a tool to select a smaller but representative portion of individuals from a larger population for the administration of surveys, whether they are telephone, Internet, face-to-face, or mail surveys. Sampling can also be used in qualitative research as covered in Chapter 6. However, the nature of qualitative research lends itself best to non-probability sampling methods.

The bottom line is that sampling is utilized in a number of different research designs. Although the type of sampling used will vary depending on the goal of the study, sampling does have a place in many research studies in and beyond the social sciences. It is also important to understand that the nature of the research will determine whether the type of sampling required is probability- or non-probability-based sampling. This should become clearer in the sections that examine different types of probability and non-probability samples later in this chapter.

Why Sample?

We’ve hinted at the fact that utilizing a sample can lead to research results that would be similar to results if researchers instead examined the entire population. This is certainly a justification for sampling since it is generally easier and less tedious than utilizing an entire population. For example, consider the study highlighted at the beginning of the chapter where researchers were interested in citizen preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration for serious juvenile offenders in four different states (Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, and Louisiana). The combined population of these four states is just over 35 million individuals. Instead of drawing a sample, suppose the researchers wished to conduct telephone interviews with the entire population of eligible phone numbers in each of these four states. The number of telephone surveys to be conducted among the eligible and participating population would be prohibitive in a number of areas—time, expense, staff needs, and length of time required to complete, analyze, and report results. In short, it would simply not be feasible for a small research team to conduct such a study with an entire population.

The good news is that sampling, under certain conditions, allows researchers to retrieve results from a sample that are similar to the results that would have been obtained by utilizing the entire population. Although there will be some degree of difference between the results produced from a sample compared to an entire population (called sampling error), this error can be estimated and considered. In short, taking a smaller representative sample of a larger population is often as sufficient as surveying or otherwise utilizing the entire population in a research study.

Representativeness and Generalizability

Two foundations of sampling are representativeness and generalizability. This is particularly true when researchers utilize probability sampling methods, because a major goal of probability sampling is that the sample is representative of the larger population. Representativeness is achieved when the sample provides an accurate picture of the larger population. And if the sample represents the larger population, the results from the sample can then be used to make generalizations about the larger population.

Consider a hypothetical population of criminal justice students at a large university. Let’s say the criminal justice student population comprises 2,500 students, half males and half females. Suppose researchers randomly sampled approximately 500 criminal justice students, and 85% of the sample turned out to be males and only 15% females. Based only on gender, it is clear that this sample does not accurately represent the larger population of criminal justice students. Therefore, any results produced from the 500-person criminal justice sample cannot accurately be generalized back to the larger population. In fact, the results produced were almost entirely responses from males. The results may well represent the population of male criminal justice students at the university, but the results would not generalize to all criminal justice students in the population. In sum, samples can only be generalized back to what they represent—in this case, male criminal justice students and not all criminal justice students at the university.

The previous discussion brings up the issue of generalizing to a specific population and that of generalizing results beyond a particular population. If a sample is representative of a specific population, researchers can be confident that the results of a study generalize or apply back to the specific population from which they selected their sample. For example, if the sample of 500 criminal justice students above accurately represented the criminal justice student population by gender, we might say that any results produced from surveying the 500 criminal justice students reflects the results that would have been found by gender if the whole population of 2,500 criminal justice students was surveyed.

Generalizing results from a representative sample to a specific population does not mean that the results automatically generalize to all similar populations. For example, the opinions on carrying personal weapons on campus from a representative sample of criminal justice students at one Texas university may represent well the opinions of all criminal justice students on that campus. But their opinions may be much different from those of students at a university in Iowa, or criminal justice students in Norway. Perhaps the bottom line is that consumers must be attuned to notions of representativeness and generalizability and must be very cautious of research findings that purport to generalize well beyond the specific population and sample utilized in a research study. Only through replication with different samples from varying populations can more confidence be attached to such broad claims of generalizability between different populations.

RESEARCH IN THE NEWS

“CDC Surveys Irk Citizens”

Each year, dozens of national, state, and local agencies enter into agreements with various contractors to conduct telephone surveys that address a number of issues. Apparently, however, the method employed by the calling contractors of being “polite but persistent” is enough to make some respondents boil over with anger. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and their contractor, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), have drawn the ire of several citizens. According to one news article, those contacted by NORC on behalf of CDC via random digit dialing have slammed down phones, blown boat horns into the receiver, and cursed profusely in response to what they feel are aggressive, untimely, and repeated calls to participate in surveys.

The CDC says that citizen complaints are rare among the 1 million or more telephone calls and 100,000 interviews that NORC conducts each year on their behalf. There is even a website that tracks complaints about NORC, www.800notes.com , complaints that clearly show the annoyance of many citizens. Some respondents have gone to great lengths to show their displeasure with the continued calls. One respondent, for ex ample, explained in a post that she was going to provide false information and tie up employees by talking about her day.

Although respondents may register their number with DO NOT CALL registries, government researchers and surveyors are exempt from having to acknowledge the list. And despite the fact that individuals do not have to answer survey questions, it appears that such a denial is not enough to stop some surveyors.

1. Visit the website www.800notes.com and view some of the comments posted. What are your feelings toward repeated calls from a research or survey organization that identified your phone number via random digit dialing?

2. Based on what you know about human subjects’ consent and research participant rights, what are your feelings on repeated “cold calls” based on random digit dialing?

Adapted from JoNel Aleccia, Dial it down: Pesky CDC callers incite fury. Retrieved on May 12, 2011, at http://www.msnbc.com .

Sampling Error and Sample Size

Inasmuch as the results from a probability sample are meant to be a close approximation of what would actually be found if an entire population were utilized, there is certain to be some degree of difference in the results produced from a sample compared to a population. For example, survey results from a sample of citizens on attitudes toward rehabilitation versus incarceration will not likely be exactly identical to the overall survey results if an entire state population of citizens was surveyed.

The difference in results or outcomes between a sample and a population is called sampling error. Researchers expect there to be a difference between the sample results and the results from an entire population, even when the sample is representative of the population. The good news is that this margin of error can be estimated and considered in research. For an example, go watch any major news program and be attuned to survey results from national surveys. During election time, for example, major news networks broadcast any number of survey or poll results from random samples of U.S. citizens, often called scientific surveys to denote the samples were randomly chosen, and hence, probability samples of some sort. Results from such polls are usually graphically displayed with bar or pie charts and show the percent of Americans in favor or opposed to a particular candidate or issue. Results are usually accompanied by an indicator, such as “margin of error +/– 3%” or some other variation. Such an indicator means that results can vary up or down three percentage points. For example, suppose a survey of randomly selected citizens revealed a presidential approval rating of 47% with a margin of error +/– 3%. Considering the error or difference produced by utilizing a sample instead of an entire population (+/– 3%), the approval could be as high as 50% or as low as 44%. These statistics noted above are an indicator of sampling error, or the expected difference in results produced by sampling versus surveying the entire U.S. population. In short, we know that there will be some degree of error by using a sample; the major question is how much error. Sampling error gives us that indication.

