Non-Response Bias with a Web-Based Survey of College Students: Differences from a Classroom Survey About Carrying Concealed Handguns

Internet-based and e-mail surveys represent viable administrative methods for efficiently collecting data. These methods appear to be particularly well-suited for studying college student populations, a group that has gained attention from criminologists interested in testing theories. An important concern with administering surveys with the Internet and via e-mail is that of non-response bias. Despite the appeal of online surveys, nonresponse bias associated with these methods has not been sufficiently investigated. The study described here estimates nonresponse bias associated with a web-administered survey that measured opinions about changing concealed handgun carrying laws on college campuses, items likely to elicit polarizing opinions. Results show important substantive differences between web-administered and in-class versions of the survey. Students who responded to the web survey expressed more extreme opinions and behavioral responses to a proposed policy that would allow concealed handgun carrying on campus. Survey researchers who utilize web-based administrative methods should consider using multiple sources of leverage when soliciting participation and must carefully evaluate sample representativeness.     

Reality bites--A ten-year retrospective analysis of bitemark casework in Australia

Criticism of forensic science, particularly that of bitemark analysis, has become increasingly common in the last decade. Much of the criticism directed at forensic odontology cites cases where miscarriages of justice have occurred when erroneous, over-confident or even false bitemark evidence has been tendered by odontologists. Despite Australia's own experience with such cases in the past, it is postulated that this does not represent the true nature of bitemark analysis as practiced by odontologists today-at least in this country. A review of 119 cases from the last 10 years confirms that 'identification' of a suspect is rarely, if ever, offered, and that conclusions reached by odontologists with respect to bitemark analysis are generally conservative. However, the results of this study also indicate that in a small but significant proportion of cases, there is still some tendency to reach conclusions that could be considered over-confident when considering the overall quality of the physical evidence offered. It is suggested that odontologists should avoid making conclusive remarks regarding the origin of the mark, or the identification of a perpetrator, when such comments are realistically precluded, given the low evidentiary value of the mark itself.     

Sustainable intensification and ecosystem services: new directions in agricultural governance

Reconciling environmental objectives for land use with the need to produce more food is a prominent concern of scientific and policy discourses on sustainable agriculture. The idea of sustainable intensification has emerged as one prominent framing of this challenge. In this paper we elaborate this idea from an ecosystem services perspective to natural resource management, with particular reference to developments in the UK. The paper considers the general origins and attributes of the perspective and how the challenge of sustainable intensification would be conceptualized and approached through it. While efforts to link analysis of ecosystem services to policy development and delivery in the UK are revealed as consistent with prevailing, and often long standing, approaches to sustainable agriculture, the marketization of environmental assets is highlighted as a distinguishing feature of current policy applications. The character and limitations of this facet of the ecosystem services agenda are discussed. The need to animate ecological issues of sustainable intensification through frames of reference other than those of economic valuation is emphasized.     

Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate

Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.