Foundations Of Science Theor

In This Module We Considered Foundations Of Science The Theoretical

In this module, we considered foundations of science: the theoretical frameworks that guide empirical research; the necessity of clear, specific, and logical hypotheses about effects; and the three elements (empirical association, time-order, and non-spuriousness) required to establish causality between variables. We also reviewed the assigned journal article on neighborhood watch (NW), which provides a common framework for discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to reflect on how scientific foundations apply to the "problem" of neighborhood watch programs.

Different theoretical frameworks may suggest varied approaches to studying NW programs because each framework emphasizes different mechanisms, causal paths, or social processes. For example, a social disorganization theory might focus on how neighborhood structural characteristics influence NW effectiveness, whereas a rational choice perspective might examine individual motives and decision-making processes. Consequently, these perspectives would propose different hypotheses about what leads to successful NW initiatives and what outcomes should be observable. Some frameworks might suggest that NW reduces crime primarily through increased surveillance and community cohesion, while others might argue that it shifts offenders' target selection, with differing implications for measurable effects.

Hypothesized effects of neighborhood watch programs might differ significantly depending on the theoretical lens applied. If one framework emphasizes community trust, the expected outcomes might include improved social cohesion and decreased fear of crime, whereas another might predict actual reductions in property crimes due to increased neighborhood patrols. These differing hypotheses could lead to contrasting results, with some studies potentially showing null or contradictory effects if the underlying theories are not aligned with measurement strategies or contextual factors. For instance, a program thought to reduce burglary through increased surveillance might not show measurable effects if the hypotheses do not account for offender adaptations or community disengagement.

To scientifically study NW, we aim to examine whether the program causes reductions in crime or changes in community perceptions. Critical to this investigation are establishing the empirical association between NW and crime rates, ensuring the temporal order where NW implementation precedes any observed change, and ruling out spurious relationships. Evidence supporting hypotheses would include statistically significant reductions in targeted crimes following NW activation, consistent across multiple contexts, and controlling for confounders. Conversely, evidence failing to support hypotheses might be null findings or inconsistent effects across different neighborhoods or crime types. It also necessitates considering measurement validity, such as how crime reductions are assessed and whether community perceptions align with actual crime data.

In conclusion, applying scientific theoretical frameworks to neighborhood watch illustrates the complexities of translating abstract ideas into real-world criminal justice programs. The choice of framework influences the hypotheses, research design, and interpretation of findings. Recognizing that different theories suggest different mechanisms and outcomes encourages a multifaceted analysis, which can provide a more comprehensive understanding of NW effectiveness. Ultimately, rigorous empirical research grounded in clear theory and hypotheses is essential to evaluate whether neighborhood watch programs achieve their intended goals and to inform policy decisions.

References

• Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987). The theory and research behind neighborhood watch: Is it a sound fear and crime reduction strategy? Crime & Delinquency, 33(3), 272–290.
• Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
• Skogan, W. G. (1986). The Impact of Citizen’ Crime Reports on Police Activity. Crime & Delinquency, 32(2), 216-228.
• Samson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
• Kenneally, J., & Marvell, T. (2004). Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime? Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(3), 17-31.
• Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2002). Crime Prevention and Community Safety: Suggestions for the Future. Crime Prevention Studies, 13, 127-200.
• Bursik, R., & Grasmick, H. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lexington Books.
• Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1986). Prevention of Delinquency: A Review of Research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(3), 245-276.
• Worrall, J. L. (2005). Opportunity, Deterrence, and Crime Prevention: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 301-324.
• Moore, M. H. (2002). Social Disorganization and Crime: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(1), 127-142.