Blog

[Answered] CCJ 5705 – Do you think it is ever possible to establish causality in criminological research? Why or why not?

Criminal Justice

[Answered] CCJ 5705 – Do you think it is ever possible to establish causality in criminological research? Why or why not?

Discussion Board – Week 5

Do you think it is ever possible to establish causality in criminological research? Why or why not?

Below are a total of 22 versions of answers to this question.

Each answer has its unique perspective.

Need help with the CCJ 5705 Class or Assignments? We are your #1 Tutoring Partner. Talk to us via our communication channels – Email, Social Media, or Order form. Here is that link to the order form – https://prolifictutors.com/place-order/

Answer 1

It will be very difficult to establish causality in criminological research. It is doubtful that the causation will ever be clear and concrete enough to identify without unreasonable doubt. Nomothetic causal explanations focus on effects on average, involving the concept that variation in the independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable considering all other things to be equal (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). The problem with nomothetic causal explanations is that it is impossible to know what would have happened if the independent variable had not varied (Beaver, 2021). Criminological research must use the cases at hand, and although there might be similar situations they will never be identical nor will experiments be able to account for the exact context and time order. Further, if the independent variable had not changed then the situation would not appear on the radar to be studied or flagged. 

A second type of causal explanations is idiographic causal explanations. This focuses on the sequences of events that led to an outcome (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). There must be an empirical association, meaning  a criterion to establish a causal relationship between two variables (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). In regards to criminological research, it seems very doubtful that one single association will be the cause for a series of events to occur for a criminological outcome, especially to establish a criminological theory at large. There are too many variables to be certain that the particular association is the initial condition. Further, the cause must precede the effect in time (Beaver, 2021). In regards to criminological research, many factors are intertwined and there is not likely a black and white cause and effect. Many variables must be taken into account and there may not be a direct cause and effect relationship. Even if there was, it would be very hard to know what the correct sequence was. 

Experiments can be used to study research design and causality. Experiments are considered the gold standard for testing (Beaver, 2021). In an experiment, subjects are randomly assigned to a group that receives the treatment of the independent variable and another group that does not (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). It does not seem possible to set up an experiment to study the cause of criminological events. First of all, there is probably not one independent variable that can be said to cause crime and there are too many factors to set up a true experiment to reflect reality. While different relationships between variables may be studied, to establish causality in criminological research will require studying thousands of variables. This does not seem feasible and there would be too many spurious relationships to account for. 

References:

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag

Beaver, Keven. (2021). Week Four Presentation. FSU.

Answer 2

One of the most intriguing aspects of studying criminal behavior is that if causality could be determined, in many cases there could be social programs or law enforcement intervention that could eliminate the aspect of criminal behavior being studied.  The benefit of this would be invaluable to American society.

In order to attempt to determine causality, criminologists structure their research in a manner that would give them insight into the causality.  How the research is designed gives the researcher the ability to draw casual conclusions.  If the researcher seeks to explain their hypothesis where the independent variable is the cause and has a potential effect on the dependent variable, this is generally termed “nomothetic.”  What seems to be a more simplified method of research is termed the “idiographic.”  This term is used when a researcher attempts a causal explanation because of a series of related, prior events (Bachman & Schutt, 2019, p. 151). 

There are some conditions that are necessary when attempting to determine causality because they strengthen the researcher’s ability to explain the causation.  This first condition is association.  When a researcher can demonstrate the association between the independent and dependent variables, the causation conclusion is strengthened.  The next condition is time order.  It further supports the researcher’s conclusion if the variation in the dependent variable occurs after the variation in the independent variable.  Finally, there must be a nonspuriousness relationship between two variables that is not affected by a variation in a third variable.  All three of these conditions must be present before the researcher can make any causation claims (Bachman & Schutt, 2019, p. 154 – 156).

On the question of whether I believe it is ever possible to establish causality in criminal research, the short answer is no.  There are too many possible outside variables, some that a researcher might not even have thought to consider.  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase meaning, “after this, therefore because of this” (“Post hoc,” 2020).  Because something occurs after something else does not mean it was caused by the first factor. Obviously, solid researchers are going to consider many factors, as outlined above, before making any conclusions, but I submit there are endless factors that could have caused the change in the dependent variable and drawing a conclusion as to a near absolute cause and affect relationship is flawed.     

References:

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2019). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice. SAGE Publications.

Post hoc. (2020, August). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/post_hoc

Answer 3

Understanding of causal relationships are always partial since it is not possible to establish full confirmation of causality if tested in different settings or if any historical event is being overlooked (Bachman and Schutt, 2020, p. 174). It is nearly impossible to establish causality in criminological research, but not completely impossible (Beaver, 2021). Research designs can aid in determination of one factor causing another one, however, to ensure solid causality establishment in criminological research, one hypothesis has to be tested through every possible design, while meeting the design pattern for a particularly selected phenomenon. Only after that conclusion it would be possibly to conclude that at a current period of time the causality was met. Over time, all confirmed analysis might not be valid due to societal progress and advancing technologies.  Even more, to fully confirm causality, researchers need unlimited financial resource to prove validity in different settings, countries, different population groups, what makes monetary requirements for this purpose almost impossible; there is always will be that small percent left for a possibility of everything falling in order including resources and establishing causality. However, at this point I believe that it is never possible to establish unequivocal and straightforward causality with 100% confirmation and no deviation with proper supported and peer-reviewed testing of all the factors.  

            For instance, considering limitations of nomothetic causal explanations such as being absolutely sure that the same will happen with the same people at the same time if the independent variable did not vary. It is not possible to recreate real life scenarios completely identically, however, research designs are possible when applied similar conditions (Beaver, 2021). It is not possible to be 100% sure that what would have happened at the same time with the same people, or groups or cities etc., if independent variable did not vary. Even though having ideal standard of comparability, research design can be modified to achieve more accurate causal conclusions (Bachman and Schutt, 2020, p. 152). Additionally, it will be very hard to establish nonspuriousness simply by identifying the relations between the variables, even if one phenomenon precedes the other. Direct connection is not necessarily valid since it might be due to variation in a third variable (Beaver, 2021). Perhaps, there is no 100% confirmed possibility to prove nonspuriousness in any criminological research, there always will be a chance for a third variable existence that the researchers will not be aware of during the time of their research.

            To establish the existence of the causal connections 5 criteria has to be satisfied, which makes it difficult to satisfy all of the steps in the process, leaving a plethora of gaps for errors to occur. If a research design leaves one of the criteria unmet, doubts will arise about assertation validity. Even if the first 3 criteria are successfully met, empirical association, appropriate time order, and nonspuriousness, mechanism and content are still crucial aspects to bolster causal relationship (Bachman and Schutt, 2020, p. 154). Thus, fulfilling all 5 conditions without any possibility of the deviation of data and hypothesis is almost not possible. If the researcher will only dedicate the resources towards the first 3 criteria, for the proper testing and concrete establishing of causality, dedication to only 3 elements will not be sufficient.   For instance, true experiments require a lot of pre and post planning that involves both extensive amounts of physical and mental resources along with the financial support difficulties that are inevitable in convoluted designs. For the true experiment study groups have to be from the same population, experiment has to be assigned to experimental and control group randomly, pretests and posttest have to happen to ensure that stimulus is referred to the hypothesized response and intervention is related to hypothesized outcome. Combined with the latter, all steps of the process have to be meticulously confirmed and validated such as association, time order, nonspurious relationship, mechanism, and the context where change is supposed to take place (Beaver, 2021). Even more, certain preparations have to be made as initial steps before an attempt to meet any criteria—to control the conditions participants are exposed to after they are selected for the experimental and comparison groups, what further obstructs establishing causality in criminological research (Bachman and Schutt, 2020, p. 160). Respectively, even without establishing unequivocal causality, criminological research is vital for societal development and deeper conceptualization of numerous criminally inclined issues that can be better addressed with empirically based knowledge.   

References

Beaver, K.M.  (2021).  Research Methods in Criminology I (CCJ 5705): Week 5 Lecture Notes and PowerPoint Presentations.  Florida State University.

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal

justice (7th ed.). SAGE.

Answer 4

I do not believe that causality can be fully established in criminological research, but I believe that studies and researchers are capable of coming very close to it. With causality, in relation to criminological research, one is attempting to explain why someone commits the crime they have committed, by attempting to explain away on the inner “why” of the criminals mind. That is why I state that only through past studies of actual criminals can you reach a causality explanation, from a crime that has already occurred. 

Causality is defined as an explanation for some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities or events. (Bachman & Schutt, 2020) Without being able to read a criminals mind or any persons mind for that matter, we will never fully grasp the true reason as to why someone commits a crime. Using methods such as the quantitative nomothetic explanation and the qualitative idiographic explanation can help bring researchers to a cliff of understanding that is just short of a definitive truth. Nomothetic explanations can provide researchers with tests to help create conditions that are comparable with the actual events and strengthen the causal conclusions, even when we cannot come so close to living up to the meaning of ceteris paribus, which means “all other things being equal”. (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). The issue with nomothetic causal explanation is that there is still human error in this research process. It doesn’t matter how many different tests or tests or studies are completes on willing participants, the outcomes will never be exact to what the original causality was. The fundamental difficulty with the nomothetic perspective is that we never really know what would have happened at the same time to the same people if the independent variable had not varied, because it did. (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Bachman and Schutt state it perfectly by saying that we can never rerun real life scenarios. (2020) People are independent thinkers, they will act and speak and do independently from any other person. Without being able to predict the future or read someone’s mind, the research will never be exact. 

Sure one can argue that just because kids these days are watching violent YouTube videos or playing violent video games are more likely to commit crimes, but do they really? How sure can we really be? Sure kids go to see psychiatrists and talk about the crimes they may or may have not committed, however educated and experienced as they may be, they are not mind readers either. Like I stated, we can come close to recreating the events that lead to crimes by designing studies with similar variables to help better explain the “why”. 

Reference

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Answer 5

Because causality implies that the relationship between two factors is fact, I believe in many cases it is difficult to say with conviction that it can be established, though it is not impossible. I believe we try to fill in the explanation for why a phenomenon has occurred. In this week’s presentation, an example for the cause of violent behavior might have occurred due to any number of narratives, such as watching Fight Club or playing Grand Theft Auto as a child (Beaver, 2021.)  While these both might have had an influence, we cannot say with certainty that any one of these was the sole reason for violent behavior, and we cannot argue that it was or was not a combination of these factors. Furthermore, we cannot pinpoint the moment these influences began to make a change in our behaviors. We can explore the correlation between two factors and examine their relationship, though it is important to note that if watching violent movies has a high correlation with aggressive behavior, this is not evidence of causation .Relatedness also does not account for any extraneous variables that may affect the factors’ relationship. Though they may look to be connected, there may be another spurious variable that influences the relationship, this emphasizes the imperativeness of the context of the event.

Though most times causality is difficult to establish, I believe that under a controlled setting, it can be determined. In the nomothetic causal explanation, it is stated that variation in an independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable when all other variables are equal (Bachman & Schutt, 2020.) The idiographic causal explanation explores the individual sequence of events that led to a particular event. Under certain research designs, such as a true experiment, finding causal relations is certainly possible. This design is powerful in that it establishes the 3 criteria for causality, including an experimental and control group, random assignment, and assessment of change in the dependent variable (Bachman & Schutt, 2020.) If carried out carefully, the researcher has control over each of the variables and can assess the direct effect the change in the independent variable has on the dependent variable. It is also important to ensure that this manipulation is not caused by a third variable.  In conclusion, I believe causality is oftentimes unable to be determined, though with the proper research design and statistical control, the case can be made for it. By using consistent terms and standards for validity, we can use this research to enhance our social understanding. 

References

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Beaver, K. (2021). Week 5 Lecture Notes. Florida State University.

Answer 6

I think it is not possible to establish causality in criminological research. In order for causality to be established, three criteria must work together. Researchers must maintain control over all conditions the subjects are exposed to after they are assigned to the experimental group (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Therefore, it can be hard to control every aspect of an experiment after subjects are assigned. If the conditions change, then causality can not be established. As a result, the variation between the experimental and experimental groups will not be what the researcher intended (Bachman & Schutt, 2020).

The main goal of criminological research is to focus on issues related to the causes and consequences of crime and delinquency. Establishing causality would consist of the researcher defining variables. For example, a researcher wants to know, “does violent video games contribute to the increased rates of murder?”. They would begin their research by developing a hypothesis, and structure their research to attempt to show causality. However, establishing causality would be difficult because all criteria has to be satisfied and that is hard to achieve. The researcher must establish association between the independent and dependent variables. Variables such as individuals can change because, some individuals may drop out of the study or some may not respond to questions being asked in the study. Next, the researcher must include time order. This would consist of the researcher ensuring that the variation in the independent variable came before variation in the dependent variable or, simply put the cause must come before the presumed effect (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). It is not always guaranteed it will be in order therefore, causation is hard to establish. In this situation, researchers must rely on past criminological research of the same study to see that cases were exposed to variation in the independent variable fore variation in the dependent variable. Nonspuriousness is another essential criterion for establishing the existence of a causal effect, and is considered the most important criterion (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). The mechanism strengthens a conclusion that that two variables have a causal connection. However, social scientists collectively agree that a causal explanation is not adequate until a causal mechanism is identified. All of these factors must work together properly to establish causality in criminological research.

