RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
The lack of experimental research in criminology-evidence from Criminology and Justice Quarterly
Dezember, A., Stoltz, M., Marmolejo, L., Kanewske, L. C., Feingold, K. D., Wire, S., Duhaime, L., & Maupin, C. (2021). The lack of experimental research in criminology-evidence from Criminology and Justice Quarterly. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(4), 677-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09425-y
Objectives Despite experiments being termed the "gold standard," criminology has been slow to adopt experimentation as a methodology. The goal of this research note is to better understand the use of experiments in criminology and the potential barriers in implementing this methodology. Methods We conducted a systematic assessment of experiments in Criminology and Justice Quarterly by reviewing every article published since the inception of the journals and coding for numerous elements (i.e., field versus lab studies, research areas, outcomes, and funding sources). Results Despite a general increase, experiments make up only 2.8% (n = 44) of studies in Criminology and 3.1% (n = 31) of studies in Justice Quarterly. Conclusions While it is not always clear why experiments are not used more often, we explore the possible reasons for a lack of experimentation (i.e., a lack of mentoring, challenges to practitioner buy in, etc.) and areas for future research.
