In Module 3, we considered the first in our three-part series on research design. Specifically, the focus was on distinguishing features of classical experiments, namely, random assignment and experimental control. Also, this module’s assigned readings provided a bit of historical context for the overall paucity of experimental evidence published in criminology/criminal justice. We’ve read a bit about the debate between scholars who assert that experimental evidence is the “gold standard,” and those that maintain that experimental evidence is overrated.
In this week’s discussion, it’s your turn to weigh in. Are you a proponent of conducting more criminal justice research using experimental designs? Why or why not? Whether or not you believe that more experiments are desirable, what do you think are the most important questions or topics that would benefit from the experimental approach?