The nomothetic causal explanation ensures that variation in an independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable, when all other things are equal. However, this is rarely possible because it is not guaranteed the independent variable will be followed by the dependent variable. Causality assumes that research will always go according to plan without any unexpected mishaps. In fact, that is not the case. Research can always change, new discoveries can arise that can change the course of the research. I personally believe causality is impossible because it relies on perfection. It is impossible to conduct research where everything works out properly. Criminological research is unpredictable, and I believe that causality will never work in criminological research. It is possible but, that would require a lot of patience, time, and reliance on past research. 

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Answer 7

A causal relationship establishes why a specific event occurs (Bachmann & Schutt, 2020, p 150). Although not impossible, it is extremely difficult to  establish causality in criminological research. In a perfect world, everything would have a cause and an effect that was known to everyone. Crime could be reduced dramatically, homicide rates could plummet, and overall the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, this perfect world does not exist in the criminological realm. Establishing causality is arduous, can be attempted from two perspectives, includes meeting certain conditions, and is nearly impossible to accomplish.

Causal explanations can be looked at from two perspectives. The first is nomothetic, which means that a manipulation of the independent variable will be followed by a variation of the dependent variable (Bachman & Schutt, 2020, p. 152). The downfall of this causal explanation is that one will never truly know what would have occurred if the independent variable had not been altered. The second causal explanation is idiographic, which recognizes the events and thoughts that led to an outcome or event (Bachman & Schutt, 2020, p. 152-153). The issue with these explanations is that there are so many factors that could have led to a particular event that a causal analyst cannot simply and confidently put all of his or her merit in one. There are always alternative explanations (Bachmann & Schutt, 2020, p. 153). 

There are three conditions that must be met before causality can be determined. These conditions are: empirical association, appropriate time order, and nonspuriousness (Bachman & Schutts, 2020, p. 154). Empirical association means that the variation in one variable is correlated with that of another variable in determining causality. Appropriate time order is established when the variation in the independent variable precedes that of the dependent variable (Bachmann & Schutts, 2020, p. 155-156). Nonspuriousness means that any relationship that is established between variables is not caused by a third variable. Two conditions must be met when specifying casual relationships: mechanism and context. Mechanism is a process that creates a causal connection between variables (Bachman & Schutts, 2020, p. 157). Context suggests that a specific outcome is a constituent of a broader group of concatenated circumstances (Bachman & Schutts, 2020, p. 153). 

When it comes to proving causality, there are too many alternative factors and explanations involved. These alternative factors might be known or unknown to the researchers involved in the experiment and observation. It would be extremely difficult for researchers to isolate all of the possible factors and focus on one true cause of the effect. It would be a blessing to be able to determine the cause of the plethora of questions that exist in criminological research, but there are many factors involved that determining the definite cause would send an individual into a whirlwind of plausible explanations. One would not know which cause to settle on, and would probably not be able to meet all of the conditions necessary to establish a causal relationship. It is nearly impossible to establish causality in criminological research, however, it should not be said that it is completely impossible; it is just tremendously difficult.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice(7thEdition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Answer 8

A cause is an explanation for some characteristics, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such as families, organizations, or cities) or for events (Bachman and Schutt, 2020). There are several different research designs used to study causes of crime in which the independent variable is the presumed cause, and the dependent variable is the potential effect (Bachman and Schutt, 2020). In order to determine causality the following conditions need to be necessary, empirical association, appropriate time order, nonspuriousness, mechanism and context.  

Quantitative (nomothetic) casual explanation is a type of explanation involving the belief that variation in an independent in an independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable, when all other things are equal (Bachman and Schutt, 2020). The difficulty with this perspective is that we never really know what would have happened at the same time to the same people (or groups, cities, and so on) if the independent variable had not varied, because it did (Bachman and Schutt, 2020). Scenarios from real-life cannot be repeated . Therefore, the people and the circumstances at the time of the event were not the same. However, a design research can be created to match the conditions, so that we can confidently assert our conclusions (Beaver, 2021).

Qualitative (idiographic) casual explanation is an explanation that identifies the concrete, individual sequence of events, thoughts, or actions that resulted in a particular outcome for a particular individual or that led to a particular event (Bachman and Schutt, 2020).  Idiographic casual explanation include states of initial conditions and then relates a series of events at particular times that led to the outcome. Idiographic casual explanation requires attention to time order and casual mechanisms. It is difficult to make a convincing case that one particular causal narrative should be chosen over an alternative narrative (Beaver, 2021).

It is not impossible to establish causality, but challenging in criminology research. It is difficult because it is often burdensome to establish relationships in social research, because it can be difficult to determine which came first (Beaver, 2021). There are many factors involved when determining causality. For researches, it is difficult to study each aspect and to determine the causality. Especially, if the same exact conditions cannot be determined.

References

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Beaver, K. (2021). Week 5 Lecture Notes. Florida State University.

Answer 9

In order to determine the causality of any one set incident/occurrence, including criminalistic activities, the Research must be defined. When speaking of causal explanations, we re-visit the differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the forms of nomothetic (later) and idiographic (former) causal explanations. With nomothetic causal explanation, the validity of the data collected relies on the dependent variable fluctuating in tandem/relation with the changes made to independent variable (Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, 2018, p. 152). This is heavily limited by the fact that no research team or group of social scientists are collectively omniscient, making it impossible to truly know what would have occurred had the independent variable not been changed. This is combated by the establishment of near similar circumstances either running parallel to the original group or after the fact. From here the researchers would need to ensure that the three main criteria (association, time order, and nonspuriousness) are met while seeking to strengthen those criteria with a mechanism. (Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, 2018, p. 157).  

In needing to split the changes to the independent variable across separate groups of individuals, the changes are not occurring at the same time, nor can the same pace be set uniformly amongst different groups, thereby eliminating one of the criteria for causality. Nonspuriousness is the most important of the listed criteria, as it ensures the scientists do not need to factor a third variable that connects the dependent and independent variables (Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, 2018, p. 156). My favorite example of this third variable is in the association between the increase in ice cream sales and crime. The third variable is ambient temperature. People are more likely to be violent when over-heated just as they are more likely to buy ice-cream.

Then there is idiographic causal explanation, also called narrative reasoning, where a single variable is observed over a set period so that the changes can be studied as they occur organically (Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, 2018, p. 153). Axiomatically this causal explanation relies on the observation of specific variables and how they react to change overtime, thereby providing reference material for future studies to compare/contrast outcomes. The Week 5 notes mentioned substance abuse and crime stating that as one prolongs their use of illicit substances their likelihood of committing criminal acts rises. This is limited by the fact that the suspects or the variables that are being studied are generally not in the direct control over those who are observing, especially not the same dependent variable. It would be difficult to establish a universal causality with these kinds of results.  

