Advertisement

Methodology and Design of the ISRD-2 Study

  • Ineke Haen Marshall
  • Dirk Enzmann
Chapter

Abstract

The ISRD-2 as a comparative study of youth crime and victimization has two distinguishing features: (1) the rather large number of participating countries and (2) the explicitly standardized comparative design. There is no question that an explicit comparative design has many advantages over other designs. Yet, the cross-national standardized approach presents serious challenges and problems, methodologically as well as logistically. Some of these challenges we anticipated, some of them we did not. In a sense, because of its ambitious comparative design, our study has been “a work in progress” from the beginning – and continues to be so even at the stage of data analysis and – interpretation. The degree to which we have ­succeeded in achieving the goals of our study (i.e., to describe the cross-national variability in the prevalence and incidence of delinquency and victimization; to test for national differences in the theoretical correlates of delinquency and victimization; and to describe cross-national variability in selected dimensions of delinquency such as versatility, age of onset, co-offending) depends, to large extent, on the ­particular methodological choices we have made – at the onset of the project, and along the way.

Keywords

Small Town Parental Consent Violent Offense Country Cluster Life Event Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Allardt, E. (1990). Challenges for comparative social research. Acta Sociologica 33, 183193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armer, M., & Grimshaw, A. D. (1973). Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Blaya, C. (2007). ISRD 2 Technical report: France. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux 2, Observatoire Européen de la Violence Scolaire.Google Scholar
  5. Bovenkerk, F., & Wolf, T. (2010). Surinam. In J. Junger-Tas, I. H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee & B. Gruszcynska (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond: Results of the second international self-report delinquency study (pp. 399–407). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce, W., Torsheim, T., Currie, C. & Zambon, A. (2006). The Family Affluence Scale as a measure of national wealth: Validation of an adolescent self-report measure. Social Indicators Research, 78, 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brener, N. D., Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Grunbaum, J. A., Gross, L. A., Kyle, T. M. & Ross, J. G. (2006). The association of survey setting and mode with self-reported health risk behaviors among high school students. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 354–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Currie, C. E., Elton, R. A., Todd, J. & Platt, S. (1997). Indicators of socio-economic status for adolescents: the WHO health behaviour in school-aged survey. Health Education Research, 12, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker, S. H., & Weerman., F. (2005). European Street Gangs and Troublesome Youth Groups. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira.Google Scholar
  10. Elder, J. W. (1976). Comparative cross-national methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Enzmann, D., Marshall, I. H., Killias, M., Junger-Tas, J., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010). Self-reported delinquency in Europe and beyond: First results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study in the context of police and victimization data. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esbensen, F., Miller, M. H., Taylor, T. J., He, N., & Freng, A. (1999). Differential attrition rates and active parental consent. Evaluation Review, 23, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Esbensen, F. A., Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., & Peterson, D. (2008). Active parental consent in school-based research: how much is enough and how do we get it? Evaluation Review, 32(4), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Farrington, D. P. (1987). The origins of crime: The Cambridge Study of Delinquent Involvement. London: Home Office Research and Planning Unit.Google Scholar
  17. Fowler, F. (2002). Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Gatti, U., & Verde, F. (2010). Gang membership and alcohol and drug use. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, November 2010, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  19. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grasmick, H. G., Title, C. R., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henry, K. L., et al. (2002). The effect of active parental consent on the ability to generalize the results of an alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention trial to rural adolescents. Evaluation Review, 26, 645–666.Google Scholar
  23. Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, T., Ahlstrom, S., Balakireva, O., Kokkevi, A., & Morgan, M. (2004). The ESPAD Report 2003: Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Students in 35 European Countries. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs.Google Scholar
  24. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1991). Measuring lambda through self-reports. Criminology, 29, 471–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huizinga, D., Weher, A. W., Menard, S., Espiritu, R., & Esbensen, F. (1998). Some not so boring findings from the Denver Youth Survey. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Washington.Google Scholar
  28. ISRD2 Working Group. (2005). Questionnaire ISRD2: Standard Student Questionnaire. Boston, Hamburg, Utrecht, Warsaw, and Zurich: European Society of Criminology.Google Scholar
  29. Ji, P. Y., et al. (2004). Factors influencing middle and high schools’ active parental consent return rates. Evaluation Review, 28, 578–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary Sociological Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Junger-Tas, J., & Haen Marshall, I. (1999). The self-report methodology in crime research. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 25, pp. 291–368). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (Eds.). (2010). Juvenile Delinquency in Europe and Beyond: Results of the International Self-Report Delinquency Study. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Kish, L. (1994). Multipopulation survey designs. International Statistical Review, 62, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kivivuori, J. (2007). Delinquent Behavior in Nordic Capital Cities. Helsinki, Finland: Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology.Google Scholar
  35. Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-national research as an analytic strategy. American Sociological Review, 52, 713–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lappi-Seppala, T. (2007). Penal policy and prisoner rates in Scandinavia. In K. Nuotio (Ed.), Festschrift in Honor of Raimo Lahti (pp. 265–306). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  37. Lieberson, S. (1991). Small N’s and big conclusions: an examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Social Forces, 70, 307–320.Google Scholar
  38. Lieberson, S. (1994). More on the uneasy case for using Mill-type methods in small-N comparative studies. Social Forces 72, 1225–1237.Google Scholar
  39. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (1998). The development of male offending: Key findings from the first decade of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 141–172.Google Scholar
  40. Loewenberg, G. (1971). New directions in comparative political research: A review essay. Midwest Journal of Political Science 15, 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lucia, S., Herrmann, L. & Killias, M. (2007). How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self-reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of internet vs. paper-and-pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marsh, R. M. (1967). Comparative Sociology: A Codification of Cross-Societal Analysis. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  43. Marshall, I. H. (1997). Minorities, Migrants, and Crime: Diversity and Similarity across Europe and the United States. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Marshall, I. H. (2010). “Pourquoi pas?” versus “absolutely not!” Cross-national differences in access to schools and pupils for survey research. European Journal of Crime Policy and Research, 16, 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshall, I. H., & Marshall, C. E. (1983). Toward a Refinement of Purpose in Comparative Criminological Research: Research Site Selection in Focus. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 7, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marshall, I. H., & He, N. (2010). The United States. In J. Junger-Tas, I. H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee & B. Gruszcynska (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond: Results of the second international self-report delinquency study (pp. 138–158). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Marshall, I. H., & Webb, V. J. (1994). Self-reported Delinquency in a Mid-western American City. In J. Junger-Tas, G. Terlouw & M. Klein (Eds.), Delinquent Behavior Among Young People in the Western World: First Results of the International Self-report Delinquency Study (pp. 319–342). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kugler Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Maxfield, K. G., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  49. Messner, S., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional anomie theory. Social Forces 75, 1393–1416.Google Scholar
  50. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence Limited and Life Course Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Development Taxonomy. Psychological Review 100, 674–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Naroll, R. (1970). What have we learned from cross-cultural surveys? American Anthropologist 72, 1227–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oberwittler, D., & Naplava, T. (2002). Auswirkungen des Erhebungsverfahrens bei Jugendbefragungen zu ‘heiklen’ Themen – schulbasierte schriftliche Befragung und haushaltsbasierte mündliche Befragung im Vergleich. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 51, 49–77.Google Scholar
  53. Pokorny, S. B., Jason, L. A., Schoeny, M. E., Townsend, S. M. & Curie, C. J. (2001). Do participation rates change when active consent procedures replace passive consent? Evaluation Review, 25, 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Presser, S. et al. (Eds.) (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Rokkan, S. (1968). Comparative Research Across Cultures and Nations. Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  57. Saint-Arnaud, S., & Bernard, P. (2003). Convergence or resilience? A hierarchical cluster analysis of the welfare regimes in advanced countries. Current Sociology, 51, 499–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sampson, R. J. (2006). How does community context matter? Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime rates. In P.O. Wikström & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime. Context, mechanisms and development (pp. 31–60.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Savolainen, J. (2000). Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: Further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38, 1021–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scheuch, E. K. (1968). The cross-cultural use of sample surveys: Problems of comparability. In S. Rokkan (Ed.), Comparative Research across Cultures and Nations (pp. 176–209.). Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  63. Smit, P., Marshall, I. H., & van Gammeren, M. (2008). An empirical approach to country clustering. In K. Aromaa & M. Heiskanen (Eds.), Crime and Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America 1995–2004 (pp. 169–195). Helsinki, Finland: HEUNI.Google Scholar
  64. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The Self-Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. Criminal Justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 33–83). Washington D.C.: US National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  66. Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Perter, P. K. (1998). Taking stock: An overview of the findings from the Rochester Youth Development Study. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology.Google Scholar
  67. Tracy, P., Wolfgang, M., & Figlio, R. (1990). Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  68. UNDP (2010). United Nations Development Programme: International Human Development Indicators. [http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/default.html]
  69. Van der Laan, A. M., & Blom, M. (2006). Jeugddelinquentie. Risico’s en bescherming: Bevindingen uit de WODC Monitor Zelfgerapporteerde Jeugdcriminaliteit 2005. Den Haag: Boom.Google Scholar
  70. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. White, V., Hill, D. J., & Effendi, Y. (2004). How does active parental consent influence the findings of drug use surveys in schools? Evaluation Review, 28, 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wikström, P.-O. H. & Butterworth, D. A. (2006). Adolescent crime: Individual differences and lifestyles. Collumpton: Willan.Google Scholar
  73. Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multi-contextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  74. Wilmers, N., Enzmann, D., Schaefer, D., Herbers, D., Greve, W. & Wetzels, P. (2002). Jugendliche in Deutschland zur Jahrtausendwende: Gefährlich oder gefährdet? Ergebnisse wiederholter, repräsentativer Dunkelfelduntersuchungen zu Gewalt und Kriminalität im Leben junger Menschen 1998–2000. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  75. Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Zhang, S., Benson, T., & Deng, X. (2000). A test-retest reliability assessment of the International Self-report Delinquency Instrument. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations