![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Most criminologists would agree that the discipline favors quantitative methodologies over qualitative ones. The present study seeks to revisit and expand past assessments on the prominence of qualitative research appearing in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) publication outlets. Our inquiry is divided into two parts. First we consider the frequency with which empirical studies based upon qualitative methods and analyses were published in top CCJ journals from 2004 to 2008. Second, we add a new avenue of inquiry to the discussion by assessing the frequency with which qualitative methods and analyses are being used in doctoral dissertations produced within the US CCJ PhD programs during the same five‐year timeframe. Overall, our findings support the claim that qualitative research continues to represent only a small proportion of published research in the field. We seek to contextualize this empirical observation within the existing debate on the role of methods and theory in CCJ scholarship.
Notes
1. The journals included by Tewksbury et al. (Citation2005) were Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and Criminal Justice and Behavior.
2. Additionally, articles presenting a theoretical argument or discussion (and no original data analysis) accounted for seven percent of all articles; other categories of methodological analysis in the sample included evaluation studies (5.2%), methodological discussions (5.1%), mixed methods (1.4%), legal analysis (1.0%), meta analyses (0.6%), and historical analyses (0.3%).
3. Kleck et al. (Citation2006) reviewed the journals Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Note that there is considerable overlap between these journals and those reviewed as part of the Tewksbury et al. (Citation2005) study, namely Kleck et al. (Citation2006) include four of the five journals from the Tewksbury et al. (Citation2005) study, omitting only Criminal Justice & Behavior and adding three new journals.
4. Of the total sample, qualitative data collection (not analysis) was employed by some articles. Informal interviews were used in 7.6% of all articles and direction observation was employed in 6.2% of all articles. However, the data gathered via these methods were subsequently used in quantitative analyses.
5. It is important to note that when identifying the methodological orientation of articles in Deviant Behavior only those articles that explicitly address crime, criminals, criminal justice processes, or actors were included in the data. All articles focused on non‐criminal or non‐criminal justice topics (e.g., sexual deviance, student cheating, etc.) were excluded from the data.
6. We only included articles that appeared in the criminology, and not the criminal law, section.
7. We included articles published in general issues as well as special or thematic issues, some of which involved a guest editor. None of the special issues revolved around themes that precluded or prescribed articles derived by qualitative means.
8. Although included in the sample, it should be noted that four doctoral degree‐granting programs (George Mason University, Old Dominion University, University of Arkansas‐Little Rock, and University of South Carolina) are relatively new and did not have any successfully defended dissertations during this time period.
9. Due to the stability in department affiliation (only one author changed department type) we include information only on unique authors as to not bias the results in favor of those who published multiple articles.
10. Journal‐specific representation of qualitative articles does not appear to be the result of author‐based selection bias. In other words, we found no evidence that certain scholars repeatedly target a given outlet due to familiarity or perceived friendliness toward qualitative research.