There is no limit to questions being asked, both by organizations in Law Enforcement or those who exist in the civilian population, regarding “why” any one incident or patterns of actions happen. This is especially true when dealing with criminalistic tendencies. Philosophers, Law Enforcement, Social Scientists, Anthropologists, Historians, etc. have all sought an answer/remedy to the negative behaviors of specific individuals within a society. There has been very limited success in these ventures, as the number of variables and the complexity of the individuals involved in these studies far overwhelm those who have tried regarding controlling the circumstances. Further, it is not often that those who are committing said acts make themselves available for extensive examination therefore we are not dealing with the actual root of the “problem.” Then, any data or proven theory must be tested against the ecological and reductionist fallacies (Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, 2018, pp. 172–173).

So, in short, I do not believe that a universal causality can be determined by extensive study and observation. Regardless of the number of experiments or the variety of studies conducted, there will never be one answer to every question. Every person who commits crimes does so for different reasons, albeit similar. The individuals themselves are the amalgamation of choices and consequences leading them to said actions.

References

-Ronet D. Bachman & Schutt, R. K. (2018). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US).

-Beaver, K.M.  (2021).  Research Methods in Criminology I (CCJ 5705): Week 5 Lecture Notes

and Power Point Presentations.  Florida State University.

Answer 10

I believe it will be very difficult to establish causality in criminological research, however, it is not impossible to do. “A cause is an explanation for some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such as families, organizations, or cities) or for events” (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). There are two types of causes: nomothetic and idiographic. Nomothetic causal explanation “involves the belief that variation in an independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable, when all other things are equal” (Beaver PowerPoint, 2021). An example of this would be that people who are victims of child sexual abuse will have a greater likelihood to become sexual offenders as an adult, than a person who was not victimized as a child. The limitations in this example is that we have no way to go back in time and change the fact that a person has been a victim of sexual abuse, so it makes it difficult to determine if they would still become offenders if they were not victims themselves. With this being said, research can be designed “to create conditions that are very comparable, so that we can confidently assert our conclusions ceteris paribus—other things being equal” (Beaver PowerPoint, 2021).  

Idiographic causal explanation “identifies the concrete individual sequence of events, thoughts, or actions that resulted in a particular outcome for a particular individual or that led to that particular event” (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Idiographic explanations “focus on particular social actors in particular social places at particular social times” (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This belief is that there are a series of events that lead to criminal behavior, not just one thing. If you study a person’s life history and can establish the events in order that have lead up the criminal behavior, you can determine idiographic causal explanation. It may be difficult to apply this information to other criminals, but it can be used with the person being studied. There is also the five criteria that should be considered when trying to establish a causal relationship. “The first three of the criteria are generally considered as requirements for identifying a causal effect: (1) empirical association, (2) temporal priority of the independent variable, and (3) nonspuriousness. You must establish these three to claim a causal relationship. Evidence that meets the other two ­criteria— (4) identifying a causal mechanism and (5) specifying the context in which the effect occurs—can considerably strengthen causal explanations” (Beaver PowerPoint, 2021). Meeting the first three criteria can be extremely difficult, but it is possible to do.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beaver, K.M. (2021). Research Methods in Criminology 1 (CCJ 5705): Week 5 Lecture Notes and PowerPoint Presentations. Florida State University.

Need help with the CCJ 5705 Class or Assignments? We are your #1 Tutoring Partner. Talk to us via our communication channels – Email, Social Media, or Order form. Here is that link to the order form – https://prolifictutors.com/place-order/

Answer 11

Finding causality in criminal justice, or in any other social science is tricky. This is due to the fact that the research is dependent on human behavior, which is unpredictable. Especially when studying something like crime or a person’s criminality, people are likely to lie about things like abuse, drug use, and crimes they may not have been found guilty of yet. It is important to remember when doing research that correlation does not mean causation.

The two types of causations are nomothetic and idiographic (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Nomothetic causation is an explanation that forms an if/then statement (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). For example, if a child grows up in a violent household, then they will be abusive to their families later on in life.  However, there are plenty of children who are raised in abusive circumstances and grow to adults who never hurt anyone.

In idiographic causal explanations, the causality comes from several circumstances that lead to an outcome (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This causality could be more accurate for something like criminological research because it searches for patterns. For example, if a child grows up in a violent household, if the child watches violent media, and if the child has delinquent peers, then the child will become an abuser later on in life. While this information all together looks like it would cause the child to become an abuser, the child could also turn their lives around before or during adulthood.

No matter how strong of a correlation between social events, it is impossible to prove causation due to human nature. Everyone is unpredictable on what they will do with their life, therefore the cause of crime is unpredictable. Patterns make the connection between cause and effect easier to spot, but researchers must always have a look out for their criteria for causation which are association, time order, non-spuriousness, mechanisms, and context. I believe that because of the nature of crime, the criteria will never be met, and crime will never have one true cause.

References

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

Answer 12

It appears that establishing causality is quite tricky, particularly in social fields such as criminological research where practical and/or ethical issues of random assignment to different conditions limit the use of true experimental designs. Often termed the “gold standard of research”, true randomized experiments allow researchers to come closer to establishing causality than any other study design, as randomized experiments are best able to establish the five conditions necessary for near complete confidence in causality. Bachman and Schutt (2020) list these conditions as empirical association, appropriate time order, nonspuriousness, mechanism, and context.

By randomly assigning subjects to experimental and comparison groups, researchers are able to unambiguously establish empirical association. By design, true experiments also provide appropriate time order, and conclusions are stronger when a pretest is collected. True nonspuriousness, however, is more difficult to achieve, as we often don’t know what we don’t know; but, successful randomization helps eliminate other possible confounding variables. Experimental designs also typically allow researchers to have full control over the study’s conditions, though field experiments are trickier to control. Perhaps most ambiguous in any research design is the mechanism of how the independent variable influences the dependent variable. 

Thus, since the majority of these five conditions are best achieved through study designs that are often impractical or unethical in the criminological field, establishing causality is near impossible. For example, we can typically establish correlation between variables such as drug use and crime, but it’s much more ethically and practically difficult to show which variable came first, “Does drug use cause people to commit crime, does crime cause drug use, or do they just exist together?” (Beaver, 2021). The best we can do is contribute statistically reliable and valid research that builds off of the weaknesses of previous research until we have a large enough collection of well designed studies that all point to a particular pattern. For nonexperimental designs, we can still prove correlation, use careful designs that best indicate an appropriate time order, and implement statistical control to improve nonspuriousness. Yet, even then, it is important to always be on the lookout for alternative explanations of mechanisms through confounding variables. 

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (7th ed.). SAGE.

Beaver, K.M. (2021). Research Methods in Criminology I (CCJ 5705): Week 5 PowerPoint Presentations. Florida State University.

Answer 13

Before start reading the chapter and seeing the PowerPoint presentation, I answered myself. There is no way to establish causality in criminology researches. I quickly thought about the scientific difficulty of establishing the connection between two variables and knowing if there is no a third variable. I also thought that within daily life, it is not very easy to set this additional causality. Moreover, other inconveniences within the investigation can be generated, such as the control of the context. However, during the chapter, I was able to visualize something that I did not see beforehand. Science is much more precise than simple logic and how human beings can relate variables without any regurgitation. In this way, one by one, the inconveniences that I initially saw were dissipated.

The qualitative causal explanation classified as narrative reasoning has difficulty recognizing which variable came first despite giving profound importance to temporality. For this reason, this explanation could not obtain a strong result compared to the causal relationship of two variables. On the other hand, the quantitative causal explanation also shows some difficulties, but one by one has been fixed through the entire chapter. First, the fact we can not rerun real life does not let us know precisely what would happen if the independent variable had not varied. Fortunately, social researchers can create conditions confidently comparable. The spurious relationship is another issue that I found. The fact that a third variable could be the actual causality is something that always concerned me. However, the scientific research design can control in some situations the extraneous variable.

In conclusion, The research designs, either true experimental designs or nonexperimental designs, have rigorous requirements that strengthen the possibility of identifying causality either separately or by combining the two types of research design. The experimental designs must meet requirements such as the association between variables, the effect of the order of time, the nonspurious relationship between variables, the development of the mechanisms and context in which the phenomenon to be studied occurs and, the requirements of non-experimental designs such as cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Allow approaching the causality so desired in criminology studies.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice(7thEdition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beaver, K. (2021). Week Five Presentation. FSU.

Answer 14

In total, I do believe that we can find causality in criminological research. Identifying and detecting causes is the goal of most social science research. (Bachman & Schutt, 2020, p. 150) The answer to why someone commits a crime or why someone becomes a victim is a causation. Does one law stop certain people from committing crimes or does family upbringing lead some offenders to become deviant while others obey the laws? Although the answers might not best explain the reason why someone commits a crime or chooses a certain victim, there must be a reason why. Research is the way we try and explain or try and explain the reason behind why someone becomes deviant or commits a crime. (Beaver, 2021)

Researchers can come up with a theory, test the theory, and then have other researchers do empirical studies and test the original theory to prove or disprove its relevance. With causal relationships to be shown to have relationships between the cause and the action, there must be evidenced that they are related, somehow. These associations must be visible and not presumed. Experiments are the way we show and prove whether the hypothesis is accurate. These experiments examine the effects of independent variables on dependent variables. (Beaver, Research Methods in Criminology, Powerpoint Week #5, 2021)

In chapter 6, there is a case study about media violence and violent behavior. Two groups of undergraduate students were exposed to a violent 15-minute video clip and the other group watched a non-violent 15-minute clip. The aggression level of those who watched the violent movie was higher than those who did not watch the violent clip. This showed a pattern, and it was not only 1 student but many students who showed more aggression, those that watched the violent clip and those that watched the non-violent clip. (Bachman & Schutt, 2020)

It is nearly impossible to establish causality in criminological research, but not completely impossible (Beaver, 2021). I believe that we can find causality in criminological research. The result of any study is part of an ever-changing body of research. Our reflection on our own and others’ research will always be partial, however, by maintaining consistency in research design, maintaining clear standards, and using only valid research methods, researchers can continue to add empirical data and help the research community and can provide answers to research questions.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7th Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

Beaver, K. (2021, 09 22). Research Methods in Criminology 1 CCJ 5705, Class Notes Week 5. Tallahassee.

Beaver, K. (2021). Research Methods in Criminology, Powerpoint Week #5. Tallahassee.

Answer 15

As we learned in this week’s readings and PowerPoint presentation, “it is nearly impossible (but not completely impossible) to determine causality in criminological research” (Beaver, 2021). It is important to understand what exactly cause is. Cause is “an explanation for some characteristic, attitude or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such as families, organizations, or cities) or for events” (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). In social research, researchers are trying to determine if an independent variable, which would be considered the cause, resulted in the dependent variable, which would be the effect. There are many obstacles in a researcher’s quest to establish causation. The conditions necessary to determine causality are that two variables must be empirically correlated with one another for a causal relationship to exist, cause must precede effect in time, and observed correlation between two variables cannot be explained away by a third variable (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Based on the reading, there seems to be a debate as to whether two other criteria must exist to determine a causal relationship, but nonetheless, they strengthen causal explanations. These two criteria are identifying a causal mechanism and specifying the context in which the effect occurs (Bachman & Schutt, 2020).

I believe it is nearly impossible, but not completely impossible, that causation is able to be determined in social and criminological research because the criteria are difficult to meet and adhere to in a social setting or the “real world” as opposed to an experiment that is being conducted in a controlled setting such as a laboratory and not on social beings. I think many things would be already solved, or social behaviors figured out and explained if we lived in a “perfect” world, as far as research is concerned, where everyone had the same past experiences, were raised the same way, and had the same thoughts to the point that a cause on one person would have the same effect on another. That is just not our reality. There are many other factors at play, but there are aspects of research and experiments that can help with establishing causality even amongst people who do not have the same backgrounds and life experiences.

Our textbook gave some great examples and case studies of true experiments and nonexperimental designs. One of the case studies our textbook gave of a true experiment was the media violence and violent behavior study. One of the case studies our textbook gave of a nonexperimental design was the gender, social control, and crime case study (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). In my opinion, these case studies gave clear differences in how the criteria can be met somewhat easier in a true experiment as opposed to a nonexperimental design. In the nonexperimental design, for example, there are many more assumptions that have to be made. In a true experiment, the researcher has experimental groups, control groups, comparison groups, and random assignment at play to attempt to meet the association, time order, and nonspuriousness criteria for establishing causation. Nonetheless, it is still extremely difficult to completely establish causation. Often, one or two of the criteria is met without the others. All criteria have to be met in order to establish causation.

References

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020, January). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Sage.

Beaver, K., (2021). Week 5 Presentation and Notes.

Answer 16

The goal of most researchers is to determine why things occur. In the criminal justice field, the question of what to study is simple; however, the answer is very complicated. A cause is identified as an explanation for some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities for events (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 147). Causal explanation can be broken down into two different groups: nomothetic and idiographic causal explanation.

First, I will speak about nomothetic causal explanation. This involves the belief that a change in an independent variable will result in a change in the dependent variable (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 147). For example, a study could be conducted on if abuse as a child (independent variable) has a direct effect on crime in adults (dependent variable). In other words, in order for a causal explanation to occur, researchers would believe that criminal behavior in the adults included in the study (dependent variable) is different than what it would have been if the independent variable (child abuse) was never present.  The problem with being able to use this type of research to determine causes for criminal behavior, is that no one ever really knows what would have happened because people all think different and all have their own reasons for the things they do. Sure, being abused as a child may make some people more prone to committing crime, but who is to say for sure if they would never have committed crime? In this situation, the abuse occurred and there is no way to know exactly what effect this had on the people involved in the study.

Next, I will speak of idiographic causal explanation. This type of causal explanation occurs when a series of events, thoughts, or actions result in a particular event or individual outcome (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 149). Since idiographic causal explanations occur as a result of a sequence of events, it is often referred to as narrative reasoning. The example provided by Bachman and Schutt (2011) made this very easy to understand (P. 149). In this example, the researchers attempt to explain the cause for why a specific adult was arrested for drug trafficking. The sequence of events starts all the way back to when the subject was a child. First, there was child neglect. As a result of the neglect, the child became anti-social, did not have friends, and did not trust people. As a result of this, the subject became addicted to heroin. As a result of the heroin addiction, the subject sells heroin to support his habit until he is eventually arrested for trafficking (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 147).

Now that there is a basic understanding of the two types of causal explanations, do I believe it is possible to establish causality in criminological research? Though I think research can give reasonable explanations for criminal behavior, I do not believe true causal explanations can be made. In order for causal explanations to be validated, three criteria are essential. These criteria are empirical association, appropriate time order, and nonspuriousness. Empirical association occurs when there is an association between the independent and dependent variables (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 152). Association can be obtained through increasing the number of people involved in the research and limiting the possible cause of behavior to one single dependent variable. Though this is difficult when researching criminological causation, it is possible. Appropriate time order is established when you can prove the subjects being studied were exposed to variation in the independent variable before the change in the dependent variable. In other words, you must show the suspected change in behavior was established after the subject was exposed to the independent variable (suspected cause) (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 152). For example, if a juvenile snorts cocaine but has also watched documentaries on the effects of cocaine, it does not necessarily mean the documentary caused the juvenile to experiment with the drug. The juvenile could have watched the documentary long after experimenting with cocaine which would make the suspected cause (watching the documentary) null and void. Again, this would be difficult to establish, but not impossible. The third of the three required criteria is nonspuriousness. This occurs when the researcher can prove the association between the dependent and independent variables was not influenced by something else (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 152). This is the reason I believe it is impossible to truly find causation in criminological research. When conducting research on what causes criminal behavior, there can be a strong correlation between two variables, but you never truly know if an unknown life experience has influenced the behavior. For example, research suggests that being abused as a child, whether it is physically, mentally, or sexually, can result in anti-social behavior which can ultimately lead to committing crime. Though these conclusions have strong merit because you can prove association and time order, it is impossible to prove that there was not another outside influence which led to criminal behavior. Other outside influences could come from something as simple as peer pressure to something as complex as genetic makeup. This is not to say that genetic makeup is the sole reason for criminal behavior, but that the third mandatory criteria (nonspuriousness) is impossible to achieve because there could always be an outside influence other than the specific variable being studied.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2011). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Answer 17

I do not think it is possible to establish causality in criminological research.  A cause is “an explanation for some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities or for events” (Beaver 2021).  Causality has two different types of causes called nomothetic and idiographic.  Nomothetic involves “variation in an independent variable that will be followed by variation in the dependent variable” (Beaver 2021).  This means that there has to be variation in the independent variable which will mean that the dependent variable will also have variation.  Idiographic is “individual sequence of events, thoughts, or actions that resulted in a particular outcome for a particular individual or that led to a particular event” (Beaver 2021).  This is also called narrative reasoning, which means that this cause tells a story rather than showing a variation.  It would be very hard to show both of these causes when looking into criminological research.  

The other reason for why causality would be hard to establish is the criteria for causation, which is the “two variables must be empirically correlated with one another, cause must precede effect in time, observed correlation between two variable cannot be explained away by a third variable, causal relationship strengthened by finding causal mechanism, and causal relationship should be considered within context” (Beaver 2021).  All of these things are supposed to be the criteria for causality, but there are some criteria that may not be able to be met when doing criminological research.  An example that is used in the book is the case study of media violence and violent behavior. 

In order to study this, the criteria need to be met, the one criteria that I can see that would be hard to meet would be the observed correlation between two variables not being explained by a third variable.  In this case study, the media violence in cinematic movies are said to cause violent behavior in real life by those that watch the movies, but a third variable in this scenario could be that whoever the person is that is causing the violent behavior could be doing so because there is something else going on in their life, and they are equating what is happening in the movie to what is happening in their own lives.  This alone would already dispute causality. It is hard to establish causality in research in general, but there are too many factors involved in criminological research that it would make it next to impossible to establish causality in criminological research.

References

Beaver, K. (2021). Week 5 Power Point and Notes. Florida State University.

Bachman, R.D. & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Chapter 6. 7th Edition. Sage Publications, Inc. 

Answer 18

I believe that it is incredibly difficult to establish causality in criminological research. The reason for this has to do with the three necessary criteria needed to determine causality. The first requires that the two variables be empirically correlated with each other (Beaver, 2021). This one wouldn’t be too difficult to prove as most criminological research looks for a relationship between two variables. This can usually be found in criminological data, such as statistics.

The next element that must be proven is that the cause precedes the effect in time (Beaver, 2021). This one is a little harder to prove as it is very difficult to tell what came first in social research. This can sometimes also be referred to as establishing time order (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Time order is nearly impossible to establish in nonexperimental research designs which is the most common type of design used for criminological research (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This is because most criminological research is based on data collected during surveys or interviews. There are certain ways to establish time order in nonexperimental research designs, like using fixed independent variables that can’t vary (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). However, this will limit the type of research one can study and is not practical in the long run.

One must also prove that no third outlying variable caused the correlation between the two variables (Beaver, 2021). This means that association could have been caused by something else not being studied in the experiment (Beaver, 2021). This occurs because it is almost impossible to have ceteris paribus in nonexperimental designs (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This means that the researcher cannot control all outside variables to keep them equal for the study (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This makes it nearly impossible to be certain there is a nonspurious relationship between variables in criminological research (Bachman & Schutt, 2020).

The three elements described above are difficult to establish in criminological research due to the nature of the research designs used for that field. The most common type is nonexperimental, which as explained above is nearly impossible to establish causality in (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This is due to the type of design not being able to establish time order and nonspuriousness (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Those are two of the three criteria required for a causal relationship (Beaver, 2021).

I don’t want to completely rule it as impossible in criminological research, because causality can be established through experimental research designs. Experimental research designs are not practical for criminological research because of how the research is founded in data collection and field observations. I believe that in the future, with the right technology, it could be possible to have criminological research be tested through experimental designs in a laboratory. Until that day however, it will be nearly impossible to establish causality in criminological research.

References  

Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Beaver, K. (2021). Week 5 Lecture Notes. Florida State University.

Answer 19

One of the main goals of any criminal research is to determine what is causing crime to occur. This question has plagued researchers for generations and is very difficult to answer. In fact, a broad definition for the cause of crime is practically impossible. I believe that even if a criminological researcher can establish causality in certain circumstance and situations, they can never be completely certain that they have not omitted some relevant variables. Even if the discovered cause of crime appears correct for a specific location, time frame, or subset of the population, it may not be applicable to future situations or locations. The discovered cause of crime cannot ever be 100% validated. If it was possible to establish causality for crime, then combating that factor would result in huge gains for law enforcement. Obviously, this is not the case since crime is still rampant in society.

