NCJ Number
146019
Journal
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Volume: 30 Issue: 4 Dated: (November 1993) Pages: 497-505
Date Published
1993
Length
9 pages
Annotation
The author defends criminological research and identifies four common (erroneous) explanations for its limited use in policymaking.
Abstract
Explanation 1: Evidence is not yet sufficient for policy guidance. A highly regarded criminologist even recommended less engagement in public policy matters, because of the refutability of much scientifically produced data. However, continuous challenge and reversal of findings is a hallmark of science, and a testimony to progress. Explanation 2: The research issues that criminologists pursue are either too broad or too narrow to have much policy relevance. This explanation may have been true in the past, but "applied criminology" is now a recognized subspecialty among criminologists. Explanation 3: Research evidence, although scientifically sufficient and policy- relevant, is not effectively disseminated. This problem is relatively easy to fix, requiring that researchers gear their writing to a broader constituency--that is, not just colleagues, but also policymakers, the media, and the general public. Explanation 4: Research is rigorous, policy- relevant, and well disseminated, but ignored due to political, legal, administrative, and moral factors. Researchers and policymakers inherently distrust each other; criminologists may expect too much to come from their findings. Findings should inform, not make, public policy. 18 references