Non-response bias in randomized control experiments in criminology : putting the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) under a microscope

Objectives The goal of this article is to examine whether or not the results of the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET)-a randomized controlled trial that tested the impact of procedural justice policing on citizen attitudes toward police-were affected by different types of nonresponse bias. Method We use two methods (Cochrane and Elffers methods) to explore nonresponse bias: First, we assess the impact of the low response rate by examining the effects of nonresponse group differences between the experimental and control conditions and pooled variance under different scenarios. Second, we assess the degree to which item response rates are influenced by the control and experimental conditions. Results Our analysis of the QCET data suggests that our substantive findings are not influenced by the low response rate in the trial. The results are robust even under extreme conditions, and statistical significance of the results would only be compromised in cases where the pooled variance was much larger for the nonresponse group and the difference between experimental and control conditions was greatly diminished. We also find that there were no biases in the item response rates across the experimental and control conditions. Conclusion RCTs that involve field survey responses-like QCET-are potentially compromised by low response rates and how item response rates might be influenced by the control or experimental conditions. Our results show that the QCET results were not sensitive to the overall low response rate across the experimental and control conditions and the item response rates were not significantly different across the experimental and control groups. Overall, our analysis suggests that the results of QCET are robust and any biases in the survey responses do not significantly influence the main experimental findings.

Antifeminist backlash and critical criminology

The backlash against feminist criminology is intertwined with broader resistance to feminism and other progressive social movements. Carol Smart noted in 1979 that changes in women's social or economic status have long been perceived as threats to the patriarchal gender order and are therefore "viewed with considerable misgiving, whilst any reinforcement of the value of women's traditional, domestic role has been perceived as a stand against further social decline and disorder" (Smart, 1979, p. 50). The contemporary backlash exists at the nexus of economic and ideological retrenchment seeking to enforce the hegemony of neoliberal conceptions of justice as formal equality. Critical criminology is linked to the backlash against feminism in two key ways. First, critical criminology is an important location for the study of antifeminism and its implications. Second, criminologists who study women or gender have frequently been attacked by antifeminist scholars and commentators.

Degrees of difference? A preliminary study of criminology degrees at Australian universities

While the discipline of ‘criminology’ has existed within Australian universities for more than half a century, the introduction of discrete ‘criminology’ and justice programmes is much more recent. Little is known, however, about the current state of play when it comes to what a degree in ‘criminology’ actually entails. With growing student enrolments in such programmes, reflecting on the status of these programmes is important in the context of student and employer requirements and expectations. Drawing on the findings of a preliminary study, this paper will explore what it means to study for an undergraduate degree in ‘criminology’ in Australia. Specifically, we will focus on the content, availability and range of ‘criminology’ and justice degrees available in Australia, in order to gain a better understanding of the convergences and divergences across degree programmes, and make some recommendations for future research.

Intersectionality, rural criminology, and re-imaging the boundaries of critical criminology

One of the significant shortcomings of the criminological canon, including its critical strands – feminist, cultural and green – has been its urbancentric bias. In this theoretical model, rural communities are idealised as conforming to the typical small-scale traditional societies based on cohesive organic forms of solidarity and close density acquaintance networks. This article challenges the myth that rural communities are relatively crime free places of ‘moral virtue’ with no need for a closer scrutiny of rural context, rural places, and rural peoples about crime and other social problems. This challenge is likewise woven into the conceptual and empirical narratives of the other articles in this Special Edition, which we argue constitute an important body of innovative work, not just for reinvigorating debates in rural criminology, but also critical criminology. For without a critical perspective of place, the realities of context are too easily overlooked. A new criminology of crime and place will help keep both critical criminology and rural criminology firmly anchored in the sociological and the criminological imagination. We argue that intersectionality, a framework that resists privileging any particular social structural category of analysis, but is cognisant of the power effects of colonialism, class, race and gender, can provide the theoretical scaffolding to further develop such a project.

Introduction - There's crime out there, but not as we know it: Rural criminology - the last frontier

The idea that crime is a predominantly urban phenomenon has been pervasive in criminology, so much so that Australian criminology textbooks do not recognise rural crime as a distinct phenomenon worthy of scholarly attention (see Chappell & Wilson, 2000; Goldsmith et al, 2003; White & Haines, 2004; White & Habibis, 2005). There are no chapters or sections in Australian texts which specifically examine rural crime, despite the inclusion of a range of topics that appear to provide a broad coverage of crime in its many temporal and spatial dimensions. Nor is there so much as an index reference to "rural" issues in criminology textbooks. The standardised syllabus for crime texts provides coverage of topics such as violent crime, public crime, delinquency, race and crime, gender and crime, and crime and social class. This canon is mirrored in international texts, most of which also fail to address the issue of rural crime, but make abundant reference to crime in various urban contexts (see Carrabine et al, 2004; Conklin, 2004). This is not to suggest that Australian texts fail to localise their subject matter.