Establishing cause can be very difficult for researchers to obtain. There are two types of causal explanations: nomothetic and idiographic. In nomothetic explanations the independent variable is the presumed cause, and the dependent variable is the potential effect (variation in the independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable). In idiographic explanations, individual events or behaviors are explained with a series of related prior events (Bachman & Schutt. 2019. Pg. 150). With both nomothetic and idiographic explanations there are issues that can result in the causes possibly being incorrect. For example, with nomothetic explanations we cannot know what would have happened to people or entities if the independent variable had not varied – because it did (Beaver, 2021). Perhaps the outcome would have been the same regardless of the tested independent variable and since the real-life scenario cannot ever be recreated perfectly this possibility is hard to rule out. Also, as Beaver (2021) highlights, it can be difficult to establish cause and effect relationships because it’s hard to determine which came first. This brings up the concept of spuriousness (a relationship between two variables that is due to variation in a third variable) (Bachman & Schutt. 2019). Without identifying the correct variable, what may appear to be a direct correlation might not be at all.

Obviously, it is very difficult to establish causality in criminological research. Even when the five criteria for deciding whether causal connections exist are met (empirical association, appropriate time order, nonspuriousness, identifying causal mechanism, and specifying the context), it is still not possible to completely understand the causal relationships. As Bachman and Schutt (2019) put it “It is important to remember that results of any particular study are part of an always-changing body of empirical knowledge of social reality. Thus our understanding of causal relationships are always partial” (Pg.174). The complexity of social interactions and the vast quantity of criminogenic factors make establishing causality in criminal research extremely difficult.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice (7th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag

Beaver, Keven. (2021). Week Four Presentation. FSU.

Answer 20

Criminological research focuses on what causes crime as well as the data behind crime occurrence. The main reason for not knowing whether something causes crime is due to the inherent limitations of social science research and the requirements associated with causality (Beaver, 2021, p.1). Although it is nearly impossible to establish what causes crime, different research designs can be used to factor in what the causes stem from.

A cause is an explanation, for some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of groups, individuals, or other entities (such as families, gangs, police departments) or for events (Beaver, 2021, p.1). Types of causes include nomothetic and idiographic. Nomothetic is the belief that that variation in an independent variable will be followed by variation in the dependent variable when all other things are equal (Beaver, 2021, p.3). For example, nomothetic examines what we share with other such as, youth violence concerning; those who play violent video games and those who do not. This research has limitations because we can not rerun real-life scenarios therefore, we do not know what would have happened if the independent variable had not varied (Beaver, 2021, p.5). However, research conditions can be designed to compare so that researchers can confidently assert their conclusions (Beaver, 2021, p.5).

Idiographic is used most often to describe an individual sequence of events, thoughts, or actions that resulted in a particular outcome for a particular individual or that led to a particular event (Beaver, 2021, p.6). Idiographic also focuses on what causes a particular event to occur or what caused a particular case to change (Bachman, 2020, p.153). Idiographic events convey a deeper understanding of events about the lives and experiences of people. However, it still has its limitations. It is difficult to say that one causal narrative is the determinant and should be chosen over another (Bachman, 2020, p.153). For example, for a child in and out of juvenile detention for arson, assault, or grand theft; an idiographic explanation will give context on the juvenile’s background and experiences to explain the causes of their crimes. The juvenile’s story may be that his parents died when he was young, and he was passed around to different family members and then group homes. He was bullied at school for not having enough money or parents who loved him. They did not have a stable home life or friends and it weighed on their mental state. From that example, can there be a sole reason for the juvenile choosing a life a crime? Is it because they were bullied? Did not have a stable home life? Not enough money? The story leaves too many causal effects that can give alternative explanations.

  I do not think it is possible to determine causality in criminological research; too many factors are involved to set up an experiment needed to test for the variables. There is not one independent variable that can be assumed is the root cause for a crime.  Researchers can only assume that one factor affected another, but their data and assumptions are flawed because there are endless factors.

References

Beaver, K.M.  (2021).  Research Methods in Criminology I (CCJ 5705): Week 5 Lecture Notes

and Power Point Presentations.  Florida State University.

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal

justice (7th ed.). SAGE.

Answer 21

I do not believe that it is possible to truly establish causality in criminological research. I think that using the right experimental techniques can yield informative and time worthy results, but I don’t think it will ever establish true casualty. Casualty is entirely dependent on every other factor being equal and accounted for (Beaver, 2021). While dealing with social processes and interactions, there are thousands of variables to control for, and I think it’s unlikely that even the best research method could ever control for all of those. I think many studies come close and satisfy the five elements needed to establish causality, but I don’t think we can ever be exactly 100% sure of true causality.

When deciding if we can establish causality or not, it’s important to know what type of “cause” we are discussing, the criteria for establishing causation, and the importance of the research method used.

A cause is an explanation for some characteristic, attitude or behavior (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). There are two types of causes that should be considered. The “cause” that we typically use in everyday conversation is Idiographic. This type of cause includes a statement of an initial condition, and then relates that condition to a series of events throughout a period that led to an outcome or causal effect (Beaver, 2021). Idiographic cause relies on narrative reasoning to establish cause, and it’s very hard to determine that this narrative reasoning caused the outcome versus an alternative one (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Therefore, it’s used less frequently in true experimental designs.

The other type of cause is Nomothetic causation. This causation focuses on variation in an independent variable being followed by variation in the dependent variable, when all other factors are equal or taken into consideration (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). This follows the pattern of an “if, then” hypothesis. While this is the cause most often looked at in experimental research, there are still limits researchers need to be aware of. For example, we can’t truly know what would’ve happened to our elements if the IV had not varied, as we can’t redo their lives. But, we can design research that mimics similar conditions, so that we can attempt to control additional factors (Beaver, 2021).

In order to establish causation, three key elements must be met: empirical association, time order, and spuriousness. To lend the most credit to the research findings, researchers should also attempt to determine a causal mechanism and context, but these are not considered necessary. A classical (or true) experiment is the best research design to ensure the five elements above are met (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). For an experiment to be “true” it must have at least two groups (one experimental and one control), assign subjects to those groups randomly, and issue a pretest and posttest (Beaver, 2021). These help control for causation errors. For example, random assignment in true experiments assures that the only differences between the groups being studied is the intervention that the experiment introduces , therefore helping to establish an empirical association between the variables (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). Random assignment also eliminates potential third-party influences that create spurious relationships, and the pretest/posttest requirement elements any time order issues. The only elements that the experiment design doesn’t address specifically is mechanism. If a researcher wants to identify a mechanism, they will need to review finding from prior research and theory to help establish that (Bachman & Schutt).

