Nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs

Nonresidential criminal justice graduate degree programs were recognized as significant elements within the contemporary educational scene. The structure, nature, and extent of such programs, as reflected in the professional literature, were reviewed. A survey of the state level governing bodies in the United States was reported, as was a case study of one state's evaluation of an out-of-state graduate degree program in criminal justice, operating without license within the host state. These were used as vehicles for a consideration of the issues important to the consumer of nonresidential graduate degree programs. It was concluded that innovative educational methods and structures are desirable, but that some nonresidential programs have been inadequate academically, and the danger exists that such programs may undermine criminal justice education and defraud the criminal justice students. Criminal justice scholars were encouraged to require rigorous standards for such programs.     

Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals

An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed.     

Managing reductions in criminal justice education programs

The types of changes facing criminal justice education administrators and faculty mandate attention to the real world of fiscal stress and the concomitant problem of student declines. Current trends emphasize that all of those involved in the criminal justice education field must look beyond short-term cyclical problems involving the delivery of criminal justice educational services. The issues of fiscal tension and student declines require hard choices, the development of new administrative skills, and the recognition that new behaviors will be mandatory for criminal justice education administrators during the rest of the eighties.     

Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs

Organizational sets are made up of organizations with interchangeable personnel, important activity common to members, and a prestige order. The prestige order in other academic disciplines has been identified, and the survey reported here was an attempt to provide some preliminary information on the prestige order among criminal justice doctoral programs. A survey of a sample of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences members and other criminal justice educators revealed several programs consistently receiving high ratings. These programs are likely to have a substantial influence on the development of criminal justice graduate education by providing models for graduate programs, personnel to staff criminal justice programs, and establishing the standards by which quality education will be defined. In addition, the importance of a list of characteristics pertaining to quality education was examined, and library resources and several faculty attributes emerged as those perceived as most important for quality doctoral education in criminal justice.     

Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals

Publication in professional journals provides both individual and institutional rewards, contributing to the prestige of authors and of colleges and universities with which they are affiliated. Faculty publications are often regarded as important factors in the creation and maintenance of institutional prestige. A survey of six criminal justice journals revealed that the majority of institutions with recognized criminal justice doctoral programs were represented by faculty publications. On the other hand, the list of academic institutions with which published authors were affiliated included many institutions without criminal justice doctoral programs. The data also revealed that slightly over one-quarter of the published material in the selected list of journals had been authored by individuals not affiliated with academic institutions.     

Assessing the prestige of journals in criminal justice: A research note

This study extends earlier periodical prestige research by determining journal prestige for three criminal justice membership categories and reexamines the emergent rankings, controlling for a potentially salient variable—previous journal publication. Data for the project were derived from questionnaire responses of 1,028 criminal justice educators who were members of either the American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, or both associations, via a three-wave mail survey. Generally, the findings demonstrated conflicting or competing professional ideologies operating in assessments of the relative importance of criminal justice publications. Particularly, respondents' subjective evaluations established two relatively divergent stratification systems of journal prestige.     

Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990-2000

The main aim of this research was to investigate changes in scholarly influence by identifying the most-cited scholars in twenty journals: five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars were also reported. Results obtained in 2000 were compared with previous findings in 1995 and 1990, and with results obtained from analyzing nine journals in 1996-2000. In 2000, the most-cited scholars were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals, Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals, John Braithwaite in international criminology journals, and Robert D. Hare in international criminal justice journals. The expansion from nine to twenty journals benefited international scholars such as John Braithwaite and Richard V. Ericson and scholars in less mainstream areas such as Murray A. Straus. Overall, Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in these twenty journals in 2000, compared with Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995 and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. The prevalence of citations (the number of different articles in which a scholar was cited) and specialization (where a scholar's influence was based on one or two highly-cited works) were also studied.     

An assessment of the relative impact of criminal justice and criminology journals

The current study was undertaken to provide an impact assessment of criminal justice and criminology journals as an alternative measure to the prestige survey ratings reported by Sorensen, Snell, and Rodriguez (2006). Citations to sixty-seven target journals were tallied from ten top criminal justice and criminology journals. Various impact measures were fairly consistent with one another and the prestige survey ratings, particularly for a “top tier” of journals. With a couple of notable exceptions, a long-standing core of these elite journals has held their relative positions from early impact studies relying on data from the 1970s and 1980s; nevertheless, significant deviations were noted based on the measurement utilized for all but the top journals. Findings from the current study suggested that the quality of journals is multifaceted and warns against employing a scale based on one dimension of journal quality.     

Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals

Several articles have been written about the relative prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Almost uniformly, however, those rankings have focused on sociology and criminology journals and have generally reflected a sociological orientation. If criminal justice is indeed a separate discipline, such approaches are tantamount to asking psychologists to rate sociological journals within a list of psychology journals. Our approach is first to separate respondents by their degree of identification with criminal justice and their educational orientation. Second, we compile a list of responses to questions about prestige and utility to practitioners across the range of criminal justice and criminology journals. Analyses of these data indicate that there are differences in the way scholars rate journals, based on their identity with criminal justice and their educational orientation. These differences, however, are found in specific journals and in types of journals (i.e., police, corrections, criminal justice) rather than in aggregate perceptions of all criminal justice and criminology journals.     

The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals

This study extended the work of Sorensen and Pilgrim (2002) by examining the institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals in the subsequent five-year period after their study. Additionally, this study replicated Fabianic's (2002) study, by assessing the average publications of the faculty at the most productive criminal justice graduate programs. The current study examined the years 2000-2004 and made comparisons to the previous studies, which assessed 1995-1999. Findings revealed the University of Cincinnati and the University of Maryland were the most productive institutions and had the most productive faculty.     

Measuring the relative impacts of criminology and criminal justice journals: A research note

Journals can be rated according to a number of subjective and objective criteria. The present paper uses citations of a journal as an index of objective rank. Previous work using this index has several flaws, including a reliance on a single source journal and a lack of adjustments for age and size to its raw citations scores. The present paper uses a longer list of source journals to tabulate citation counts and provides raw impact, age-adjusted impact, and impact factor scores for each of 26 criminal justice/criminology journals. In addition, this study found subjective ratings from previous research on criminology journals to be significant, although not strong predictors of the impact factor, one objective index of journal quality. Little evidence was found for the notion that journal rankings are a function of other variables, including age of the journal or sponsorship by a professional organization.     

Periodical prestige and criminal justice: An assessment of professional journals [1]

It is a seemingly easy task to generate periodical rankings for an academic discipline. Yet, upon closer inspection, the validity of this claim is questionable, particularly for disciplines lacking a well-defined membership or scholarship boundaries. Criminal justice is one such discipline.Data for the project were derived from questionnaire responses of 1,028 persons who were members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, American Sociey of Criminology, or both associations, via a three-wave mail survey in September 1979.The study’s most interesing findings were: (1) noncriminologists assigned periodicals a wider range of weights than criminologists; (2) periodical publishers assigned higher weights than nonpublishers; (3) periodical rankings were most similar among published and nonpublished noncriminologists; and (4) respondents generally agreed on what constitutes the poorer journals.     

The quality of doctoral programs in deviance,criminology, and criminal justice: An empirical assessment

While information regarding the doctoral programs in any discipline is of obvious and considerable relevance both to those in the discipline and to those seeking access to the best possible sites for graduate training, our knowledge about the quality of doctoral programs continues to be based on little more than speculation and highly ambiguous measures of institutional or departmental prestige. This study attempts to fill this gap for those who have special interests in the related fields of deviance, criminology, and criminal justice by ranking the thirty-six most significant doctoral programs in the nation by means of data derived from the Social Science Citation Index. Perhaps the most striking of our findings—and certainly to us the most distressing finding—is that those departments ranked by our measures as being the highest quality are consistently those which exist within the broader structure of departments of sociology. Given our firm conviction that the discipline of criminology is far, far more than that aspect of it which is closely related to issues of substantive significance to the field of sociology, we can only speculate that those in leadership positions in the growing number of independent schools or departments of criminology or criminal justice are not meeting their obligations to the discipline whose vitality and prospects depend so heavily on the quality of their judgment.     

A study of criminal justice policymakers' perspectives: The forgotten component in boot camp programs and goals

Does occupation (sheriff, prosecutor, prison administrator, or parole/probation official) influence selection of boot camp components; especially the traditional positions of “punishers,” usually sheriffs and prosecuting attorneys, and “reformers,” usually prison and probation? As part of a larger study and at the request of the Missouri Department of Corrections, 670 questionnaires were mailed to all Missouri sheriffs, prosecutors, selected prison administrators, probation/parole staff, all public defenders, selected legislatures, and judges in Missouri. Respondents were asked to rank potential boot camp goals and programs using a Likert-type preferences scale of 1 = low preference to 5 = high preference. Three hundred fifty-three were returned, for a return rate of 53 percent. Using the Missouri survey data, the research question for this article was: Did occupation influence selection of boot camp components? To test the association of occupation with selection, a shorter list was compiled from the Missouri survey data of six typical “punishment” items and six typical “reform” items as selected from the literature. Means and a t-test of significance were calculated. Results showed traditional positions of “punishment” and “reform” did not drive program choices. Preference for “reform” items by all occupations was higher than preference for “punishment” items. Results showed a potential shift away from the early military - punishment style of early boot camps. Correctional agencies thinking of reconfiguring or building new boot camps could use the results as a guide.     

Globalization of criminal justice in the corporate context

Globalization, the rising of an economy outside the paradigm of government by nation-states, has created new opportunities for transnational corporate crime, defined broadly here as avoidable harms inflicted across national borders for purposes of economic gain. The authors reexamine theories of corporate criminal liability in the transnational context and applaud the recent French codification of corporate criminal liability in terms broad enough to encompass the new economic realities. Finally, they examine the inability of current adjudicative fora to effectively assert jurisdiction over transnational corporations and suggest that the harms associated with toxic waste spills, unethical marketing practices, and other corporate misconduct are more ubiquitous and dangerous than the harms of terrorism and war crimes that have captured the attention of the emerging global civil society.     

The effects of criminal justice pedagogy on student attitudes

To determine the effects of an introductory criminal justice course on the attitudes of students toward the police, questionnaires were given in the first week of the semester to 425 students enrolled in Introduction to Criminal Justice courses and to 301 students enrolled in Introduction to Sociology courses. The survey was then readministered in the final week of the semester. The data reveal that while significant initial differences existed in orientation among the various student groupings, there was no significant change in attitudes between the pretest and posttest measurements.     

The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation

The criminal justice system is administered at the local level by many independent agencies and departments, often without regard to each other's objectives and often at the expense of overall effectiveness. This study has attempted to relate the primary system goal of crime control to a set of policy alternatives distributed over each criminal justice sector. Specifically, a simulation model based on the techniques of “industrial dynamics” was developed to evaluate combinations of the following policies: speedy trial, no plea bargaining, and restricted bail. Data obtained from the District of Columbia's criminal justice agencies were used to validate the model. The results of the analysis indicate that the system is basically insensitive to small perturbations, but is susceptible to disruption from large changes in input and procedure. Under the given set of assumptions, continuation of current practices will lead to a gradual deterioration in performance that can only be stemmed by large expenditures on manpower and facilities.     

Problems of reliability and validity in criminal justice research

Reliability and validity are critical standards of scientific inquiry. This analysis directs attention to problems of reliability in data collection and to problems of validity in measuring two key criminal justice variables: the offense and the sentence. The discussion and empirical analysis indicate that reliability of official information sources in criminal justice cannot be assumed. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the criterion of validity is even more elusive. This elusiveness is demonstrated in the operational definition of criminal offense, an important predictor variable, and in attemps to operationally define the criminal sanction, i.e., the disposition of charges against convicted defendants. These considerations suggest that research in the sentencing area may not be directed to the subject at hand and that research results should be interpreted with “scientific” caution.