One of the most important factors related to the degree of sampling error is sample size. A general rule is the larger the sample, the lower the sampling error. This is because as the sample gets larger, it more closely approximates the population, and therefore error or difference between the sample and population decreases. When the sample is equal to the population, the error is zero, because the sample is the population! Conversely, very small samples are less representative of the population, results are less generalizable to the population as a whole, and sampling error is greater. Of course, one must consider that even if an entire population was selected to participate in a survey, some eligible participants would not respond, other persons in the population would be unable to be reached or would be unknown (e.g., homeless individuals), and these issues are relevant to consider in discussions of sample versus population, and sampling error. But as a very general rule, the larger the sample, the less sampling error.

Students often wonder about the appropriate sample size for a particular research study. Based on the previous discussion, it would seem that the larger the sample, the better. This is generally true when considering the notion of sampling error. However, constraints of the research process—high costs, staffing, tight deadlines—might mean that a larger sample is not feasible. Study constraints notwithstanding, there is no clear-cut rule concerning what constitutes the appropriate sample size. Sample size depends on a number of considerations: size of the population, how much variability exists in the population, and demands of certain statistical techniques, among others.

Consider the issue of population variability. Instead of a social science survey, consider how large a sample of the world population we might need to take to determine what a human heart looks like. There are variations in human hearts to be sure based on age and lifestyle and many other considerations, but there is no need to cut into hundreds of people to come to a conclusion of what a human heart looks like. This is because when it comes to human hearts, there is not a lot of variability in the population. Very small samples in this example would suffice and would be representative of the population and therefore generalizable to the population as a whole. The sample size situation is different when we want to ask people their opinions on any number of issues—people who are spread across different cultures and geographies and who each have unique influences and life experiences. As opposed to a human heart, a larger sample is needed because there is much more diversity in the population.

The bottom line is that sample size is less important than obtaining a representative sample. An extremely large unrepresentative sample is much less useful than a more modest sample size that is representative of a particular population. In this way, samples are akin to gifts—bigger is not always better!

Probability Sampling Methods

The key feature that makes probability sampling methods different from non-probability sampling methods lies in how the sample is selected. In probability sampling methods, selection of the sample is accomplished through a random process such that every member of the population has an equal chance at selection for the sample. To ensure that every member of the population has an equal chance at selection, probability sampling techniques require a random and unbiased process for selection. Researchers must have access to a complete listing of the population, also called a sampling frame. In many cases, researchers might not have access to a list of the population. Researchers might also not have the resources, need, or motivation to utilize a complete list of the population, even if it were available. In these cases, non-probability samples are utilized. Such samples are not comprised of individuals with an equal chance at being selected for the sample.

Before delving into the various probability and non-probability sampling techniques, it is important to briefly revisit the notion of representativeness and generalizability. Researchers who are interested in generalizing sample results to a larger population must ensure that the sample is not biased and is an adequate representation of the population. Accomplishing representativeness, and hence generalizability, is the province of probability sampling techniques. The four probability sampling techniques are examined below.

Simple Random Sampling

Simple random samples are simply samples drawn randomly from a larger population. The key to selecting a simple random sample is that every member of the population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample—no one individual or group of individuals has a greater or lesser chance of getting selected than another individual or group of individuals.

The procedure for drawing a simple random sample is relatively straightforward, as with other forms of probability sampling (see Figure 3.1). First, the researcher must identify the target population from where the sample will be drawn. Selecting a target population is obviously driven by the aim of a particular research study. For example, if a researcher wishes to elicit the opinions of undergraduate criminal justice students at a large southern university, the population would be all undergraduate criminal justice students enrolled at the university. In another example, if the goal is to elicit the opinions of residents in Dade County, Florida, the population would be residents of Dade County, Florida.

Once the target population is identified, the researcher must obtain a listing of the population. Obtaining a listing of the population is one of the more difficult, yet crucial, parts of probability sampling. This list of the population is often called a sampling frame. Because a sampling frame is a list of the population, sampling frames come in many forms. For example, general sampling frames might include phone books, voter registration records, census contacts, or records from the department of motor vehicles. Each of these sampling frames includes members of a certain population, for example, residents of a city or county or other regional indicator. If a researcher wished to survey undergraduate criminal justice students for their opinions on carrying weapons on campus, the sampling frame would be a listing of all criminal justice students—by name or student number or some other indicator.

FIGURE 3.1 | Simple Random Sampling

One crucial consideration involved in the use of a sampling frame is that it be a complete listing of the population. Sampling frames that do not include all members of a target population are problematic. In cases where the sampling frame is incomplete in some way, any samples drawn from the sampling frame may not be truly representative of the population. For example, if a researcher used a phone book as a sampling frame of county residents, there is likely to be a substantial number of members from the population missing because not all residents have phones. In these cases, the true representativeness of the sample could be called into question, and hence, the generalizability of results produced from the sample. Conversely, a target population and sampling frame of all enrolled undergraduate criminal justice students at a particular university is likely to be complete. Nonetheless, an important step in selecting a simple random sample, and all probability samples, is the presence of a complete sampling frame.

Once a sampling frame is identified, the process of selecting a simple random sample requires that members of the population be selected in a way that each member has an equal chance of selection. In essence, members of the population must be selected randomly. There are a number of different ways to draw a random sample—flipping a coin, rolling a die, or using a lottery type machine. Perhaps the most common way of randomly selecting a sample from a population is through the use of a computer program. A variety of statistical software packages exist (e.g., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS]) that will randomly draw a sample from an identified list of the population. Note, for example, that the case study that began this chapter was a form of random selection via computer— random digit dialing. As opposed to using a phone book, however, the researchers utilized a computer program that randomly dialed the last four digits of phone numbers in the area codes among the specified states. Such a process means that every member of the population had an equal chance of having their phone number dialed. Unfortunately, those without a phone number could not be considered for the sample.

Whether members of a sample are selected by computer or some other random selection procedure, what can be ensured is that each member of the sample had an equal chance at selection. One problem with simple random samples, however, is that despite being randomly drawn, it cannot be ensured that the sample is representative of the population. In short, just because everyone in the population had an equal chance at being selected does not mean the sample automatically will represent the population. It is possible, for example, that by a chance occurrence the sample could be highly unrepresentative of the population. Consider, for example, the flipping of a coin. It is possible that flipping a regular coin over 100 times could result in the coin landing on heads 100 times, or 85 times, or 75 times—well beyond the 50 times we would expect by probability. Such an imbalance could occur simply by chance. The same problem could occur with simple random sampling. A population of 500 that included 50% males and 50% females could, by chance, result in a simple random sample with highly imbalanced proportions of one gender or the other. For example, a 200-person sample from this population that included 75% males would not be representative of the population—but this could occur, by chance.

In sum, simple random samples ensure that each member has an equal chance at being selected, but such samples do not guarantee representativeness of the population on known categories of information among the population (e.g., race, gender, age). Provided researchers have information on the population, it is possible to examine whether the sample indeed is an accurate reflection of the population. This is only possible on information to which the researchers are privy, however. For example, if researchers did not know the gender breakdown of the entire population, they would not be able to examine whether the sample is truly representative of the population. Because of the potential chance occurrence of nonrepresentativeness posed by simple random samples, researchers might choose to utilize a stratified random sampling technique.

Stratified Random Sampling

Stratified random sampling is quite similar to simple random sampling (see Figure 3.2 below). The major difference in a stratified sample versus a simple random sample is that the sampling frame is divided up into different strata, based on characteristics of the population. From there, smaller random samples are taken from each strata and then combined into a singular sample. This technique ensures that the final sample is representative of the population based on certain characteristics such as age, race, gender, or whatever is of interest in the research study.

Suppose we wished to conduct a survey on the alcohol drinking behaviors of undergraduates at your college. Let’s say we are most interested in determining whether alcohol consumption differs based upon credit-hour classification: freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. The population of the college is 4,000 individuals, and we want to take a sample of 100 persons. Based on our knowledge of the population, we know the proportion breakdowns of each classification: freshman (20%), sophomore (25%), junior (25%), and senior (30%). To ensure that our sample of 100 is representative of the population, we first must divide the sampling frame (a list of the student population) into four different strata consistent with the classifications for which we are interested. In essence, we are taking a list of the population of students (the sampling frame), and breaking up this larger sampling frame into four different sampling frames (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) to represent each classification. Once we have four sampling frames corresponding to all freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, we then take a random sample from each of the four sampling frames. The size of the random sample from each sampling frame is proportionate to each classification’s proportion of the population. For example, in our desired sample of 100 students, 20 freshman will be randomly selected from the freshman sampling frame, 25 sophomores will be randomly selected from the sophomore sampling frame, 25 juniors, and 30 seniors. This will result in a sample of 100 students, with each classification represented in the sample exactly to their proportion in the population.

FIGURE 3. 2 | Stratified Random Sampling (Proportionate)

The process above is an example of proportionate stratified sampling. In proportionate stratified sampling, each predetermined category of the sample (in this case freshman to senior) is represented in the sample exactly proportionate to their percentage of the population. For example, freshman make up 20% of the population, and likewise make up 20% of the final sample. The example above suggests that samples can be stratified based on any number of factors for which researchers have information about the population. For example, the sample could have been stratified by gender and credit-hour classification. To do this, the sampling frame of the entire population would be broken down into multiple sampling frames consistent with gender and classification: freshman women, freshman men, sophomore women, sophomore men, and so on. From there, the sample would simply be randomly selected from each strata, and the number of members in the sample from each strata would be proportionate to their existence in the population. For example, if freshman women make up 10% of the population, and we wish to take a final sample of 100 across gender and classification, 10 freshman women, or 10%, would be included in the final sample. At its essence, stratified sampling is a method researchers use to break down the population into particular sampling frames, and then take a random sample from each sampling frame to create a sample that is perfectly representative of the population (at least on the strata).

As a final note, sometimes researchers are interested in taking a sample from a larger population where one group or strata is overrepresented compared to the group’s proportion of the population. Of course, this smacks against all that has been learned thus far about representativeness. Indeed, in these situations, researchers are actually taking an unrepresentative sample of the population, and they do so on purpose. In some cases researchers do this when a group or strata of interest is so small that drawing a sample proportionate to the group’s membership in the population would result in a sample that is relatively meaningless if comparisons were to be made among other groups. For example, in the hypothetical study on alcohol consumption by credit-hour classification, suppose that freshmen made up only 1% of the population of 4,000 students, sophomores equaled 33%, juniors equaled 33%, and seniors equaled 33%. Among 4,000 students, this would equal only 40 students as the population of freshman. If the population was stratified by classification, and samples proportionate to the population were drawn from those strata, in a 100-person sample, only 1 freshman would be selected. While this 1-person sample would technically represent the proportion of freshmen in the population, this one person would not likely be representative of all 40 freshmen in the population relative to alcohol consumption. What if this one freshman, for example, drank a case of beer a day! This would probably not be an accurate representation of the freshman class. To correct for such extreme imbalances, researchers may oversample the small group, also considered disproportionate stratified sampling. Although it sounds counterintuitive, in some situations researchers must sample in a way that is unrepresentative to ensure adequate representation of a particular group in a sample.

WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS: IMPACTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE OPERATIONS

The Impact of Prison Rape Research

In 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was signed into law and became the first federal law dealing with sexual victimization in prisons and other confinement facilities. Spurred by PREA, dozens of research studies have been conducted over the last several years, addressing a variety of topics related to sexual victimization in prisons. For the most part, these studies have employed self-report surveys and examinations of official data collected by correctional agencies. Among other goals, the intent of such research is to understand the nature and extent of sexual victimization in prison with the goal of decreasing this form of violence behind bars. And because of the insight provided by these research studies, correctional agencies have developed or are developing a number of methods to help decrease the sexual victimization of prisoners and are having a substantial impact on correctional system operation.

One of the best sources of information on the strategies used by correctional agencies to address prison sexual victimization following PREA comes from the Urban Institute. The study was meant to provide a national-level picture of what is being done to address prison sexual victimization following PREA, and also to identify specific practices that appear promising in addressing this problem. To assess what correctional agencies are doing in the aftermath of PREA, Urban Institute researchers surveyed state correctional administrators, conducted phone interviews with 58 department of corrections representatives, and conducted case studies in 11 different states.

Overall, results from the Urban Institute study revealed that correctional agencies are responding to PREA’s call to identify and help reduce sexual victimization in prisons. Their study identified several new or developing policies, including enhanced data collection efforts to understand the extent of sexual victimization in prison, prevention efforts that include the hiring of special staff to deal with inmate reports of sexual victimization, and educational efforts for inmates on how to prevent sexual victimization, among others.

One example highlighted was the Texas prison system’s “Safe Prisons Program.” Developed following PREA, the Safe Prisons Program was created to address sexual victimization and other forms of violence and disorder in Texas prisons and includes components of data analysis, incident monitoring, staff training, and policy development. The program also includes a database to track perpetrators and victims of violence. Moreover, a special prosecution unit was developed to ease the burden on the local district attorney from prosecuting crimes that occurred in prison.

The research by the Urban Institute, and others, has not only shed light on a significant problem in correctional environments but has also spurred the development of significant correctional policy to help tackle this problem.

Zweig, J., Naser, R., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006). Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban institute.

Systematic Random Sampling

Systematic random sampling is another form of probability sampling. Like simple random and stratified random samples, systematic sampling utilizes a random process in the selection of the sample (see Figure 3.3 below). Systematic sampling involves a few basic, but important, steps to ensure that each member of the sample has an equal chance at being selected.

Systematic sampling begins with some sort of list or grouping, and members or items on the list or in the grouping are selected in intervals. The interval is often referred to as taking “every n th individual.” This means that one portion of selecting the sample entails taking every 5 th , or 6 th , or some other “ n th ”.

Consider taking a 50-person sample from a 100-person criminal justice class. In this scenario, the professor likely has a list of student names or student ID numbers. Or, the professor could simply line up all the students in front of the class (we are assuming all, of course, are in attendance for a complete population of the class).

Utilizing the student lineup, the professor has to first calculate the sampling interval, or n th value. To determine this interval, the professor simply divides the population (100) by the number of individuals desired in the sample (50). In this example, the sampling interval is 2 (100/50 = 2). This means every 2 nd person will be selected.

FIGURE 3.3 | Systematic Sampling

The next step to a systematic sample is critical and is what makes it a probability sample. Instead of automatically starting at the top of the list (or front of the lineup), and picking every 2 nd person, the professor must begin with a random starting point. A traditional way to pick a random starting point is to take all of the numbers involved in the interval (1 or 2 in this example), and randomly pick one of the numbers. If the professor picks 1, he or she will start at #1 in the lineup and then take every 2 nd person—1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and so on. If the professor picks 2, he or she will start at #2 and take every second person in the student lineup—2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and so on. An alternative method would be to take 100 numbers, select a number, and then proceed by taking every second person. For example, if the number 6 were chosen, the sample would consist of 6, 8, 10, 12, and so on. In each example, the outcome is essentially the same. In this latter example, once the professor reaches the end of the student lineup, he or she could simply continue selecting every 2 nd person by starting at the beginning of the student lineup until the 50-person sample has been achieved.

By using a random start, the professor ensures that each member of the class population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample. But to further ensure that systematic sampling results in an equal probability of selection, the professor must be sure that the student lineup is not sorted in any particular way that might lead to bias. For example, if the professor sorted the students in such a way that all even-numbered students had the highest class grades and odd-numbered students had the lowest class grades, a resulting sample might be highly biased and not representative of the class as a whole. Such is the case in any form of systematic sampling procedure—it must be ensured that the elements to be sampled are randomly arranged, and do not follow a particular pattern.

Cluster/Multistage Random Sampling

It is sometimes the case that researchers wish to take a sample of individuals dispersed across wide geographical areas. For example, suppose a researcher wanted to conduct a paper-and-pencil survey with a representative sample of 5,000 prison inmates across the sprawling state of Texas. Texas incarcerates more than 150,000 inmates spread across more than 100 incarceration facilities. Because Texas is so large and prison inmates are dispersed all over the state, the thought of drawing a representative sample is a daunting task.

Cluster sampling is a way to narrow down the process of sampling to help ensure that samples are representative of the large population of focus. In this way, cluster sampling first begins by narrowing down large geographic areas—whether they are states, census tracts, or any other large area—into more manageable parts. From there, a series of random samples are drawn of different units, for example, randomly selected prison facilities, randomly selected housing areas within those prison facilities, and finally, randomly selected inmates from the housing areas. The series of random samples implicates the multistage part of cluster/multistage sampling—multiple random samples (see Figure 3.4 below).

Operationally, the first step in the hypothetical prison inmates study would be to narrow down the state of Texas by breaking it down into manageable clusters. Although methods vary, perhaps the state of Texas could be broken down into areas based upon the regions in which prison facilities are located located (or N, S, E, and W as in Figure 3.4). For example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is divided into six regions. This could be an initial clustering of the state of Texas. Next, the researcher might obtain a listing of all prison facilities located within each of the six regions. This list serves as a sort of sampling frame. From there, the researcher may choose to draw a simple random sample of five prison facilities in each region, for a total of 30 prison facilities across the state. Note that instead of a simple random sample, the researcher could have stratified the list of prison facilities by any number of measures, such as size, type of inmate population, and so on.

Once the 30 prison facilities are randomly selected, the researcher continues to select random samples. For example, the researcher might obtain a list of all inmates at each of the 30 prison facilities. Once the sampling frame of each facility is obtained, the researcher then selects a random sample of inmates from each facility. In this hypothetical study, this would equal approximately 167 inmates sampled from each of the 30 randomly selected prison facilities for a total of approximately 5,000 inmates.

FIGURE 3.4 | Cluster/Multistage Sampling

As before, any number of steps could be added to the process above. For example, separate housing areas could be randomly sampled within each of the 30 prison facilities. Then, inmates could be randomly chosen from the sampled housing areas. Still further, in each stage, proportionate or disproportionate stratification could occur to help make the sample as representative of the population as possible. As can be seen, cluster/multistage sampling can become tedious. In reality, however, cluster/multistage sampling can be boiled down to the successive drawing of random samples from populations that are large and widely dispersed.

Non-Probability Sampling Methods

As opposed to probability sampling techniques, non-probability samples are not drawn through a random and unbiased procedure. There are many potential reasons that might preclude utilizing a random sample. A main reason is that a ready-made list of the population simply may not be available. For example, suppose a researcher was interested in studying the subculture of hoboes. Although the town of Britt, Iowa, holds the National Hobo Convention each year, there is little in the way of a complete list of hoboes. Moreover, even if Britt kept a list of all hoboes who attend the National Convention, this list would certainly not be complete and capture all hoboes in America. In this situation, the researcher may only have access to a defined number of hoboes. As previously mentioned, a research team may not have the resources, need, or motivation to utilize a complete list of the population, even if it was available. In some cases, those who utilize non-probability sampling techniques are actually interested in a sample that does not necessarily represent some larger population. In these cases, non-probability samples are utilized. Such samples are comprised of individuals from known or unknown populations who did not have an equal chance at being selected for the sample.

At this juncture it is important to note the potential issues faced when members of a particular sample are selected through non-probability sampling methods. Regardless of the reasons for selecting a non-probability sample, the important point to consider is that the resulting sample is likely not representative of a larger population. Absent representativeness, the results generated from a non-probability sample cannot be generalized to a larger population. An examination of different non-probability samples may make it clearer why a researcher might want to utilize these sampling techniques, as opposed to a probability sampling technique.

Convenience Sampling

Perhaps the most basic of all sampling techniques is convenience sampling (also called accidental or haphazard or person-on-the-street sampling). With convenience sampling, individuals in the sample are chosen based on convenience. In this way, it is a form of first-come, first-serve sampling.

Convenience sampling is perhaps the most common form of sampling consumed by the average citizen. Local news casts, for example, that stop people on the street and ask their opinion on any number of topics are typically convenience samples. The advent of the Internet has made surveys based on convenience sampling ever-present. Go visit any 10 websites from sporting websites to governmental research organizations to magazine websites and you are sure to have abundant opportunities to take a survey on any pressing issue. These surveys may come in the form of more aggressive pop-ups, or more passive enticements to complete a survey. Regardless, all of these forms of gathering data are based on convenience sampling—anyone can respond, and usually, multiple times.

The obvious problem with convenience sampling is that it is likely the sample is not representative of the larger population. This does not mean that convenience sampling is not useful. However, if the sample does not represent the population, the results from the sample cannot be generalized to the larger population. This is the critical piece of knowledge that should be understood by research consumers. In many cases, results generated from convenience samples are portrayed to represent the attitudes, opinions, and perspectives of the larger population. This is erroneous. Survey results from a convenience sample, in reality, only represent and hence are generalizable to the sample. For example, suppose a local news crew was on your campus today and stopped 100 students on their way to class to ask their opinions regarding whether students should be able to carry concealed handguns on campus. Suppose the local news crew revealed that 90% of students they surveyed believed that concealed handguns should be allowed on campus. What if 90 out of 100 students who believed guns should be allowed on campus just exited an organizational meeting of a group whose members’ sole purpose is to promote the carrying of weapons on campus. The result from this survey would surely represent the feelings of the convenience sample, but the results might be completely different from students on the campus as a whole if they were instead selected randomly.

Convenience sampling has its uses in the research process. However, results generated from a convenience sample are not likely generalizable to the larger population from which the sample was obtained. As a result, data produced from a convenience sample is quite limited to the specific attributes of the sample and often must be interpreted with some caution.

“Wild West Universities”

In a study of guns and gun threats on college campuses, researchers Miller, Hemenway, and Wechsler surveyed a random sample of more than 10,000 undergraduate students from 119 four-year colleges in the U.S. Utilizing a mailed questionnaire, survey questions specifically asked whether respondents possessed a working firearm at college and also whether they had been threatened with a gun at college. Results of the survey revealed that just over 4% of students had a working firearm at college and just under 2% had been threatened with a gun while at school. Interestingly, the researchers revealed that students most likely to have a gun and/or have been threatened with a gun were male, lived off campus, binge drank, and engaged in risky or aggressive behavior after drinking.

This study is interesting in and of itself, but it seems particularly relevant as state legislatures are increasingly debating the merits of allowing guns on college campuses. In Texas, for example, the state senate voted in May 2011 to allow guns on campus for individuals who have completed a state-mandated concealed handgun course. Because the bill allowing guns on college campuses is heavily favored in the Texas House, and by Governor Rick Perry, it appears that Texas college students may have the opportunity to come to class strapped, locked and loaded.

1. Based on the research findings by Miller and colleagues, do you feel comfortable with a law allowing college students to carry concealed guns on campus?

2. Take time to look up research and commentary concerning guns on college campuses. Based on your research, has this changed your opinion on allowing college students to carry concealed guns on campus?

Miller, M., Hemenway, D., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Guns and gun threats at college. Journal of American College Health, 51, 57–65

Purposive Sampling

Purposive sampling (also called judgmental sampling) is aptly named because the researcher is specifically interested in the attributes of the particular sample that was purposely chosen for its characteristics. It is also called judgmental sampling because the researcher is using his or her judgment in selecting a sample that is specific to the goal of the research. A case in point might be the selection of mock jury samples by individuals who work as jury consultants. Jury consultants may, for example, choose members of a sample based on factors such as age, income, education, or anything else that might be useful. Once a particular sample of mock jury members is chosen on these criteria, the jury consultant may present particular pieces of evidence and survey sample members on their feelings toward guilt or innocence at particular phases of evidence presentation. Such consultants might further modify certain variables, such as the method of presentation, the type of presentation, who presents the material, and any other factor so that the jury consultant can examine the impact of these changes on mock juror opinions of guilt and innocence.

In this example, the jury consultant is specifically interested in selecting mock jury members who have particular attributes. Information obtained from a mock jury sample can be used in any number of ways, particularly in voir dire proceedings in which the defense, for example, may attempt to select or strike jurors based on certain characteristics that have been found to influence juror opinions. For example, if through the mock jury trials, high-income individuals were more likely to vote for conviction of a residential burglar than individuals of low income, the jury consultant may recommend to defense lawyers to avoid selecting jurors of a high-income bracket.

No matter how purposive sampling is utilized, the goal of the individual selecting the sample is to be very purposive in selecting the particular sample needed. There is little interest in selecting a representative sample from a larger population; rather, the interest lies in selecting a specific sample that fulfills the goal of the research.

Quota Sampling

Quota sampling is quite similar to convenience sampling. The one major difference is that quota samples are based on some known characteristic of the population. For example, suppose researchers were interested in the opinions of students at a mid-size college on whether students should be allowed to conceal and carry guns on campus. Instead of simply surveying students on a first-come, first-serve basis as in convenience sampling, suppose the researchers were interested in making sure the sample at least reflected the gender composition of the population on campus. For example, at the campus of interest, the student population of 5,000 is evenly split, 50% female and 50% male. The researchers want to take a sample of 100 students. In a quota sample, the researchers will simply ensure that 50 opinion surveys are given to women, and 50 surveys are given to males—largely on a convenience basis. In short, the researchers are interested in obtaining a quota based on the gender composition of the college population.

Although quota sampling is slightly more rigorous than convenience sampling, it is not by much. Despite the fact that researchers are ensuring that the sample is reflective of the proportion of students in the population by gender or some other known characteristic, the sample is still essentially convenience based. As a result, every member of the campus population does not have an equal chance at being selected, and thus, is not representative of the larger college population. Because it is not representative, the results generated from the quota sample do not represent the college population.

Snowball Sampling

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling technique utilized when one is attempting to study hard-to-access populations, or more typically, populations whose members are not easily identifiable. For example, there is likely no sampling frame or list (at least not a public one) that contains members of a particular subculture from which to draw a sample. Such groups could range from gang members to those involved in an underground fight club. In a general way, snowball sampling might be considered referral sampling. Because members of a particular population may not be easily identifiable, the researcher attempts to initiate contact with one known member, and through referral, is introduced to subsequent members of the group. Through this referral process, the sample begins to snowball, or grow.

As with all non-probability samples, something to consider with snowball samples is that the end sample may not be representative of the entire population. This is because each member of the population did not have an equal chance at being selected for the sample. In many cases of snowball sampling, the researcher may ultimately only be privy to a small number of members from a larger population. Because representativeness cannot be ensured, neither can generalizability.

Noting the above, recall the many purposes of research: describe, explore, explain, apply, and evaluate. In many cases of non-probability sampling, and specifically with snowball sampling, researchers are interested in exploring a lesser known topic in hopes that future research can delve further. In this way, sometimes non-probability sampling is utilized to provide an overall explanation of a particular area—a sort of starting point on which to build future research efforts.

Chapter Summary

This chapter covered forms of probability and non-probability sampling. Probability sampling is used when the goal of a research study is to obtain an accurate representation of the population for the purposes of generalizability. Whether the population consists of students, city residents, or others, probability sampling techniques ensure that each member of the known population has an equal chance at selection. Simply ensuring that each member of a particular population has an equal chance at selection does not ensure representativeness. And, a representative sample does not ensure results from the sample will generalize to different places and times. However, probability sampling makes achieving the goals of representativeness and generalizability more likely than non-probability samples. Although probability samples are superior to non-probability samples when the goal is representativeness and generalizability, this should not be taken to mean that non-probability samples are not useful in research methods. Non-probability samples—samples in which each member of a particular population does not have an equal chance of selection—are often very useful in particular research studies.

In an overall view, both probability and non-probability sampling techniques should be viewed as a set of tools. Sometimes the right tool is a probability sampling technique, and sometimes the right tool is a non-probability sampling technique. In many cases, the tool used is highly dependent upon the research question that is being asked. Knowing which tool is appropriate to a particular research question is a good step on the path to becoming an informed consumer of research.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is the difference between probability and non-probability samples?

2. What are some reasons a researcher would utilize a sample instead of a population?

3. What is sampling error?

4. What is the difference between representativeness and generalizability?

5. What is more important: sample size or representativeness? Explain your thoughts.

cluster/multistage sampling: A type of probability sampling in which large geographical areas are clustered, or divided, into smaller parts. From there, random samples of individuals or groups or locations are taken in successive or multiple steps. For example, breaking a state down into regions would be a form of clustering. From there, taking a simple or stratified or systematic random sample of schools from each cluster would be one stage of sampling. A next stage of sampling might be randomly selecting students from each randomly selected school

convenience sampling: A form of non-probability sampling in which the sample is composed of persons of first contact. Also known as accidental or haphazard sampling, or person-on-the-street sampling

generalizability: In reference to sampling, refers to the ability of the sample findings to generalize or be applied to the larger population. For example, let’s say the findings of a sample survey on attitudes toward the death penalty reveal the majority of the sample is in support of the death penalty. If the sample is a good representation of the population, the results from this survey can be generalized or applied to the population

non-probability sampling methods: As opposed to probability sampling methods, non-probability sampling methods include those sampling techniques in which every member of the population does not have an equal chance at being selected for the sample

population: A population is a complete group. A population could be all students at a university, all members of a city, or all members of a church. A defining feature of a population is that it be complete

probability sampling methods: As opposed to non-probability sampling methods, probability sampling methods include those sampling techniques where every member of the population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample. Such procedures increase the probability that the sample is representative of the population, and hence, that the results produced from the sample are generalizable to the population

proportionate stratified sampling: A sampling method in which each predetermined category of the sample is represented in the sample exactly proportionate to their percentage or fraction of the total population

purposive sampling: As a non-probability sample, purposive sampling involves the researcher selecting a specific or purposeful sample based on the needs of the research. If a researcher was interested in the techniques of residential burglars, their sample would be focused only on such burglars

quota sampling: Similar to convenience sampling, quota sampling does involve taking into account a known characteristic of the population. For example, if 50% of the population is female, and the researcher wants a 100-person sample to survey, the researcher must survey exactly 50 females in a quota sample. Once the quota of 50 females is met, no other females will be surveyed

random digit dialing: A sampling process involving phone numbers where a computer randomly dials the last 4 digits of a telephone number in a given area code using a known prefix. Random digit dialing, in this way, can help remedy the problem of unlisted phone numbers or numbers for which there is no so-called phone book (e.g., cell phones)

randomly drawn sample: A sample for which each member of the population has an equal chance at being selected. Samples not drawn through a random process are those in which each member of the population does not have an equal chance at being selected for the sample

representativeness: In probability sampling processes, representativeness occurs when the smaller sample is an accurate representation of the larger population

sample: A sample is a smaller part of a population

sampling: The process of selecting a smaller group from a larger group. In probability sampling, for example, a smaller group or sample of individuals is taken from the larger group or population. The goal is that the smaller sample accurately represents the population, despite being smaller in number

sampling error: The percentage of error or difference in using a sample instead of an entire population

sampling frame: A complete list of the population that the researcher will use to take a sample. If the sampling frame does not include each member of the population, and hence is not complete, a researcher must question how those who are listed on the sampling frame differ from those who are not accounted for on the sampling frame

simple random samples: As a form of probability sampling, simple random samples are samples randomly drawn from a larger population. Although each member of the population has an equal chance at being selected for the sample, this form of sample cannot guarantee representativeness

snowball sampling: A non-probability sampling technique utilized when a researcher is attempting to study hard to access populations. It is also referred to as referral sampling. In snowball sampling a researcher makes a contact, and that contact refers another, and so on. After time, the sample snowballs or gets larger. Because there is no ready to use sampling frame for some populations (e.g., gang members), researchers must use contacts and referrals to get a sample

stratified random sampling: Stratified sampling is a form of probability sampling where several simple random samples are taken from a population that has been divided up into strata, such as age, race, gender, or any number of strata based on information about the population

systematic random sampling: Systematic random sampling involves selecting every nth person (e.g., 5th, 10th, etc.) from a list. To be considered a probability sample, the starting point on the list must be chosen at random

target population: The population of interest for a particular research study (e.g., all prison inmates, all domestic violence arrestees)

1 Piquero, A., and L. Steinberg. (2010). “Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1–6.

2 Nagin, D., A. S. Piquero, E. S. Scott, and L. Steinburg. (2006). “Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey.” Criminology and Public Policy , 5, 301–326.

3 Wright, R., S. H. Decker, A. K. Redfern, and D. L. Smith. (1992). “A snowball’s chance in hell: Doing fieldwork with active residential burglars.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 148–161.

4 Vogt, W.P. (1993). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 200.

Applied Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology by University of North Texas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Research methods in criminal justice and criminology, additional details.

160 Gould Street , Needham Heights , MA 02194-2310 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

• Skip to main menu
• Skip to user menu

What Jobs Can You Get With A Criminology Degree - A New Scientist Careers Guide

• Career guides

Criminology is the study of crime. The expertise acquired through completing a degree in criminology is applicable to many jobs.

Criminology degrees, typically BA Hons criminology, combine several disciplines – for example, sociology, politics, psychology , history and law – to give students an understanding of criminal behaviour, victimisation and criminal justice systems, and to equip them with transferable skills such as evaluating evidence, critical thinking, problem-solving and making reasoned arguments.

Students gain theoretical knowledge of crime and criminal justice and then apply this to contemporary problems such as cybercrime, drug trafficking and terrorism. They also learn criminology research methods and acquire research skills . Learning is via a mix of lectures, seminars and independent study and is often mainly assessed through coursework, for example, writing essays.e

According to The Guardian , the best universities for criminology in the UK are University College London, Staffordshire University, Durham University, the University of Bolton and the University of Bath.

Jobs for criminology graduates are diverse. They may be employed by, for example, governments, the police, prison services, security services and charities working with young offenders or crime victims. If you are wondering “what can I do with a criminology degree?”, this article outlines some of the many career paths  open to criminology graduates.

Police officer

Police officers work to keep people and communities safe by enforcing law, protecting people and property, preventing crime and antisocial behaviour, and investigating crime to ensure successful prosecutions against perpetrators. This job is all about crime prevention and public safety.

Routine duties include: responding to calls for help from the public; patrolling areas to deter and detect crime; upholding peace at large events; interviewing victims, suspects and witnesses of crime; arresting suspects; and giving evidence in court. Police officers also advise the public about keeping safe. Understanding criminal behav iour, crime patterns and criminal justice systems is essential for police officers. This knowledge – as well as skills in evaluating and effectively using evidence to back up reasoning – can be acquired through completing a degree in criminology.

The two-year Degree Holder Entry Programme, which combines work-based training with additional learning focusing on a specialist area such as intelligence , community or roads, is an option for criminology graduates looking to enter policing.

Police officers earn between £19,000 and £41,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities for promotion through the ranks by gaining experience and passing examinations and for specialisation, for example, criminal investigation department (CID), firearms and dog-handling.

Crime scene investigator (CSI)

Crime scene investigators collect forensic and photographic evidence from crime scenes and process this evidence for use in criminal investigations. Examples of evidence include fingerprints, weapons, clothing, tissue samples, and photos and videos of the crime scene. Crime scene investigators are also responsible for preventing contamination of crime scenes, preparing reports and giving evidence in court. This job is all about using science and data to solve crimes.

A degree in criminology, or a degree that combines criminology and another discipline such as forensic science , is beneficial in applying for crime scene investigator jobs. This is because crime scene investigators need to be able to identify, record and catalogue evidence and guide its use in criminal investigations. These skills can be developed by studying criminology.

Crime scene investigators earn between £16,000 and £37,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities to progress to leadership roles within crime scene investigation teams.

Prison officer

Prison officers are responsible for the custody and welfare of people in prison and for smooth operations within prisons. They supervise prisoners’ movements within prisons and on external visits to courts and appointments; conduct security checks on prisoners, visitors and staff; and maintain order, using authorised physical restraint if necessary.

A criminology degree is beneficial for prison officers as it equips them with an understanding of public safety and security, court procedures and government regulations. They also need to have an insight into criminal and antisocial behaviour.

Prison officers earn between £30,000 and £38,000 per year in the UK. With experience and further training, they can specialise in, for example, rehabilitation work or progress to senior and managerial roles .

Police detective

Police detectives oversee criminal investigations. These are complex cases relating too, for example, child protection, drugs, homicide, robbery or terrorism.

Routine duties include: analysing records and documents ; interviewing victims, suspects and witnesses of crime; conducting raids and searches; and monitoring and arresting suspects. Although being a police detective is physically and mentally demanding, solving crimes and bringing criminals to justice is a rewarding job.

A degree in criminology is useful for aspiring police detectives, as understanding how criminals think and why they do what they do is essential to this job. Graduates with at least a 2:2 honours degree are eligible for the two-year Police Now National Detectives Programme, which combines classroom and field training in managing serious and complex crime.

Police detectives earn between £26,000 and £91,000 per year in the UK, depending on rank. This is among the highest paying jobs with a criminology degree.

There are opportunities to undertake training to work in specialist departments, for example, CID, which deals with incidents such as suspicious deaths, serious assaults and major property theft. Other specialist departments are firearms squad, which responds to firearms-related incidents, and Special Branch, which handles threats to national security.  

Probation officer

Probation officers work with people serving community and prison sentences to help them to stay away from crime.

Day-to-day responsibilities include: interviewing offenders before parole to aid prison and parole decisions; ensuring offenders’ attendance at supervision appointments and rehabilitation programmes; encouraging changes in offenders’ attitudes and behaviours ; helping recent offenders to access work, housing and health services; and enforcing conditions of community orders.

Probation officers work to reduce reoffending by collaborating with offenders, victims, police and prison service staff, and voluntary agencies. By facilitating better choices, they make a real difference to people’s lives.

Probation officers need to understand why people commit crimes and how to help them stop. They also need to have excellent communication skills. Therefore, a degree in criminology is very useful.

Trainees also complete a Professional Qualification in Probation, which combines work and study, to become fully qualified probation officers. The length of this training may be shorter for degree holders who have studied criminology.  

Probation officers earn between £24,000 and £40,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities for progression to senior roles.

Criminologist

Criminologists, also known as social science researchers, study the reasons that people commit crimes, with the aim of helping to prevent crime.

Criminologists analyse qualitative and quantitative data to identify crime patterns and how these are affected by rehabilitation programmes. This work informs policy-makers in the policing and criminal justice systems.

Some criminologists work in academia and are employed by higher education institutions. They design and conduct social science experiments and also teach students.

Other criminologists are employed by the police, local authorities or intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6, or work on a consultancy basis. They interpret studies and analyse real-world data to guide criminal investigations, for example, by identifying whether a series of crimes are related or by doing criminal profiling.

Criminologists also advise on social policies aimed at reducing criminal activity, for example, the design of public spaces.

A degree in criminology is the first step in the path to becoming a criminologist as it provides foundational knowledge of concepts within the field as well as some research experience . It also equips people with skills such as communication, attention to detail and data analysis, which are critical for this job.

Criminologists earn between £23,000 and £36,000 per year in the UK. Postgraduate qualifications in criminology are typically required to work in academia. With experience, criminologists can progress to senior policy adviser roles within local or national governments or the police, or senior teaching roles at universities. Joining the British Society of Criminology is a good way to network within this field.

From academic work as criminologists to hands-on work as crime scene investigators, many exciting criminology graduate jobs are on offer. Studying this course equips graduates with many valued skills, particularly critical thinking and effective use of evidence. These skills are useful in many career pathways.  

• Prospects: Criminology – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/criminology
• The Guardian: Best UK universities for criminology – available from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2023/sep/09/best-uk-universities-for-criminology-league-table
• FutureLearn: Jobs with a criminology degree – available from: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/10-jobs-you-can-do-with-a-criminology-degree
• National Careers Service: Police officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/police-officer
• Prospects: Police officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/police-officer 
• National Careers Service: Scenes of crime officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/scenes-of-crime-officer
• Prospects: Crime scene investigator – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/crime-scene-investigator
• National Careers Service: Prison officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/prison-officer
• Prospects: Prison officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/prison-officer
• National Careers Service: Probation officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
• Prospects: Probation officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
• National Careers Service: Criminologist – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/criminologist  

Share this article

Related articles

What Jobs Can You Get With A Biology Degree - A New Scientist Careers Guide

Best Universities For Biomedical Science in the UK - A New Scientist Careers Guide

How To Become A Clinical Scientist - A New Scientist Careers Guide

Latest articles.

• Skip to main menu
• Skip to user menu

Sign up for our regular email newsletter

What Jobs Can You Get With A Criminology Degree - A New Scientist Careers Guide

• Career guides

Criminology is the study of crime. The expertise acquired through completing a degree in criminology is applicable to many jobs.

Criminology degrees, typically BA Hons criminology, combine several disciplines – for example, sociology, politics, psychology , history and law – to give students an understanding of criminal behaviour, victimisation and criminal justice systems, and to equip them with transferable skills such as evaluating evidence, critical thinking, problem-solving and making reasoned arguments.

Students gain theoretical knowledge of crime and criminal justice and then apply this to contemporary problems such as cybercrime, drug trafficking and terrorism. They also learn criminology research methods and acquire research skills . Learning is via a mix of lectures, seminars and independent study and is often mainly assessed through coursework, for example, writing essays.e

According to The Guardian , the best universities for criminology in the UK are University College London, Staffordshire University, Durham University, the University of Bolton and the University of Bath.

Jobs for criminology graduates are diverse. They may be employed by, for example, governments, the police, prison services, security services and charities working with young offenders or crime victims. If you are wondering “what can I do with a criminology degree?”, this article outlines some of the many career paths  open to criminology graduates.

Police officer

Police officers work to keep people and communities safe by enforcing law, protecting people and property, preventing crime and antisocial behaviour, and investigating crime to ensure successful prosecutions against perpetrators. This job is all about crime prevention and public safety.

Routine duties include: responding to calls for help from the public; patrolling areas to deter and detect crime; upholding peace at large events; interviewing victims, suspects and witnesses of crime; arresting suspects; and giving evidence in court. Police officers also advise the public about keeping safe. Understanding criminal behav iour, crime patterns and criminal justice systems is essential for police officers. This knowledge – as well as skills in evaluating and effectively using evidence to back up reasoning – can be acquired through completing a degree in criminology.