Humans are incredibly complex, and the social process introduces thousands of variables that could impact every human differently. With that in mind, I just don’t think it’s possible to every truly establish causality with 100% certainty. 

References

Bachman, R. and Schutt, R. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Sage.

Beaver, K. (2021). Kevin. Week 5 Notes. Florida State University

Answer 22

I do not think finding causality with 100% certainty in criminology is possible. Specifically, I do not think it is possible to find causality which stays consistent through time even if a high confidence in that causality is found due to the ever-changing social interactions and behaviors of humans.

Both types of causation in criminology, nomothetic and idiographic, present their own challenges when it comes to determining certain causality. First, nomothetic causality suffers in that it cannot ever present the exact same environment or circumstances to determine causality. Nomothetic causality relies on the independent variable causing the dependent variable change while all other things are held equal (Beaver, 2021). This presents a problem in that once the independent variable is introduced, the researcher cannot perfectly reproduce the exact circumstances to then determine if the dependent variable change would have also occurred in the absence of the independent variable (Beaver, 2021). Much like Schrodinger’s cat, once that box is opened (independent/dependent variables tested) you cannot go back to the exact conditions as they were at the beginning and test again to be certain. Even so, it would be harsh to say that nomothetic reasoning is not useful at all in researching causality. By controlling as many extraneous variables as possible and providing circumstances as equal and comparable as possible to the original test, we can still claim causality with a high level of probability and confidence (Bachman & Schutt, 2020, p. 152). Confidence intervals and probabilities play a huge role in the statistical analysis of criminological research for this specific reason. By creating empirically acceptable confidence/probability standards across the criminological field which are agreeable as showing causality, we can continue to research causality in the field without requiring a 100% certainty. This is important because ultimately social science is a way to expand and explore our knowledge as it is ever changing, therefore a perfect 100% confidence of causality is not necessary to move research forward and enact helpful policies and reforms.   

The next causal explanation, idiographic causality, also presents its own challenges in the world of criminology.  Idiographic causal explanations rely on a particular sequence of events, thoughts, or actions which lead to the particular event observed or studied which is why it is sometimes referred to as “narrative reasoning” (Beaver, 2021). This is helpful in the research field as it allows a certain openness to consider many different elements as being involved in the causation, which in turn allows us to further research compounding variables and weed out spurious correlations. Unfortunately, this openness to different elements having an effect and the time order considerations of these category also present issues for determining causality with 100% confidence. It also makes it difficult to determine to which degree any one element is influencing the outcome. For example, criminology has moved to researching and finding some consensus that biosocial traits have some effect on criminality. Even so, it is difficult to determine which biosocial traits lead to crime given that their degrees and presentations differ from person to person. Furthermore, one person with a trait may become a criminal while another with the same trait does not. While this highlights the importance of idiographic causal explanations in looking at all possible factors as a narrative leading to the outcome, it also highlights the complexity of this reasoning and how easily spurious correlations could arise. There are so many variables to consider which could affect the outcome of criminality that it would be almost impossible to determine one sequence of events which always causes criminality with 100% confidence.

Luckily, the limitations of both these causal explanations can be mitigated by following the criteria for causation. By determining empirical correlation, time order effects, control for possible extraneous variables, finding causal mechanisms, and considering all causal relationships within their given context, we can limit potential causality pitfalls such as spurious correlations (Beaver, 2021). These criteria can be followed and enhanced by employing appropriate research designs such as nonexperimental (cross-sectional and longitudinal) and true experimental designs (Bachman & Schutt, 2020). We can then further strengthen the outcomes of the studies which follow these criteria by peer-reviewing for accuracy, replication, and expansion of the theories and hypotheses through new studies. This consideration for the criteria, research design, and review, serves to increase the confidence in causality to a high level of functionality in the criminological field even if it cannot be determined with 100% certainty. As such, effective policy, reform, and societal changes can be implemented based on the confidently assumed causality.

References

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2020). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (7th ed.). SAGE.

Beaver, K. (2021).  Week 5: An Overview of Research Designs PPT.  Florida State University.

Answer 23

While it may be possible to establish causality for a particular criminological question and/or incident, it is nearly impossible, if not entirely impossible, to establish causality broadly in criminological research (Beaver 2021A and Karmen 2020). “The main reason for not knowing whether something causes crime is because of the inherent limitations of social science research and the requirements associated with causality” (Beaver 2021A, 1). One of these inherent limitations is that it is entirely impossible to say with any certainty what an outcome would have been if an independent variable was not varied (Beaver 2021B and Karmen 2020). Although, it is possible to design studies that create comparable conditions to those potential scenarios (Beaver 2021B and Karmen 2020), and these studies can help criminologists gain more clear insights into their questions’ answers and causal relationships.

A second limitation to establish causality is one found in the idiographic causal explanation. This limitation is that “it is difficult to make a convincing case that one particular causal narrative should be chosen over an alternative narrative” (Beaver 2021B and Karmen 2020, 153). As an example, a serial bomber could have been severely neglected by a gambling addicted and alcoholic single father, could have survived a school shooting, and could have suffered PTSD from the school shooting and multiple military deployments. Within the idiographic causal explanation, it is not clear which of those three factors was the main or sole contributor to the offender becoming a serial bomber. A final limitation is that spuriousness could mislead criminologists into incorrect conclusions regarding causality (Beaver 2021B and Karmen 2020). Even if two or more variables and/or factors are related and one variable and/or factor precedes another, “the relationships is not necessarily causal” (Beaver 2021B, slide 13 and Karmen 2020).

Since it is nearly improbable to establish causality in criminological research, it is incredibly important that researchers are well-versed in different qualitative and quantitative research designs (Beaver 2021A and Karmen 2020). These individual and combined research methods can provide more empirical evidence for whether a factor(s) (independent variable) cause certain effects on another factor(s) (dependent variable), also known as a nomothetic causal explanation (Beaver 2021B and Karmen 2020). This knowledge of research designs and methods extends beyond creating and conducting a criminological study. A strong knowledge of research designs, also, allows for more effective and precise critiques of past and emerging criminological study results (Beaver 2021A). In fact, “…A study is only as good as the research design that it uses” (Beaver 2021A, 1).

References

Bachman, R.D. & Schutt, R.K. (2020). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Beaver, K.M. (2021A). RESEARCH DESIGNS. Canvas@FSU Notes. https://canvas.fsu.edu/courses/171422/assignments/1372927.

————— (2021B). Week 5: An Overview of Research Design. Canvas@FSU Lecture. https://canvas.fsu.edu/courses/171422/assignments/1372928.

Need help with the CCJ 5705 Class or Assignments? We are your #1 Tutoring Partner. Talk to us via our communication channels – Email, Social Media, or Order form. Here is that link to the order form – https://prolifictutors.com/place-order/

Leave your thought here

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Table of ContentsToggle Table of Content