This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Shepherd, J. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shepherd, J. P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Explaining Feast or Famine in Randomized Field Trials

Medical Science and Criminology Compared

University of Wales College of Medicine

A feast of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical science and comparative famine in criminology can be explained in terms of cultural and structural factors. Of central importance is the context in which the evaluation of interventions is done and the difference in status of situational research in the two disciplines. Evaluation of medical interventions has traditionally been led by practitioner (clinical) academics. This is not the case in criminal justice, where theory has had higher status than intervention research. Medical science has advanced in, or closely associated with, university teaching hospitals, but links between criminology and criminal justice services are far more tenuous. The late development of situational crime prevention seems extraordinary from a medical perspective, as does the absence of university police schools in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. These structural and cultural factors explain concentration of expectation, resource, and RCT productivity in medical science. The Campbell Collaboration and the Academy of Experimental Criminology are forces which are reducing this polarization of feast and famine in RCTs. But unless scientific criminology is embedded in university schools which are responsible for the education and training of law, probation, and police practitioners, convergence in terms of RCTs and implementation of findings in practice seems unlikely.

Key Words: randomized trials • criminology • medical science • education

Evaluation Review, Vol. 27, No. 3, 290-315 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X03027003005


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. C. Merrall and S. M. Bird A Statistical Perspective on the Design of Drug-Court Studies Eval Rev, June 1, 2009; 33(3): 257 - 280. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Rodriguez, J. Keene, and X. Li The Substantial Service Demands of Offenders and Frequent Offenders European Journal of Criminology, April 1, 2006; 3(2): 149 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Weisburd Hot Spots Policing Experiments and Criminal Justice Research: Lessons from the Field The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2005; 599(1): 220 - 245. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Petrosino Estimates of Randomized Controlled Trials Across Six Areas of Childhood Intervention: A Bibliometric Analysis The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September 1, 2003; 589(1): 190 - 202. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Weisburd Ethical Practice and Evaluation of Interventions in Crime and Justice: The Moral Imperative for Randomized Trials Eval Rev, June 1, 2003; 27(3): 336 - 354. [Abstract] [PDF]