Across the divide - Criminology as other: Observations on the construction of the field

In 1978 Donald Cressey commented on an emerging division in the study of crime with some scholars concentrating on the development of a “crime fi ghting coalition” and others concerned with the processes associated with “making laws, breaking laws, and the reaction to the breaking of laws” (1978: 175). Since Cressey’s paper, many others have refl ected on the distinction between criminology and the sociology of crime and deviance (Akers, 1992; Garland, 1999; Garland & Sparks, 2000; Konty, 2007). But does such a distinction actually exist? Adopting a pragmatic position, the immediate answer is yes, if we assume that these categories have substance on the basis that they are grounded in everyday beliefs, institutional preferences and research practice (Konty, 2007). Moreover, these are viable categories in that some people studying crime label themselves criminologists (or are given this label by others) while others prefer or are given the label sociologist. Of course, there are further labels that may apply to persons studying crime, which include psychologist, penologist, biologist, chemist, and so on. One could argue that such labels are unimportant, however, it remains that these categories have a practical character. For criminology and the sociology of crime in particular, scholarly discourse frames these categories as oppositional (Bader et al., 1996.; Bendle, 1989; Laub & Sampson, 1991; Sibley, 2002) and to the extent that this has occurred, the categories have social relevance.

Green criminology : reflections, connections, horizons

This paper traces aspects of the development of a ‘green’ criminology. It starts with personal reflections and then describes the emergence of explicit statements of a green criminological perspective. Initially these statements were independently voiced, in different parts of the world but they reflected shared concerns. These works have found unification as a ‘green’, ‘eco-global’ or ‘conservation’ criminology. The paper reviews the classifications available when talking about not only legally-defined crimes but also legally perpetrated harms, as well as typologies of such harms and crimes. It then looks at the integration of ‘green’ and ‘traditional’ criminological thinking before briefly exploring four dimensions of concern for today and the future.

Green Cultural Criminology : Constructions of Environmental Harm, Consumerism, and Resistance to Ecocide

Over the last two decades, "green criminology" has emerged as a unique area of study, bringing together criminologists and sociologists from a wide range of research backgrounds and varying theoretical orientations. It spans the micro to the macro—from individual-level environmental crimes and victimization to business/corporate violations and state transgressions. There have been few attempts, however, to explicitly or implicitly integrate cultural criminology into green criminology (or vice versa). This book moves towards articulating a green cultural criminological perspective. Brisman and South examine existing overlapping research and offer a platform to support future excursions by green criminologists into cultural criminology’s concern with media images and representations, consumerism and consumption, and resistance. At the same time, they offer an invitation to cultural criminologists to adopt a green view of the consumption landscape and the growth (and depictions) of environmental harms.

Claire Renzetti (2013) Feminist Criminology. London, UK:Routledge

Feminist Criminology, a recent addition to the suite of slimline Key Ideas in Criminology Series (Routledge), captures and retrospectively unpacks the complexity, diversity and essence of feminist criminology. Claire Renzetti provides a rich, engaging and thought‐provoking account, taking the reader on a journey encompassing the historical, legal, sociological and psychological dimensions that examine the context, synergies and disjunctions among past, present and future feminist criminologies. Her unique approach considers the micro and macro dimensions of, and impact within, the discipline, academy, criminal justice system and society more broadly. Emphasising the fluidity underpinning feminist perspectives, Renzetti contends that ‘there is no single unitary perspective in criminology’, with feminist criminology offering ‘a diverse collection of theoretical perspectives and methods’ (p. 99). Opting for the path less travelled and rejecting the marginalising of feminist criminology with the notional ‘add and stir’ approach, Renzetti advocates moving beyond a tolerance approach to one that embeds analyses of gender, ‘race’ and class within mainstream criminological research paradigms. Charting the development of feminist criminology from the 1970s to the present, Renzetti offers ‘an assessment of criminology’s potential for shaping the future of our discipline’ and the practice of criminal justice (p. 1). Feminist Criminology is organised into five chapters, each progressing concise summaries of feminist approaches, contributions to criminological practice, and shifting academic landscapes; the text concludes with an appraisal of future directions for feminist criminology.

Environmental crime, human rights and green criminology

This chapter is concerned with the prospects for a safe and sustainable environment in a fair and just world. At present, these prospects look bleak. However there are a number of legal developments and ethical principles on which to build, including the European Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law, notions of environmental, ecological and species justice, and conceptions of human rights. The chapter considers these in five sections: first providing an overview and exploring the links between human rights and environmental issues; then examining examples of environmental crimes / harms and attempts to regulate or criminalise these; before outlining the development of a Green Criminology and proposals for an international law against ecocide as a framework for addressing this range of challenges. Finally, concluding comments draw attention to debates and directions for discussion and research.