Criminology 320

Surveys II

Ask a Meaningful Question…

Ask a silly question…

• Various research shows that some people will answer questions even when the questions are nonsensical or ask about non-existent legislation, people, etc.

• About 30-40% of the general population will do so; the other 60-70% will balk at the question or tell you that they do not know the item you’re asking about.

• Here is a question I have asked people from time to time in Crim 320 surveys:

• If Karl Marx and Michel Foucault went bowling, who do you think would get the higher score in a 3-game series?

• The last time I administered it, 69 people responded (about 80% of those surveyed)

• The great majority (72%) felt Marx would be the better bowler.

• Needless to say, the Marx/Foucault bowling question is no more than a silly question.

• And yet people answer our silly questions. The conclusion for you to come away with is not that they must be silly for doing so, but that we must bear the responsibility for ensuring that what is asked of people is meaningful, and not trite.

Ask a meaningful question…

• The question of the hour, therefore, is how we can ensure the questions we ask are indeed meaningful.

• There are several ways:

1. Theory often guides us by directing us to key theoretical variables we need to include in the analysis.

2. Our objectives also can help identify issues, particularly with evaluation research that comes with clear requirements.

3. The literature also is often useful. Indeed, two kinds of literature are great to seek out:

• The professional/academic literature

• The professional/lay literature

4. Particularly useful are sources where factions debate (e.g., Kyoto)

5. Another source of questions arises from exploratory research

• A prime example of how incorporating qualitative approaches can make for better quantitative research

• Incorporating “local knowledge” makes for more connected results and understandings, better policy

• And of course the biggest trick is simply to ensure that your questions arise from your objectives and speak to the issues you want to address

• In this way, your introduction and conclusion will relate, i.e., they will “speak” to each other

• The steps from objectives to the final survey are like peeling away layers of an onion, with successive embellishments that ensure you get somewhere.

• The example I’ll show you was done some time ago with VPD and the federal Department of Communications. The evaluation was of MRDS – the Mobile Radio Data System -- which, at that time, was state of the art and the only system of its kind in Canada.

Evaluate MRDS	Engineering Study
	Cost/Benefit Study
	Social/ Behavioural Study	Attitudes	· Self-Administered Survey o 207 Officers · Structured observation o 88 ridealongs x 4 hours · Semi-structured Interview Schedule o Administered on ridealongs · Archival data supplied/generated by VPD o Memos from implementation o System use data · Exploratory interviews o VPD Admin o VPD Patrol o VPD Dispatchers o VPD Technical · Other archival/professional literature o The Police Chief o Sheriff’s Star o Law and Order
		Use/Behaviour
		Implications

Attitudes	Job Satisfaction	MRDS has had a positive effect on my job satisfaction.
	Effectiveness	I think MRDS helps me be a more effective officer. MRDS produces so much information it makes me a less effective officer.
	Safety	I think MRDS makes policing a lot safer. MRDS can create a false sense of security with suspects.
	(In)dependence	I find that with MRDS I end up relying on the system more and more.
	Relations with Community	I find I check out a lot more people on CPIC now than I did before MRDS.
	Overall	Overall I like MRDS.
Use/Behaviour	Ease of data access	With MRDS I get information much more quickly than with radio only. I feel tied to my car with MRDS.
	Frequency of Access	With MRDS I probably investigate cars or people I otherwise wouldn’t have bothered with.
	1-person vs 2-person patrol	MRDS is of less use when I’m on patrol by myself than when I have a partner.
	(Non)Stressful Situations	MRDS is of less use in highly stressful situations.
	MRDS vs Radio	I would rather work in a radio-only car. [Situational scenarios also addressed this element]
Implications	Implications for officers: Professionalism Man/Machine Autonomy/Self-Def’n	[See “attitudes” section; also arose in more depth in interviews; big differences among officers in how they saw themselves and how they related to the machine; some viewed it as a duller of instincts and human connectedness, while others saw it as something that gave them autonomy, control, professionalism]
	Relations within VPD	MRDS makes me more independent of the dispatcher.
	Relations between police and community	Ultimately I think MRDS dehumanizes policing. I feel more independent of the community with MRDS.

For further reading …

• Palys, T. S., Boyanowsky, E.O., & Dutton, D.G. (1984). Mobile data access terminals and their implications for policing. In L. R. Caporael & W. Thorngate (Eds.) "Computing: Prophecy and Experience." Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 113-127.