Abstract
As others in this edition of Criminal Justice Matters have described, criminological developments in the past few years have been tied to evidence-based policy and to a ‘what works’ agenda. In reality this has seemingly led to a Home Office preference for particular kinds of methods and betrays an assumed hierarchy of valid social research methods. Echoing the Campbell Group and Cochrane collaborations and the advocates of ‘crime science’ who believe that methodologies should incline more to those found within the natural sciences, this has tended to prioritise the use of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), large samples, quantitatively based approaches, and quantitatively based systematic reviews. Certainly, RCT as a method is currently promulgated as the ‘gold standard’ of research within Home Office circles, and as a key sponsor of criminological research this has major implications for all researchers within the field.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
