Advertisement

Translational Criminology: Toward Best Practice

  • George B. PestaEmail author
  • Thomas G. Blomberg
  • Javier Ramos
  • J. W. Andrew Ranson
Article

Abstract

Over the past two decades, criminologists have attempted to better understand the process through which research is used by practitioners and policymakers to identify the conditions that facilitate its policy and practice use. As part of this effort, the current study examines the translational research process and the use of researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) in two state correctional agencies. The methods include interviews with leading national researchers, Florida legislative personnel, and state-level decision makers in adult and juvenile corrections. The findings document barriers, facilitators, and mechanisms involved in the translation process and reveal the effectiveness of RPPs to translate research into policy and practice.

Keywords

Translational criminology Research partnerships Research Policy Practice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the Florida Department of Corrections, the researchers and scholars that agreed to be interviewed, and Dr. Julie Brancale for her assistance.

Funding

This project was supported by Award No. 2014-IJ-CX-0035, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

References

  1. Alpert, G.P., Rojek, J., & Hansen, J.A. (2013). Building bridges between police researchers and practitioners: Agents of change in a complex world, Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC: i-274.Google Scholar
  2. Bales, W. D., Scaggs, S. J., Clark, C. L., Ensley, D., & Coltharp, P. (2014). Researcher-practitioner partnerships: A case study of the development of a long-term collaborative project between a university and a criminal justice agency. Criminal Justice Studies, 27, 294–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumer, E. P. (2015). Member perspectives. The Criminologist, 40, 8–10.Google Scholar
  4. Blomberg, T. G., Mestre, J. M., & Mann, K. (2013). Seeking causality in a world of contingency: Criminology, research, and public policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomberg, T. G., Brancale, J. M., Beaver, K. M., & Bales, W. D. (2016). Volume introduction. In T. G. Blomberg, J. M. Brancale, K. M. Beaver, & W. D. Bales (Eds.), Advancing Criminology & Criminal Justice Policy (pp. 1–3). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein, A. (1997). Interaction of criminological research and public policy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga, A. (2013). Embedded criminologists in police departments. Police Foundation, 17, 1–20.Google Scholar
  8. Braga, A., & Apel, R. (2016). And we wonder why criminology is sometimes considered irrelevant in real-world policy conversations. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 42, 294–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chancer, L., & McLaughlin, E. (2007). Public criminologies: Diverse perspectives on academia and policy. Theoretical Criminology, 11, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clear, T. R. (2010). Policy and evidence: The challenge to the American Society of Criminology: 2009 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 48, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CrimeSolutions.gov. (2017). All programs & practices. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/Programs.aspx#programs.
  13. Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cullen, F.T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works, in Tonry, T. (Ed.), Crime and Justice in America, 1975 to 2025, Vol. 42 Of crime and justice: A review of research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 299–376.Google Scholar
  15. Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality: Arguments for a public criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 11, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrison, A. H. (2009). The influence of research on criminal justice policy making. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 4, 9–21.Google Scholar
  17. Gingrich, N. (2016). Camerota Debate Crime Statistics, retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/01/gingrich-camerota-crime-stats-newday.cnn.
  18. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Innes, C. A., & Everett, R. S. (2008). Factors and conditions influencing the use of research by the criminal justice system. Western Criminology Review, 9, 49–58.Google Scholar
  20. Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods, 12, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laub, J. H. (2012). Translational criminology. Translational Criminology: Promoting Knowledge Exchange to Shape Criminal Justice Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 4–5.Google Scholar
  23. Laub, J. H., & Frisch, N. (2016). Translational criminology: A new path forward. In T. G. Blomberg, J. M. Brancale, K. M. Beaver, & W. D. Bales (Eds.), Advancing Criminology & Criminal Justice Policy (pp. 52–62). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  25. Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (pp. 1–15). Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lum, C., Telep, C. W., Koper, C. S., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice Research and Policy, 14, 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mears, D. P. (2013). Super max prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 681–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagin, D. S., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Evidence and public policy: The example of evaluation research in policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 651–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Institute of Justice. (2012). Projects funded by NIJ awards. Retrieved 20 August 2018 from https://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/2011.aspx?fiscalyear=2011.
  30. National Institute of Justice. (2014). Projects funded by NIJ awards. Retrieved 20 August 2018 from https://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/2013.aspx?fiscalyear=2013.
  31. National Institute of Justice. (2018). Projects funded by NIJ awards. Retrieved 20 August 2018 from https://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/welcome.aspx.
  32. National Research Council. (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy, The National Academies Press, Washingtonp, DC: Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.17226/13460.
  33. Nutley, S. M., & Davies, H. T. O. (1999). The fall and rise of evidence in criminal justice. Public Money and Management, 19, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersilia, J. (1991). Policy relevance and the future of criminology. Criminology, 29, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersilia, J. (2008). Influencing public policy: An embedded criminologist reflects on California prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petersilia, J., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Liberal but not stupid: Meeting the promise of downsizing prisons. Stanford Journal of Criminal Law and Policy, 2, 1–43.Google Scholar
  38. Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. QSR International. (2012). NVivo 10. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd..Google Scholar
  40. Rojek, J., Alpert, G., & Smith, H. (2012a). The utilization of research by the police. Police Practice and Research, 13, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rojek, J., Smith, H., & Alpert, G. (2012b). The prevalence and characteristics of police practitioner–researcher partnerships. Police Quarterly, 15, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rojek J., Martin P., & Alpert G. (2015). The literature and research on police–research partnerships in the USA, in Rojek J., Martin P., & Alpert G., Developing and Maintaining Police-Researcher Partnerships to Facilitate Research Use, New York: Springer, 27–44.Google Scholar
  43. Sampson, R. J., Winship, C., & Knight, C. (2013). Translating causal claims: Principles and strategies for policy-relevant criminology. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Telep, C. W. (2016). Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 976–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Telep, C. W., & Winegar, S. (2015). Police executive receptivity to research: A survey of chiefs and sheriffs in Oregon. Policing, 10, 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tittle, C. R. (2004). The arrogance of public sociology. Social Forces, 82, 1639–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tonry, M. (2010). Public criminology and evidence-based policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 783–797.Google Scholar
  48. Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Sharing Child and Youth Development Knowledge, 26, 1–24.Google Scholar
  49. Uggen, C., & Inderbitzin, M. (2010). Public criminologies. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiss, C. H. (1987). The circuitry of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policymakers. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8, 274–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiss, C. H. (1995). The haphazard connection: Social science and public policy. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weitzer, R. (2015). American policing under fire: Misconduct and reform. Society, 52, 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellford, C. (2009). Criminologists should stop whining about their impact on policy and practice. In N. A. Frost, J. D. Frelich, & T. R. Clear (Eds.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy: Policy proposals from the American Society of Criminology Conference (pp. 17–24). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • George B. Pesta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas G. Blomberg
    • 1
  • Javier Ramos
    • 1
  • J. W. Andrew Ranson
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Criminology & Criminal JusticeFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations