Review Question
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Review Question
- Review the common errors of personal inquiry discussed in this chapter. Find a mass media or blog article about a crime that illustrates one or more of those errors. Discuss how methods of social science might be applied to avoid these errors.
Common errors include but not limited to selective observation, inaccurate observations, and illogical reasoning. Also of importance is that overgeneralization may not lead to objective judgment or conclusion when dealing with criminal justice systems. According to chapter 1 from the class notes, inaccurate observations are frequent among non-scholars who just take a seat and observe casually without a guiding thesis statement or objectives (Chapter 1, 2016). Therefore, personal inquiry will miss very many details. Overgeneralization occurs when scientific research involves a small sample and, consequently, general comments about a large population.
Through selective observation, bias, or subjectivity often occurs. This is because the scientific inquiry employed in that case will enable one to avoid addressing an issue they do not want as opposed to an objective scientific inquiry solving all the problems of concern. The combination of the various previous errors accumulated from other common mistakes results in illogical reasoning. Sometimes the information gathered could be accurate, but because of other errors involved, it may lead to a false conclusion. Infowar’s website is based on illogical reasoning based on conspiracy theories (Infowars, n.d). The figure below shows the conspiracy and untrue stories on the Infowars website. To avoid this, a scientist needs to focus on articles that address factual occurrences or happenings and that have been documented through qualitative and quantitative scientific inquiry.
Source: (Infowars, n.d)
- Briefly describe examples of descriptive research and applied research about bullying in public schools. What sorts of things would be measured in descriptive and applied research on bullying?
A criminal justice professional may wish to investigate what causes a high rate of bullying at a particular group with their school. To successfully do this, the first step would be observing the behavior of the group. At this stage, non-scientist would overgeneralize by arguing that the school is located within a region characterized by overly aggressive and deviant children. Making such assumptions would be very wrong, and as such, the professional would want to make a judgment based on factual information.
To come up with a better conclusion, the first thing would be to determine the scope of the problem. With such information, one would start making observations. If 60% of the victims claim bullies chose them because of gender and racial heritage, this forms something that can be measured (Chapter 1, 2016). Such information would act as a baseline from where you can start understanding the cause of bullying in public schools. Strong group affiliations based on race would help understand the reason for bullying in public schools. With such information, the professional could implement a program that addresses the issue.
- As mentioned earlier in the chapter, Ko-Lin Chin and James Finckenauer (2012) researched the sex trafficking of Chinese women. As you might imagine, this research required that they consider a number of ethical questions on protecting human subjects, including researcher safety. As the authors describe, their work was guided by principles developed by the World Health Organization (2003). Download a copy of the World Health Organization report (http://www.who.int/gender/documents/women_and_girls/9789242595499/en/) and discuss how it illustrates our discussion of ethics in criminal justice research.
Review the box “Ethics and Juvenile Gang Members.” Although it is not shown in the box, Decker and Van Winkle developed an informed consent form for their subjects. Keeping in mind the various ethical principles discussed in this chapter, try your hand at preparing an informed consent statement that Decker and Van Winkle might have used.
Because Scoot Decker and Barrick Van Wrinkle did not confine their thinking into a small area when dealing with institutional Review Board Requirements and Research Rights, it was possible to complete it. Because of confidentiality and privacy involved in any scientific research or inquiry, it becomes a stumbling block to over (Chapter 2, 2016). However, when scientists seek consent from the juveniles to take part in the study, it becomes easy. The idea of admitting criminal activities and guilt makes juvenile cases hard to investigate.
Besides, observation of criminal activity places the researcher in a compromising and dangerous position because leakage of such information could be deadly. Ethical considerations, such as privacy and confidentiality, need to be sought. This can only happen by asking permission from parents and obtain consent from the juvenile gang members to take part in the inquiry (Supplementary, n.d). As such, there is a need to seek alternative standards that supplement the IRB requirements. To ensure that they take part, I would clarify to them that the information obtained from them would remain private. I would fake their names to ensure no one would accuse them.
Reference
Infowars, (n.d). Featured stories. Retrieved from https://www.infowars.com/
Chapter 1, (2016). Crime, criminal justice, and scientific inquiry
Chapter 2, (2016). Ethics in criminal justice research
Supplementary (n.d). Ethics and juvenile gang members