The two-year Degree Holder Entry Programme, which combines work-based training with additional learning focusing on a specialist area such as intelligence , community or roads, is an option for criminology graduates looking to enter policing.

Police officers earn between £19,000 and £41,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities for promotion through the ranks by gaining experience and passing examinations and for specialisation, for example, criminal investigation department (CID), firearms and dog-handling.

Crime scene investigator (CSI)

Crime scene investigators collect forensic and photographic evidence from crime scenes and process this evidence for use in criminal investigations. Examples of evidence include fingerprints, weapons, clothing, tissue samples, and photos and videos of the crime scene. Crime scene investigators are also responsible for preventing contamination of crime scenes, preparing reports and giving evidence in court. This job is all about using science and data to solve crimes.

A degree in criminology, or a degree that combines criminology and another discipline such as forensic science , is beneficial in applying for crime scene investigator jobs. This is because crime scene investigators need to be able to identify, record and catalogue evidence and guide its use in criminal investigations. These skills can be developed by studying criminology.

Crime scene investigators earn between £16,000 and £37,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities to progress to leadership roles within crime scene investigation teams.

Prison officer

Prison officers are responsible for the custody and welfare of people in prison and for smooth operations within prisons. They supervise prisoners’ movements within prisons and on external visits to courts and appointments; conduct security checks on prisoners, visitors and staff; and maintain order, using authorised physical restraint if necessary.

A criminology degree is beneficial for prison officers as it equips them with an understanding of public safety and security, court procedures and government regulations. They also need to have an insight into criminal and antisocial behaviour.

Prison officers earn between £30,000 and £38,000 per year in the UK. With experience and further training, they can specialise in, for example, rehabilitation work or progress to senior and managerial roles .

Police detective

Police detectives oversee criminal investigations. These are complex cases relating too, for example, child protection, drugs, homicide, robbery or terrorism.

Routine duties include: analysing records and documents ; interviewing victims, suspects and witnesses of crime; conducting raids and searches; and monitoring and arresting suspects. Although being a police detective is physically and mentally demanding, solving crimes and bringing criminals to justice is a rewarding job.

A degree in criminology is useful for aspiring police detectives, as understanding how criminals think and why they do what they do is essential to this job. Graduates with at least a 2:2 honours degree are eligible for the two-year Police Now National Detectives Programme, which combines classroom and field training in managing serious and complex crime.

Police detectives earn between £26,000 and £91,000 per year in the UK, depending on rank. This is among the highest paying jobs with a criminology degree.

There are opportunities to undertake training to work in specialist departments, for example, CID, which deals with incidents such as suspicious deaths, serious assaults and major property theft. Other specialist departments are firearms squad, which responds to firearms-related incidents, and Special Branch, which handles threats to national security.  

Probation officer

Probation officers work with people serving community and prison sentences to help them to stay away from crime.

Day-to-day responsibilities include: interviewing offenders before parole to aid prison and parole decisions; ensuring offenders’ attendance at supervision appointments and rehabilitation programmes; encouraging changes in offenders’ attitudes and behaviours ; helping recent offenders to access work, housing and health services; and enforcing conditions of community orders.

Probation officers work to reduce reoffending by collaborating with offenders, victims, police and prison service staff, and voluntary agencies. By facilitating better choices, they make a real difference to people’s lives.

Probation officers need to understand why people commit crimes and how to help them stop. They also need to have excellent communication skills. Therefore, a degree in criminology is very useful.

Trainees also complete a Professional Qualification in Probation, which combines work and study, to become fully qualified probation officers. The length of this training may be shorter for degree holders who have studied criminology.  

Probation officers earn between £24,000 and £40,000 per year in the UK. There are opportunities for progression to senior roles.

Criminologist

Criminologists, also known as social science researchers, study the reasons that people commit crimes, with the aim of helping to prevent crime.

Criminologists analyse qualitative and quantitative data to identify crime patterns and how these are affected by rehabilitation programmes. This work informs policy-makers in the policing and criminal justice systems.

Some criminologists work in academia and are employed by higher education institutions. They design and conduct social science experiments and also teach students.

Other criminologists are employed by the police, local authorities or intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6, or work on a consultancy basis. They interpret studies and analyse real-world data to guide criminal investigations, for example, by identifying whether a series of crimes are related or by doing criminal profiling.

Criminologists also advise on social policies aimed at reducing criminal activity, for example, the design of public spaces.

A degree in criminology is the first step in the path to becoming a criminologist as it provides foundational knowledge of concepts within the field as well as some research experience . It also equips people with skills such as communication, attention to detail and data analysis, which are critical for this job.

Criminologists earn between £23,000 and £36,000 per year in the UK. Postgraduate qualifications in criminology are typically required to work in academia. With experience, criminologists can progress to senior policy adviser roles within local or national governments or the police, or senior teaching roles at universities. Joining the British Society of Criminology is a good way to network within this field.

From academic work as criminologists to hands-on work as crime scene investigators, many exciting criminology graduate jobs are on offer. Studying this course equips graduates with many valued skills, particularly critical thinking and effective use of evidence. These skills are useful in many career pathways.  

• Prospects: Criminology – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/criminology
• The Guardian: Best UK universities for criminology – available from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2023/sep/09/best-uk-universities-for-criminology-league-table
• FutureLearn: Jobs with a criminology degree – available from: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/10-jobs-you-can-do-with-a-criminology-degree
• National Careers Service: Police officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/police-officer
• Prospects: Police officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/police-officer 
• National Careers Service: Scenes of crime officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/scenes-of-crime-officer
• Prospects: Crime scene investigator – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/crime-scene-investigator
• National Careers Service: Prison officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/prison-officer
• Prospects: Prison officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/prison-officer
• National Careers Service: Probation officer – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
• Prospects: Probation officer – available from: https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/probation-officer
• National Careers Service: Criminologist – available from: https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/criminologist  

Share this article

Related articles

What Jobs Can You Get With A Biology Degree - A New Scientist Careers Guide

Best Universities For Biomedical Science in the UK - A New Scientist Careers Guide

How To Become A Clinical Scientist - A New Scientist Careers Guide

Latest articles.

• Global directory Global directory
• Product logins Product logins
• Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

The past, present, and future of legal research with generative AI

Legal technology has quickly evolved from a books-only exercise to outmatched AI-supported technology - with predictive analytics, precision research capabilities and powerful new citator tools.

Westlaw Precision | Harness the power of generative AI

Innovative tools deliver advanced speed and accuracy, providing you with greater confidence in your legal research

CoCounsel: The GenAI assistant for legal professionals

Bringing together generative AI, trusted content, and expert insights for a new era of work.

Build a career without boundaries

Learn more about how Thomson Reuters informs the way forward in The Power of Purpose

Related posts

Thomson Reuters showcases CoCounsel with Microsoft Copilot during 2024 Microsoft Build

Generative AI for legal professionals: Its growing potential and top use cases

Legal terms glossary

More answers.

Operational risk management (ORM): An overview

GenAI for corp legal: What to do this year

Authenticity in law: Navigating AI innovation as the ‘Word of the Year’ companion