Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods?

68 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment (2017, background): “[50] Cynthia Lum and Sue-Ming Yang.”
Evaluating offending behaviour programmes (2008, methodology): “(2004: 320) Writing as an evaluator of one of the Pathfinders, Raynor (2004) comments that the evaluations were heavily stage managed by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) within the Home Office.”
Using Student Samples in Criminological Research (2008, background): “While experiments are less common in criminology and criminal justice (Lum & Yang, 2005), many studies involve college or university students on a regular basis.”
The Effectiveness of Counter-Terrorism Strategies (2006, background): “As Lum and Yang (2005) have found, government agencies which fund research have been able to influence the quality of research through the power of the purse.”
Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice (2010, background): “A survey conducted by Lum and Yang (2005) , for example, found that evaluation researchers in crime and justice were well aware of the relative strengths of randomized experiments, but nonetheless felt that RCTs were difficult to implement in the field.”