Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods?

Abstract

Despite the general theoretical support for the value and use of randomized controlled experiments in determining ‘what works’ in criminal justice interventions, they are infrequently used in practice. Reasons often given for their rare use include that experiments present practical difficulties and ethical challenges or tend to over-simplify complex social processes. However, there may be other reasons why experiments are not chosen when studying criminal justice-related programs. This study reports the findings of a survey of criminal justice evaluation researchers as to their methodological choices for research studies they were involved in. The results suggest that traditional objections to experiments may not be as salient as initially believed and that funding agency pressure as well as academic mentorship may have important influences on the use of randomized controlled designs.