Aggregation,ratio variables,and measurement problems in criminological research

Issues of measurement error, level of aggregation, and ratio variables have been considered serious problems in criminological research. Although there have been many recent discussions of these issues in sociology and criminology, studies designed to assess the impact of these problems on the results of empirical research have, for the most part, been absent. After reviewing what is known theoretically and conceptually about these issues, an investigation which compares empirical analyses of a particular type of crime, homicide, that use different measurement strategies, different levels of aggregation, and ratio versus nonratio variables is presented. Utilizing homicide data from the mid-1970s and selected independent variables, the results of this investigation indicate that these three problems can interact in an empirical setting such that potential solutions to these problems do not always apply in the manner suggested in previous studies. The results also indicate that there is great risk in ignoring one or more of these problems in empirical research, in that different substantive conclusions can be reached from analyses that ignore these issues compared with analyses that deal directly with them.     

Constructing an index of officially recorded crime: The use of confirmatory factor analysis

Researchers using officially reported crime statistics must frequently combine rates of individual crimes into a single composite. The most popular composite is the FBI Crime Index, which is the sum of the seven Part I crimes; alternatives include forming separate indices for personal and property crimes and weighting the crime categories by their seriousness before summing them. In this paper we construct crime composites through the use of confirmatory factor analysis methods. The results suggest that the measurement assumptions of conventional crime indices are problematic and demonstrate how more satisfactory alternatives can be developed with confirmatory factor analysis techniques.     

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.     

The Revised Directive on Waste: Resolving Legislative Tensions in Waste Management?

The revised Directive on waste (Directive 2008/98/EC) enteredinto force on 12 December 2008. The purpose of the revised Directiveis to simplify the existing legislative framework for wastein order to encourage the divergence of waste away from landfills,to strengthen legal certainty and minimise burdens on businesses,regulators and stakeholders. This article explores the mainfeatures of the revised Directive and assesses them againstthe European Commissions' intentions in introducing the Directive.In addition, the paper considers the extent to which the revisedDirective promotes successfully (i) reduction of natural resourceuse, (ii) prevention of environmental impacts of waste generation,(iii) life-cycle thinking and; (iv) securing waste prevention.The paper concludes that there is still room for further clarification,particularly in relation to the criteria for by-products andthe new waste management terms ‘end of waste’ and‘preparing for re-use’. Whilst the revised Directivehas weaknesses and limitations it should be considered withinthe context of decision-making. In this way it represents amulti-party, multi-institutional and multi-national compromisewhich should be considered as a progressive step towards improvingthe whole life-cycle of products and resources. Undoubtedly,the revised Directive sets the tone for future legislative developmentsand bolsters the importance of extended producer responsibilityin future waste management measures.