From an Editorial Board member: How criminologists as researchers can contribute to social policy and practice

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 119-131

  Brownstein, Henry H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Claims making; Research and policy; Social policy and practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 39049096898     PISSN: 08874034     EISSN: 15523586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0887403406297328     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Austin, J., Bruce, M. A., Carroll, L., McCall, P. L., & Richards, S. C. (2001). The use of incarceration in the United States. Critical Criminology, 10, 17-41.
2. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371-400.
3. Berger, P. L. (1963). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
4. Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. K. (1981). Sociology reinterpreted-An essay on method and vocation. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
5. Best, J. (1990). Threatened children-Rhetoric and concern about child victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal, 323, 275-278.
7. Brownstein, H. H. (1990). Surviving as a qualitative sociologist: Recollections from the diary of a state worker. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 49-67.
8. Brownstein, H. H. (1991). The social construction of public policy: A case for participation by researchers. Sociological Practice Review, 2, 132-140.
9. Brownstein, H. H. (1998). The drugs-violence connection: Constructing policy from research findings. In E. L. Jensen & J. Gerber (Eds.), The new war on drugs: Symbolic politics and criminal justice policy (pp. 59-69). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
10. Brownstein, H. H. (2000a). The social production of crime statistics. Justice Research and Policy, 2, 73-89.
11. Brownstein, H. H. (2000b). The social reality of violence and violent crime. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology: 2004 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 70, 4-28.
13. Chilton, R. (2001). Viable policy: The impact of federal funding and the need for independent research agendas-The American Society of Criminology 2000 Presidential Address. Criminology, 39, 1-8.
14. Cose, E. (2006, April 24). The dawn of a new movement. Newsweek, p. 49.
15. Denzau, A. T., & Munger, M. C. (1986). Legislators and interest groups: How unorganized interests get represented. American Political Science Review, 80, 89-103.
16. DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (1996). Help wanted: Economists, crime and public policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 3-24.
17. Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the criminal justice policy-making process. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 255-269.
18. Koch, T. (1990). The news as myth-Fact and context in journalism. New York: Greenwood.
19. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Reitz, J. G. (1975). An introduction to applied social research. New York: Elsevier.
20. Lee, A. M. (1973). The daily newspaper in America-The evolution of a social instrument. New York: Octagon Books.
21. Lee, A. M. (1978). Sociology for whom? New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Mayer, M. (1987). Making news. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
23. Merton, R. K. (1945). Role of the intellectual in public bureaucracy. Social Forces, 23, 405-415.
24. Merton, R. K. (1949). The role of applied social science in the formation of policy: A research memorandum. Philosophy of Science, 16, 161-181.
25. Merton, R. K., & Moss, J. Z. (1985). Basic research and its potentials of relevance. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 52, 679-684.
26. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Solicitation to municipalities to become an Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) site. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
27. National Institute of Justice. (2003). Annual report 2000: Arrestee drug abuse monitoring (NCJ 193013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
28. National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Program brief (BC000 619). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
29. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2003). From knowing to doing-A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9, 125-148.
30. Portney, K. E. (1986). Approaching public policy analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Stolz, B. A. (2002). The roles of interest groups in US criminal justice policy making: Who, when, and how. Criminal Justice, 2, 51-69.
32. Stolz, B. A. (2005). Educating policymakers and setting the criminal justice policymaking agenda: Interest groups and the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act of 2000." Criminal Justice, 5, 407-430.
33. Trostle, J., Bronfman, M., & Langer, A. (1999). How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy and Planning, 14, 103-114.
34. Walt, G. (1994). How far does research influence policy? European Journal of Public Health, 4, 233-235.
35. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
36. Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy & Society, 1, 215-224.