NCJ Number
138111
Journal
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology Volume: 2 Dated: (January 1992), 73-75
Date Published
1992
Length
3 pages
Annotation
An attempt is made to answer questions posed by Tom Williamson, Tony Rowe, and Steve Reicher in their critique of "Police Intervention in Riots."
Abstract
The criticism that the study lacks flexibility is unwarranted and inexplicable. From the outset, the research strategy was adjusted in accordance with the possibilities afforded by the field setting and was altered when unforeseen variables arose. To be responsive to unforeseen circumstances, an internal analysis was performed. New accountability conditions were defined on the basis of the way police respondents reported their experience of the experimental situation. This approach permitted study conclusions to be based upon quantitative data rather than journalistic impressions. The advantages of analytic rigor were combined with the use of qualitative material emerging from the natural setting. Both quantitative and qualitative data sources were used. Consequently, the commentators' criticism of a lack of qualitative data to support analysis conclusions seems not completely tenable. The experimental setup was based on a qualitative assessment of the research setting. Qualitative behavioral data were collected. In regard to the role of group norms in explaining collective violence, however, clear quantitative evidence, rather than impressionistic qualitative illustrations, was presented to show that the two police departments differed to some degree in their norms concerning the use of violence. 2 references