Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have indicated support for the notion that social science research should inform policy and practice. Although expressions such as “data-driven policy” have become commonplace, there is no consensus about how research can and should contribute. In this article, two ways for criminal justice research to contribute to policy and practice are discussed. Criminologists can be providers of findings from their research that can be used to help policy makers and practitioners make informed decisions. Or they can be advocates for positions they espouse based on their substantial knowledge and experience as scientists. The former is more consistent with their training and socialization as social scientists. However, in this article, it is argued that for social scientists in general and for criminologists in particular to be effective, they need to be able to compete and collaborate in a political process that includes others making contrary claims.
Austin, J., Bruce, M.A., Carroll, L., McCall, P.L., & Richards, S.C. (2001). The use of incarceration in the United States. Critical Criminology, 10, 17-41.
2.
Becker, G.S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371-400.
3.
Berger, P.L. (1963). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books .
4.
Berger, P.L., & Kellner, H.K. (1981). Sociology reinterpreted—An essay on method and vocation. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
5.
Best, J. (1990). Threatened children—Rhetoric and concern about child victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal, 323, 275-278.
7.
Brownstein, H.H. (1990). Surviving as a qualitative sociologist: Recollections from the diary of a state worker. QualitativeSociology, 13, 49-67.
8.
Brownstein, H.H. (1991). The social construction of public policy: A case for participation by researchers. Sociological Practice Review , 2, 132-140.
9.
Brownstein, H.H. (1998). The drugs-violence connection: Constructing policy from research findings. In E. L. Jensen & J. Gerber (Eds.), The new war on drugs: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy (pp. 59-69). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
10.
Brownstein, H.H. (2000a). The social production of crime statistics. Justice Research andPolicy, 2, 73-89.
11.
Brownstein, H.H. (2000b). The social reality of violence and violent crime . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology: 2004 Presidential Address . American Sociological Review, 70, 4-28.
13.
Chilton, R. (2001). Viable policy: The impact of federal funding and the need for independent research agendas—The American Society of Criminology 2000 Presidential Address. Criminology, 39, 1-8.
14.
Cose, E. (2006, April 24). The dawn of a new movement. Newsweek, p. 49.
15.
Denzau, A.T., & Munger, M.C. (1986). Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. American Political Science Review , 80, 89-103.
16.
DiIulio, J.J., Jr. (1996). Help wanted: Economists, crime and public policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 3-24.
17.
Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 255-269.
18.
Koch, T. (1990). The news as myth—Fact and context in journalism . New York: Greenwood.
19.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Reitz, J.G. (1975). An introduction to applied social research. New York: Elsevier.
20.
Lee, A.M. (1973). The daily newspaper in America—The evolution of a social instrument. New York: Octagon Books.
21.
Lee, A.M. (1978). Sociology for whom?New York : Oxford University Press.
22.
Mayer, M. (1987). Making news. Garden City, NY : Doubleday.
23.
Merton, R.K. (1945). Role of the intellectual in public bureaucracy . Social Forces, 23, 405-415.
24.
Merton, R.K. (1949). The role of applied social science in the formation of policy: A research memorandum. Philosophy of Science, 16, 161-181.
25.
Merton, R.K., & Moss, J.Z. (1985). Basic research and its potentials of relevance. Mount SinaiJournal of Medicine, 52, 679-684.
26.
National Institute of Justice. (1999). Solicitation to municipalities to become an Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) site. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
27.
National Institute of Justice. (2003). Annual report 2000: Arrestee drug abuse monitoring (NCJ 193013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
28.
National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Program brief (BC000 619). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H.T.O. (2003). From knowing to doing—A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9, 125-148.
Stolz, B.A. (2002). The roles of interest groups in US criminal justice policy making: Who, when, and how. Criminal Justice, 2, 51-69.
32.
Stolz, B.A. (2005). Educating policymakers and setting the criminal justice policymaking agenda: Interest groups and the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act of 2000.”Criminal Justice, 5, 407-430.
33.
Trostle, J., Bronfman, M., & Langer, A. (1999). How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy and Planning , 14, 103-114.
34.
Walt, G. (1994). How far does research influence policy? European Journal ofPublic Health, 4, 233-235.
35.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
36.
Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement . Social Policy & Society, 1, 215-224.
