Cultivating and maintaining effective action research partnerships: the DePaul and Oxford House collaborative

In this paper, we review the result of research conducted in the context of a 13-year collaborative partnership between DePaul University and a community-based, self-run, residential substance abuse recovery program called Oxford House. This collaborative effort highlights several examples of the research and action activities fostering a positive alliance that benefited both the research team and the Oxford House community. It also proposed practical guidelines for developing effective action research collaboratives that may be helpful to others who desire to cultivate and maintain similar mutually beneficial partnerships; including such processes as the development of trust, respecting the personal experiences of the community members and group, commitment to serving the community, validating findings with organization members, and accountability.     

Victim/witness noncooperation: A second look at a persistent phenomenon

During the last decade, numerous programs were established to increase the alarmingly low rate of cooperation of victim/witnesses with lower criminal court officials. It is argued that these programs were largely unsuccessful because they were based on assumptions about the motives of victim/witnesses and about the effect of their cooperation on case outcomes which were only partially correct. The article attempts to explain noncooperation by integrating what is known about the desires and expectations of victim/witnesses from recent empirical studies with what is known about the nature of the adjudication process from organizational studies of criminal courts. The article concludes that victim/witness noncooperation may not pose the major obstacle to prosecution that has been alleged, but that it is indicative of the failure of criminal courts to recognize that victim/witnesses have a legitimate interest in the adjudication process.     

Patterns of influence and response in abusing and nonabusing families

Behaviors of influence and response during a conflict negotiation task were examined in eight physically child abusing, substance abusing families in which the father was the primary abuser and eight demographically matched nonabusing families. Abusing fathers displayed more coercive patterns of influencing behavior and more negative patterns of response to other family members, including both mothers and children. Fewer differences were observed between mothers in the abusing and nonabusing families or in the children's behavior; however, mothers in the abusing families criticized their husbands more and abused children exhibited less agreement and more criticism toward their fathers. In support of Patterson's theory, abusing families exhibited relatively more reciprocated sequences of criticism and relatively fewer reciprocated sequences of agreement as compared to nonabusing families. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for understanding interaction in child abusing families.     

How jurors construe “insanity”

Historically and currently, jurors who have rendered verdicts in insanity cases have themselves been criticized and maligned-accused of being simplistic and biased, of lacking understanding, and of disregarding or nullifying the judge's instructions. Are the critics right? In this study, 263 mock jurors (141 adults and 122 students) were asked to decide four insanity cases without instructions, using their own best judgment, and to identify the determinative facts for them, and the meaning of those facts. Those determinative factors were then categorized, using a seven construct schema for NGRI and guilty verdicts. The results show that jurors do make discriminations among cases in terms of constructs, and that these constructs are relevant, complex, and flexible; furthermore, the jurors' lay constructs of insanity are more complex than the legal constructs of insanity. The “simplism,” it seems, lies not with the jurors but with the insanity tests.