Introduction to the special issue on measurement and methodology: addressing challenges and exploring opportunities

Academic disciplines necessarily adapt and evolve in terms of their theories, research methods, and measurement approaches. While a good portion of published studies focus on the advancement of theory and study results, much less discourse is devoted to how the discipline’s methods and measures change and advance over time. New ways of observing and measuring social phenomena emerge due to a variety of circumstances. Technology frequently drives these changes, creating new forms of, and forums for, social interactions (e.g., online communities) and new methods for capturing data that can be subjected to social observation (e.g., body-worn camera footage). In addition, various entities create new data systems that might serve as proxy measures for key social phenomena of interest to the research and policy community.

These changes create opportunities for scholars, analysts, researchers, and policymakers. First, evolutions and changes in social behavior require study beyond traditional forms of measurement and explanation. For example, in the early 2000s, youth bullying behavior began to shift from being a largely in-person behavioral set to being a form of conduct facilitated by the internet and, later, smartphones, apps, and social media. Consequently, researchers had to determine ways to define and measure cyberbullying, and then test conventional delinquency and youth development theories against cyberbullying and allied victimization and offending behaviors (e.g., Patchin and Hinduja 2006). Similarly, the rise of digital spaces in our daily lives has created new ways in which sexual trafficking and other analogous exploitative transactions are being carried out. This includes how exploited individuals are recruited into such work, how the work is marketed to purchasers, and how those transactions are carried out (e.g., Gezinski and Gonzalez-Pons 2022).

Second, alternative data sources provide researchers with new opportunities to observe and measure established social phenomena. For example, the proliferation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems with digitally archived footage enable researchers to observe social behavior in public spaces without traditional temporal and geographic restrictions (e.g., Sytsma and Piza 2018). In other contexts, CCTV systems allowed researchers a less obtrusive way to study illicit conduct in public spaces. For example, scholars have used CCTV systems to observe the behaviors of purported shoplifters in commercial establishments (Dabney, Hollinger, and Dugan 2004). Such unobtrusive observations of this form of offending behavior would be exceedingly difficult to carry out without the aid of technology. In many instances, technological advances are allowing researchers more efficient, cost-effective, and convenient opportunities to measure social behaviors.

Third, new or unconventional data sources can provide researchers with alternative ways to measure established concepts with sufficient criterion validity. Many concepts of interest to the research community elude easy, accessible, and cost-effective measurement. Consequently, researchers often find themselves seeking more accessible and affordable proxies for measures. For example, while it makes theoretical sense that the perceptions and beliefs residents have about social issues might relate to their level of engagement in collective social behavior, such as protest movements, these propositions are difficult to measure, particularly in real time. The emergence of social media platforms has created new ways to determine proxies of residents’ views and attitudes, and to then assess whether those correlate with incidents of public collective action (e.g., Masías et al. 2021). Likewise, secondary or external data sources like emergency medical services (EMS) data have been demonstrated as a helpful addition to police data in order to better identify incidents of violence and drug problems in communities of interest (Taylor et al. 2016; Hibdon and Groff 2014).

The purpose of this special issue is to highlight research that exemplifies current advancements in methods and measurement within criminology and criminal justice. The selected contributions offer insights illustrating how scholars can consider new forms and forums for social interactions, new methods to observe social behavior, and alternative measures for traditional concepts.

First, three articles consider how emergent technologies have created new types of behavior or new venues in which social interactions might exist. Articles by Daly and Nichols, as well as Helm et al. explore how ‘incel’ (involuntary celibate) communities have emerged and potentially grown through online social media forums. Daly and Nichols interviewed self-identified incels to understand their views, outlooks, and experiences, including how their use of online forums and their online behavior connect with their identification as an incel. Helm and colleagues use popular postings to Reddit, a social media platform, to understand the incel perspectives and expressions that attracted a large amount of peer support. While incel beliefs might not be new, social media has provided a platform to facilitate interaction based on ideologies, bring these beliefs and behaviors further into the public eye, and potentially expand the reach of such belief systems. Understanding various ways to use social media platforms to understand and explain social behavior is an area that presents scholars with abundant research opportunities.

Similarly, the ‘dark web’ (a portion of the internet that is largely hidden from the average user and which falls beyond most common internet search engines) has become a forum for many forms of conventional and illicit conduct. Criminal justice officials and criminological researchers alike are seeking to better understand how to access and make sense of these illicit market spaces. Lee, Holt, and Smirnova use dark web sales sites to understand aspects of illicit firearms sales and markets. Studying such marketplaces is important as researchers and enforcement personnel alike seek to make sense of how crime-involved weapons are accessed, used, and transferred among crime-involved populations.

Second, four articles consider how researchers are using new methods and data sources to observe and measure social behavior and allied phenomena. The COVID-19 pandemic created vast global shifts in behavior, interactions, and needs. Included within this was a change in how the research community interacted with research participants and how aspects of the criminal justice system function. Canada et al. report on their use of community-engaged research to derive insights into how incarcerated populations experienced prison adaptations to the pandemic. Hartsell and Lane¹ describe how drug court operations were modified by the pandemic. These modifications both changed the operation of those courts and created new ways for the research team to measure and analyze their operations.

A common police reform recommendation in the aftermath of the 2014 killing of Michael Brown has been to equip police officers with body-worn cameras (BWC) to document how they interact with the public in performing their duties. These recordings create new ways for researchers to study police conduct. Schafer, Hibdon, & Kyle relate key lessons learned in using BWC footage to study police conduct that is relatively rare (the use of force). Similarly, Uchida and colleagues report on their use of BWC footage to understand and explain critical incidents in policing, including the use of force. Both articles explore how emergent technologies create both challenges and opportunities that researchers, as well as research consumers, need to fully understand.

Finally, three articles evaluate how alternative data sources might be used to create suitable proxies for common variables of interest to the research community. Harris et al. utilize Google transportation data and municipal infrastructure data to explore the viability of using alternative sources to derive understandings of difficult-to-measure aspects of community segregation.² The proliferation of cellular telephones serves as one example of emergent forms of ‘big data’ that might be used by scholars to understand population behavior and movement. Snaphaan, Hardyns, and Pauwels present how the Total Error Framework might hold promise for scholars working with large datasets to understand their promise and limitations.

Finally, Taylor, Lockwood, and Wyant assess the validity of using 311 litter calls as a proxy for assessing incivility in segments of the community. Theoretically incivility and social disorder are logical variables included in a range of theoretical and analytical efforts to understand and explain attributes of communities and related social conduct. Often, however, researchers face difficulties accessing valid and reliable measures of such variables. The emergence of 311 (non-emergency) call systems in many urban areas provides alternative methods to assess various phenomena, but require careful validation before they can be confidently included in analyses.

The objective of this special issue is not to provide a definitive understanding of the methods and measures considered herein. Rather, the guest editors hope to highlight the need for more discussion, exploration, and validation of these approaches. We encourage readers to not accept new methods and measures without asking critical questions and seeking evidence that steps have been taken to establish their validity and reliability. We encourage the discipline to do more to embrace scholarship that diagnoses new methods and measures while encouraging scholars to innovate, explore, and grow the ways in which the discipline studies, measures, and explains individual and collective behaviors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Due to an error, the Hartsell and Lane article was inadvertently included in volume 45, issue 5, of the journal. It was solicited and reviewed for acceptance in this issue, thus the guest editors have opted to include it in this prefatory discussion of the special issue.

2. Similar to Hartsell and Lane, Harris et al. was erroneously printed in JCJ 45(5).