Experimental and case study research are both helpful for exploring burglary and the reasons that crime exist. According to Piquero & Piquero (2002), experimental and quasi-experimental research methods in criminology are the best type of research methods to determine the cause and effect of crime, including burglary. True experimental research must engage two comparison groups, must have variation within the independent variable before assessing change in the dependent variable, and must randomly assign two comparison groups (Piquero & Piquero, 2002). Experiments often have a pre and posttest, while measuring the dependent variable before the experimental intervention.
In an experimental design randomization can determine a true experiment and offer a strong approach for determining how effective the treatment or approach is. Researchers that want to generalize their findings to the public regarding the cause and effect among variables may find experimental design the best approach in research. A classic experimental approach typically entails a pre-test for the variables involved an intervention for the experimental group. For example, if there are two precincts that are similar, and one is chosen to participate in a study that explores the fear of burglary within a neighborhood, then each group will be pretested to gather information on burglary rates and citizen perceptions of burglary. Next, the experimental group would receive the experimental treatment which may include greater volume of police patrols while the comparison group would not receive any intervention.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Strengths and Challenges of Experimental vs. Case Study Research Strategy in Exploring Burglary".
Next, following the experiment both groups would receive posttests which would help the experiment determine what changes there were in perception of burglary along with actual burglary rates among the groups being tested. This is an effective method of exploring how experimental design can effectively measure and determine outcomes. This is a solid way to measure outcomes and evaluate the efficacy of cause and effect, along with determine whether interventions are utilitarian, in addition to measuring citizen perceptions of interventions within a group.
Quasi-experimental design are similar but generally do not incorporate random assignment and control groups.
Qualitative research is different from experimental research in that it is more observational in design, and typically involves interviewing, focus groups or case study research. In case study research, illustrative cases may be used where examples of cases that are utilitarian to the research desired may be used to predict outcomes (Piquero & Piquero, 2002).
Sturgeon-Adams, Adamson & Davidson (2005) conducted a case study of Hartlepool which was a project developed to help combat burglary problems of areas of South Hartlepool. The project was founded to develop interventions that would be effective alone but also strengthen each other; these projects included alley gating to protect the rear of the properties targeted along with target hardening, which was a project that was geared to protect repeat victims and hot spots of burglary. The strength of case studies like this is that rather than target a specific experiment with randomized participants, a case study gives criminologists an opportunity to explore how specific interventions can reduce burglary in an actual community using a specific intervention or multiple interventions. A case study will show specific strengths of particular interventions, and allow participants to see how weaknesses can be alleviated or perhaps changed if alternatives are used. Further, a community used is not an experimental design, but used with actual participants in a real life example.
Case studies can often be applied to distinct cases; often within a case study, an experiment can be conduct. This is the example used within the case study approach of Hartlepool, where the criminologists were able to determine whether the experiment of using the rear property with target hardening would be helpful in reducing the number of burglaries. In this instance, burglaries were reduced by 25 percent, which was compared with only a 9 percent reduction in local police efforts (Sturgeon-Adams, Adamson & Davidson, 2005). This represents a significant reduction in the number of burglaries. Further, the case study approach represented some challenges which included bad publicity, which may be a result of lack of understanding of the actual purpose of the case study approach.
This could be alleviated by better education by members of the case study team and by local community members. In an experimental design, there is less likely to be bad press, because the experimental design is a controlled environment, where participants are volunteers and are more likely to participate in an experiment in a confidential setting. Further, there is less interest in what is happening in a controlled experimental design vs what is happening in a community or in a case study approach. However, the results of a case study may impact a community much more than in an experimental approach. The results of a case study may be much more likely to be generalized than the results of what happens in a case study environment.
There are possibilities that case studies are not as scientific as experimental design. Experimental designs are more scientific often because there are controlled variables; case studies, because they are qualitative in nature, may be more subjective. This can tend to lead to greater bias when information is collected, which can influence the results. Nonetheless, the information gathered from the case study approach can help criminologists better understand patterns in burglary, which can help criminologists better determine methods for combating crime.
