Objectives

Despite experiments being termed the “gold standard,” criminology has been slow to adopt experimentation as a methodology. The goal of this research note is to better understand the use of experiments in criminology and the potential barriers in implementing this methodology.

Methods

We conducted a systematic assessment of experiments in Criminology and Justice Quarterly by reviewing every article published since the inception of the journals and coding for numerous elements (i.e., field versus lab studies, research areas, outcomes, and funding sources).

Results

Despite a general increase, experiments make up only 2.8% (n = 44) of studies in Criminology and 3.1% (n = 31) of studies in Justice Quarterly.

Conclusions

While it is not always clear why experiments are not used more often, we explore the possible reasons for a lack of experimentation (i.e., a lack of mentoring, challenges to practitioner buy in, etc.) and areas for future research.

中文翻译：

---

犯罪学实验研究的缺乏——来自《犯罪学与司法季刊》的证据

目标

尽管实验被称为“黄金标准”，但犯罪学在采用实验作为方法论方面进展缓慢。本研究笔记的目的是更好地了解实验在犯罪学中的使用以及实施该方法的潜在障碍。

方法

我们对《犯罪学和司法季刊》中的实验进行了系统评估，方法是审查自期刊创刊以来发表的每篇文章，并对众多要素（即，实地与实验室研究、研究领域、成果和资金来源）进行编码。

结果

尽管普遍增加，但实验仅占犯罪学 研究的2.8% ( n = 44)和正义季刊 研究的3.1% ( n = 31) 。

结论

虽然并不总是清楚为什么不经常使用实验，但我们探讨了缺乏实验的可能原因（即，缺乏指导、从业者购买的挑战等）以及未来研究的领域。