Joining up Research, Policy and Practice about Crime

Abstract

Evidence-based policy in relation to crime, as in other policy areas, is all the rage. It looks like plain common sense. Yet getting good evidence to policy and policy to good evidence faces an uphill struggle. Ideology is important in any consideration of crime and crime policy, limiting the potential of hard evidence. Common sense ideas about crime are also powerful influences on policy, and they are not easily overturned by research evidence, which may contradict them. Even where there is space for research to impact on policy and practice, it can easily mislead, if treated uncritically and unreflectively. Much research is technically weak. Single studies that appear to be methodologically sound can generate findings that subsequent investigations contradict. Programmes shown by evaluation studies to work in one context may not work in another. It is often not clear what it is about a programme which has worked and hence what needs to be replicated to produce the same effects. Yet, there are examples of studies, and series of studies, yielding valid and useable policy-relevant findings. Examples relating to property marking and to repeat victimization and its prevention are given. Ways in which members of the policy-making and research communities can facilitate the appropriate production and use of evidence in policy-development and practice are suggested. More generally, evidence-based policy calls for a more policy-literate research community, and a more research-literate policy community. Policy-making, however, can and should be informed by more than research evidence alone.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.