Then a miracle occurs: cause, effect, and the heterogeneity of criminal justice research

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Brandon del Pozo, Steven Belenko, Faye S. Taxman, Robin S. Engel, Jerry Ratcliffe, Ian Adams, Alex R. Piquero
{"title":"Then a miracle occurs: cause, effect, and the heterogeneity of criminal justice research","authors":"Brandon del Pozo, Steven Belenko, Faye S. Taxman, Robin S. Engel, Jerry Ratcliffe, Ian Adams, Alex R. Piquero","doi":"10.1007/s11292-024-09636-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In “Cause, Effect, and the Structure of the Social World” (2023), Megan Stevenson makes a claim that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not had a significant effect in criminal justice settings. She then draws the conclusion that the gold standard for research designs, RCTs, are inherently incapable of doing so, demonstrating that the social world they intervene on is too complex, but also too resilient, to respond to the types of interventions that are evaluable by RCT. She calls the insistence that RCTs can work an “engineer’s” view of the world, which she discards as a myth. The argument then conflates RCTs with other methods of generating and sustaining change in organizations and systems, and closes suggesting RCTs should be discarded for less rigorous but more sweeping means of social reform. This article proceeds as follows: It characterizes Stevenson’s argument, which she asserts is empirical, as a de facto meta-analysis of criminal justice RCTs executed as a heuristic and presented in a narrative format. It argues that if a formal meta-analysis would be rendered invalid by violating established protocols, then a heuristic analysis that commits the same errors would be invalid as well. The analysis then presents the prohibitions on pooling studies with heterogeneous designs, interventions, outcomes, and metrics for the purpose of meta-analysis. It demonstrates that Stevenson pools a wide range of heterogenous studies, rendering her empirical meta-analytic claims problematic. It is true that many criminal justice RCTs have produced null or lackluster results—which also constitute an important outcome—and attempts to replicate significant findings have often been unsuccessful. This is not unique to criminal justice: psychology was recently in crisis when it was determined few of its most prominent studies could be replicated. However, less rigorous methods of reform do not solve this problem. Instead, more comprehensive research designs such as hybrid implementation/effectiveness trials can reveal aspects of our social world that impact external validity and generalizability. Findings from these studies can help illuminate the conditions that impact outcomes and sustainably modify highly resilient human behaviors. These methods arise from techniques in medicine and public health, which Stevenson brackets off as fundamentally different from criminal justice. This type of thinking may be the actual myth that prevents progress.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09636-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In “Cause, Effect, and the Structure of the Social World” (2023), Megan Stevenson makes a claim that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not had a significant effect in criminal justice settings. She then draws the conclusion that the gold standard for research designs, RCTs, are inherently incapable of doing so, demonstrating that the social world they intervene on is too complex, but also too resilient, to respond to the types of interventions that are evaluable by RCT. She calls the insistence that RCTs can work an “engineer’s” view of the world, which she discards as a myth. The argument then conflates RCTs with other methods of generating and sustaining change in organizations and systems, and closes suggesting RCTs should be discarded for less rigorous but more sweeping means of social reform. This article proceeds as follows: It characterizes Stevenson’s argument, which she asserts is empirical, as a de facto meta-analysis of criminal justice RCTs executed as a heuristic and presented in a narrative format. It argues that if a formal meta-analysis would be rendered invalid by violating established protocols, then a heuristic analysis that commits the same errors would be invalid as well. The analysis then presents the prohibitions on pooling studies with heterogeneous designs, interventions, outcomes, and metrics for the purpose of meta-analysis. It demonstrates that Stevenson pools a wide range of heterogenous studies, rendering her empirical meta-analytic claims problematic. It is true that many criminal justice RCTs have produced null or lackluster results—which also constitute an important outcome—and attempts to replicate significant findings have often been unsuccessful. This is not unique to criminal justice: psychology was recently in crisis when it was determined few of its most prominent studies could be replicated. However, less rigorous methods of reform do not solve this problem. Instead, more comprehensive research designs such as hybrid implementation/effectiveness trials can reveal aspects of our social world that impact external validity and generalizability. Findings from these studies can help illuminate the conditions that impact outcomes and sustainably modify highly resilient human behaviors. These methods arise from techniques in medicine and public health, which Stevenson brackets off as fundamentally different from criminal justice. This type of thinking may be the actual myth that prevents progress.

Abstract Image

奇迹出现了:原因、结果和刑事司法研究的异质性
在《原因、结果和社会世界的结构》(2023)一文中,梅根-史蒂文森声称,随机对照试验(RCTs)在刑事司法环境中并未产生显著效果。随后,她得出结论,认为研究设计的黄金标准--随机对照试验--本质上无法做到这一点,这表明它们所干预的社会世界过于复杂,但也过于有弹性,无法对随机对照试验可评估的干预类型做出反应。她将坚持 RCT 可以奏效的观点称为 "工程师 "的世界观,并将其视为神话而加以抛弃。然后,她将 RCT 与其他在组织和系统中产生和维持变革的方法混为一谈,最后建议摒弃 RCT,转而采用不那么严格但更全面的社会改革手段。本文的论述过程如下:本文将史蒂文森的论点(她声称该论点是经验性的)描述为对刑事司法 RCT 进行的事实上的元分析,作为一种启发式方法,并以叙述的形式呈现。分析认为,如果正式的荟萃分析会因违反既定规程而无效,那么犯了同样错误的启发式分析也会无效。然后,分析介绍了禁止为进行荟萃分析而将具有不同设计、干预措施、结果和指标的研究集中在一起的规定。分析表明,史蒂文森汇集了大量的异质性研究,这使得她的实证荟萃分析主张存在问题。诚然,许多刑事司法 RCT 研究都得出了无效或乏善可陈的结果--这也是一个重要的结果--而试图复制重要研究结果的努力也往往不成功。这并不是刑事司法所独有的现象:心理学最近也陷入了危机,因为心理学最著名的研究几乎都无法复制。然而,不那么严格的改革方法并不能解决这个问题。相反,更全面的研究设计,如混合实施/效果试验,可以揭示我们社会世界中影响外部有效性和可推广性的各个方面。这些研究结果有助于揭示影响结果的条件,并可持续地改变具有高度弹性的人类行为。这些方法源于医学和公共卫生领域的技术,史蒂文森认为这与刑事司法有着本质区别。这种想法可能是阻碍进步的真正迷思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信