QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

The Contribution Of Quantitative Research To Crime

The Contribution Of Quantitative Research To Criminology

Introduction

Although the study of misdeed did not begin in the United States, for much of the 20th 100 years the discipline had a distinctively American flavor. Describing the state of criminology at the starting of the 21st 100 years, one scholar announced that “the American criminological enterprise is the largest in the world. Measured by the number of persons who focus on the study of misdeed, regulation and social command, the number of university courses, the number of scholarly and professional publications and books, the number of research projects and the allowance of funding, there is no question that the US takes the cake” (Marshall, 2008, p. 50). American criminologists have been responsible for evolving numerous well liked criminological theories, fostering methodological advancements for studying misdeed, and institutionalizing the discipline inside academia. It is not surprising, then, that “for most American scholars, criminology is American criminology” (Marshall, 2008, p. 49, initial emphasis).

However, cross-national criminologists are fast to issue out that not only manage the roots of criminology lie outside of the United States, but also that early criminologists were often comparativists. They often cite 18th 100 years Enlightenment scholars like Jeremy Bentham and Adolphe Quetelet or 19th 100 years positivists like Emile Durkheim as proponents of cross-national comparisons of social phenomena, encompassing misdeed (Hardie-Bick, Sheptycki, & Wardak, 2005;

What Does Cross-National Criminology Mean?

Several terms are used to mark misdeed and justice research that is not focused solely on the researchers' native country. There is no consensus about the meanings of these terms and numerous of them are used interchangeably. This section intentionally adopts the mark “cross-national criminology” to emphasize research on the phenomenology and etiology of misdeed, its actors, and its victims across two or more countries. The usage of this period here does not encompass relative studies of the agents, organizations, administration, and processes of lawless individual justice systems, simply due to the author's teaching and expertise.

Many researchers use the period “international criminology” to mention to any research engaging a homeland other than their own, thereby normally implying countries other than the United States. Other scholars contend that this period should be reserved for research on violations of worldwide regulation, such as genocide or conflict crimes (Yacoubian, 2003). Despite these differences in emphasis, the period worldwide criminology has been used to mention to research on a single homeland or multiple countries.

The Value Of Cross-National Criminology

Proponents of cross-national research have often contended that the major advantage of this work is that it allows for the assessment of the generalizability of criminological theories, which are normally evolved to interpret misdeed inside one homeland, predominantly the United States (e.g., Farrington, 2000; Howard et al., 2000; Johnson & Barak-Glantz, 1983). For demonstration, Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin's (1972) classic study of delinquency has been duplicated in other countries, such as England (Farrington, 1995), Puerto Rico (Nevares, Wolfgang, & Tracy, 1990) and China (Friday, Ren, Weitekamp, Kerner, & Taylor, 2005), in alignment ...