Paper Sample on Crisis of Confidence in Criminology: A Meta-Analysis Study

Introduction

Although the study leaned to the examination of previous studies' hypotheses, the article itself did not test any hypothesis. However, the paper sought to answer whether criminologists are confident that the knowledge they share with policymakers or practitioners is true. Additionally, instead of a hypothesis, the paper sought answers to whether criminology is going to face a crisis of confidence. Despite the lack of a hypothesis, the purpose is concisely and clearly stated and in line with the study title.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Objectives

The study sought to determine whether the criminology discipline is headed to a crisis of confidence. The study's specific objectives were to determine the average effect size of the meta-analyses and establish the mean sample size of the meta-analyses.

Comment

The study's objective is not explicitly stated, but it is discussed in the introduction and literature. The purpose is specific, measurable, and concise. The author chose to achieve their objective by asking relevant questions and employing a meta-analysis method to uncover the answer to the problem. The author estimated the previous study's statistical power to establish their robustness to adjudge and determine whether criminology will face a crisis of confidence. The answer to the question was in harmony with the study objective, and the author used it to answer the research problem.

Methodology

The study employed 81 meta-analyses drawn from the published studies in criminology. The study relied on the sample sizes and the average effect size of meta-analyses in the criminology discipline. The paper outlined the procedure for identifying and including meta-analyses and calculating sample sizes and effect sizes.

Comment

The author articulated the research methodology, clearly explaining the methodology's choice, supported by sufficient literature. The author describes the identification of the meta-analyses and the calculation procedures. However, the author fails to report the validity or reliability of the meta-analyses. Additionally, the author was unable to provide a discussion of the statistical techniques employed and methods of presentation.

Findings

The paper indicated that the mean effect size of criminology studies was small to medium, as revealed by the mean effect size of 0.148. The study also found that the average samples in meta-analyses were 271, and there was a small difference between the studies that provided their sample size and the studies that did not. Intervention studies had a more restricted sample size range in comparison to non-intervention studies.

The study examined the statistical power of the studies and found that more than 50% of criminology studies are underpowered. This finding implies that the published criminology literature reports incorrect results, which may bring crisis at the policy and practice level. The study reported that there exists a variation in the level of statistical power. Additionally, in comparison to other behavioral sciences such as psychology and neuroscience, criminology has a relatively high statistical power.

Comments

The findings were well organized and presented in detail. The author corroborated the findings with other researchers' results, making it exciting and easy to grasp. However, due to the statistical techniques and the fact that these techniques were not explained in the methodology section, interpreting and understanding the results can be difficult for the average reader.

Discussion

The author discussed the findings in detail and compared them to other disciplines. Since the results were varying given high statistical power in some of the studies and low in other studies, the author posed a question on which studies policymakers are reading. Overall the discussion section was well articulated.

Summary

The author did not give any summary.

Conclusion

The conclusion was based on the study findings. The study's conclusion was well written with the knowledge of the study problem. The author acknowledges the practices of criminologists and how those studies can impact their practice. In that regard, the conclusion addressed the research problem, and the author achieved the objectives of the study.

Recommendations

The paper emphasizes what studies the policymakers and scholars should trust. Scholars and policymakers should trust studies with large sample sizes. Criminologists should focus less on statistical emphasis and more on substantive significance. Also, they place greater emphasis on confidence intervals rather than probability values.

Comment

The paper's recommendations are well articulated and in line with the findings and study problem. The recommendations contribute to criminology practice and policy since they give insights into how to avoid a crisis of confidence. This ensures that the criminologist has confidence in their practices hence contributing to the improvement in the subject of criminal justice.

In conclusion, the article's content relates to the law enforcement field since it addresses the issue of confidence in the policy, and making decisions informed by the published studies. Thus, if criminologists practice their profession informed by high-quality studies, they can make decisions that ensure criminal justice.

Reference

Barnes, J. C., TenEyck, M. F., Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2020). How Powerful Is the Evidence in Criminology? On whether We Should Fear a Coming Crisis of Confidence. Justice Quarterly, 37(3), 383-409. https://doi.10.1080/07418825.2018.1495252