2 - Experimental Tests of Criminological Theory

Summary

THE SCARCITY OF THEORY IN EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY

Though randomized, controlled, experimental trials hardly dominate the landscape of research in criminology, we nonetheless find ourselves in the midst of what many scholars are calling the era of experimental criminology (Clear 2010; Sampson 2010). As Angrist (2006: 23) observes, “criminologists do not appear to have… ‘sciencephobia’…Criminology is the only one [social science] to show a marked increase in the use of randomized trials since the mid-sixties.” Not only has the reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine “what works” grown in previous years – though the number of such inquiries arguably remains tied to the productivity of a handful of scholars (Farrington 2003) – but the prominence and endorsement of this method has also grown markedly, both inside and outside of academic circles.

To be clear, the view that randomized, controlled experimental methods provide important and rigorous methodological insight into empirical questions of interest to social scientists is hardly new. However, undeniably, the relevance and importance of this method for criminology specifically has gained increased momentum in recent years. The past decade and a half has witnessed the establishment of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, the Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology, the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Experimental Criminology, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, and the Journal of Experimental Criminology. These organizations (and the journal) have a clear agenda of focusing attention on the importance of experiments for social science generally and criminology in particular; they argue that successfully implemented RCTs are the “gold standard” by which we should assess the effectiveness of policy and interventions.