Contrasting simulated and empirical experiments in crime prevention

This paper argues that simulated experiments of crime prevention interventions are an important class of research methods that compare favorably with empirical experiments. It draws on Popper’s demarcation between science and non-science (Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London, 1992) and Epstein’s principle of generative explanation (Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006) to show how simulated experiments can falsify theory. The paper compares simulated and empirical experiments and shows that simulations have strengths that empirical methods lack, but they also have important relative weaknesses. We identify three threats to internal validity and two forms of external validity peculiar to simulated experiments. The paper also looks at the problem of validating simulations with crime data and suggests that simulations need to mimic the error production processes involved in the creation of empirical data. It concludes by listing ways simulations can be used to improve empirical experiments and discussing the differing operating assumption of empirical and simulation experimentalists.

John E. EckEmail: