h-Index and m-Quotient Benchmarks of Scholarly Impact in Criminology and Criminal Justice: A Preliminary Note

Because Scopus and metrics like the h-index and m-quotient have become increasingly popular for assessing the impact of social science scholarship, criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) departments may be tempted to use those metrics when making important decisions like tenure and promotion. However, since no discipline-wide standards based on those metrics yet exist, CCJ departments have no comparative basis for interpreting the results of citation analyses of a particular faculty member’s scholarship. To identify what a set of disciplinary standards might look like, we used Scopus and calculated mean and median h-index and m-quotient values for faculty members (n?=?504) in CCJ Ph.D. granting departments (n?=?35) by rank and for editorial board members (n?=?91) of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Our results illustrate how comparative disciplinary standards could be developed and used by those in CCJ departments to assess the impact of faculty members’ scholarship.     

Criminology and Criminal Justice Hit Parade: Measuring Academic Productivity in the Discipline

Previous research assessing the productivity of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars has sought to determine the overall most productive scholars based on various measures (e.g. total articles published, total cites, and articles per year). While such lists may be important for those who rank high, they may be best used to establish benchmarks for the discipline. To date, research examining the stars in CCJ has focused on overall stars. The aim of the current research is to highlight the most productive scholars (in CCJ doctoral programs), but to do so based on academic rank. As such, our sample is more inclusive than others that have assessed highly productive scholars in the field. By disaggregating productivity measures by academic ranks, it is possible to determine rising stars in the discipline as well as top stars overall. Additionally, and we think more importantly, such rankings give insights into the state of the discipline.     

Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals Between 1986 and 2005

To investigate changes in scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice over 20 years, the most‐cited scholars in six major American journals were determined for 2001–05, and the results were compared with those obtained for 1996–2000, 1991–95, and 1986–90. The most‐cited scholars in 2001–05 were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals and Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals. Highly cited scholars in American criminology journals focused on longitudinal/criminal career research and/or criminological theories, while those in American criminal justice journals focused on these topics or on criminal justice issues. Some highly cited authors were specialized, with one or two highly cited major works, while others were versatile, with many different works cited a few times each. Over time, older scholars such as Marvin E. Wolfgang were cited less often, while younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson were increasingly cited. The waxing and waning of criminological influence careers are documented.     

A study on the attitudes and experiences of chairpersons in American Criminology and Criminal Justice Programs

Building on Todd Clear’s () recent declaration that academic criminal justice has come of age, this study examines chairs in American criminology and criminal justice programs. By way of survey, chairpersons (n?=?78) randomly selected from programs across the United States were questioned in a number of areas related to their positions. The study finds that chairs in these programs are struggling with the same concerns as chairs in other academic disciplines (i.e., competing roles and job‐related stress). As such, while many of them are fairly satisfied with their positions, most of them plan on returning to the faculty once their term is completed. Based on the results of the research, there were two clear implications. First, because of the onerous time demands, young scholars are to be discouraged from taking on significant administrative responsibilities until they have been promoted, tenured, and have achieved some level of accomplishment within the discipline. Second, scholars who are currently chairs and have ambitions of moving through the administrative ranks should be encouraged to do so. As more criminologists progress through the administrative ranks, it is anticipated that the discipline will be viewed and treated more favorably within American universities.     

A Content Analysis of Ethnographic Research Published in Top Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals from 2000 to 2009

Despite qualitative research having much to offer to the understanding and prevention of crime, academic research in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is primarily quantitative. The relatively limited amount of ethnographic research in the field contributes to difficulties in understanding what represents sound ethnographic designs and the most appropriate ways to present such information. The current study examines the relative frequency with which ethnographic research appears in CCJ journals, and more importantly, the content of these articles. We find that less than 4% of all research published in 15 top CCJ journals use ethnographic methods. We present patterns about the methodological (e.g., sample size, type of data collection, and characteristics of participants) and stylistic (writing style, discussion of coding, and policy recommendations) content of these articles. We conclude with implications for our findings and point to substantive areas of research that may need more attention.     

The Current State of Criminological Research in the United States: An Examination of Research Methodologies in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

A recurring concern within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is how to best investigate criminological theory and criminal justice policy. To assess the current state of research, we conducted a content analysis of articles that appeared in seven CCJ journals over a two-year period (2013–2014). We then examined types and frequencies of data sources, analytic techniques, methodological approaches, and subject matters. Findings demonstrate that articles are predominantly employing quantitative methodologies and data where there is no participant contact. From these findings, we discuss the current state of research and how this could be used to guide graduate education, by recommending a variety of subject matters that graduate schools should emphasize in training new academics.     

Criminology/Criminal Justice Representation in the Discipline of Sociology: Changes between 1992 and 2002

This paper examines changes in the representation of criminology, as an area of specialization, in the discipline of sociology between 1992 and 2002. Utilizing the ASA Guide to Graduate Programs in Sociology, we note faculty areas of specialization. We expect that criminology will appear more often as a specialty area in 1992 than 2002. All full‐time faculty in U.S. graduate programs in sociology are included in the analyses. We found no significant change in listing criminal justice as a specialty between 1992 and 2002. Our findings suggest that faculty with terminal degrees from less prestigious institutions and those who teach in less prestigious institutions are more likely to list criminology as a specialty area.     

Persona Non Grata: The Marginalization of Legal Scholarship in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Recently, concern has been voiced within the academy regarding the marginalization of legal scholarship within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline. Although conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence indicate that it is difficult to get legal scholarship published in CCJ journals, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals. The present study assesses the representation of legal scholarship in 20 CCJ journals from 2005 to 2015, examining both trends over time and variation across journals. Findings indicate legal scholarship comprises a very small portion of articles published, there has been a steep decline in the number of legal articles published in recent years, and the average number of legal articles per year is very low for nearly all of the journals in the sample. The implications of the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline are discussed.     

大学的有效领导--《大学运行模式--大学组织与领导的控制系统》述评

在《大学运行模式——大学组织与领导的控制系统》一书中,“大学的领导”是贯穿始末的重要问题。基于大学的组织特性,大学的领导具有不同于其它组织领导的特征。如何使大学的领导趋于有效,可以考虑控制性的领导与管理;领导者的复杂化与正确学习;平衡管理。作者的思想对于我们研究大学的领导问题具有借鉴意义,同时也有其局限性。     

Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars and Works Over 25 Years: The Evolution of the Field of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Cohn and Farrington’s work in citation analysis has examined scholarly influence within criminological research for over 25 years. The current analysis tracks the ten most-cited scholars and each scholar’s most-cited works in four international criminology journals and six American criminology and criminal justice journals over twenty-five years and five time periods—1986–1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, and 2006–2010. This approach extends the traditional approach to citation analysis by documenting increases and decreases in individual citation careers as well as in the most-cited scholarly contributions of the most-cited scholars during a period of significant growth in criminology. The most-cited works mostly fall within the areas of developmental and life-course criminology and criminal careers, reflecting the importance of these topics in criminology.     

Perceptions of the Trend of Collaborative Publications: Results from a Survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology Department Chairs

Department heads are unique academic positions which can bridge the worlds of faculty and administration. As such, they are sometimes in the unique position where their perceptions and experiences can have real-world impact in the realm of assessing a colleague’s work, tweaking departmental policies of promotion and advancement, and mentoring. While faculty members of all levels have opinions of collaboration, department heads are the leaders who can actually act upon those perceptions, yet these perceptions have not been examined. This study addresses this gap in a survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology department heads (n?=?73). The survey varied authorship order, journal prestige, medium of journal, and also examined co-author prestige. In addition, 12 years of 20 criminal justice journals were coded for solo-authored publications. Results demonstrated differential publication trends between top tier and lower tiered journals, and that department heads attributed these trends as a combination of increasing social research networks and more pragmatic concerns. Of particular interest, is the differential value respondents placed on solo-authored work and collaborative work even when taking into consideration prestige of the journal.     

宽严相济刑事政策与刑事审判

宽严相济的刑事政策是我国在维护社会治安的长期实践中形成的基本刑事政策,其实质就是对刑事犯罪区别对待,做到既要有力打击和震慑犯罪,维护法制的严肃性,又要尽可能减少社会对抗,化消极因素为积极因素,做到既严厉打击严重刑事犯罪,又减少社会对抗,增加社会和谐因素,维护社会的和谐稳定。     

Successful Transitions to Graduate School: Using Orientations to Improve Student Experiences in Criminology and Criminal Justice Programs

The initial transition to graduate school provides a critical opportunity for promoting a positive educational experience among incoming students. This study discusses the importance of this transition and then describes a novel student-led orientation approach to facilitating successful entry of new students into criminology and criminal justice graduate degree programs. Results from an evaluation of this approach are presented. Analyses of focus group and student survey data indicate that graduate students matriculating into a criminology and criminal justice program in a southern state felt welcomed and found the information, guidance, and social networks that they developed to be helpful. At the same time, students identified ways the orientation could be improved for future cohorts. A student-led orientation, along with evaluation of it, provides a promising strategy for criminology and criminal justice graduate programs to create positive educational and professionalization experiences for their students.     

Research Productivity and Student Evaluation of Teaching in Social Science Classes: A Research Note

Research on the relationship between research productivity and student evaluations of teaching (SETs) has been marked by several shortcomings. First, research typically fails to check and adjust for nonlinear distributions in research productivity. Since approximately 15% of researchers account for most articles and citations (e.g., Zuckerman, H., Handbook of Sociology, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 511–574, 1988), this failure might explain weak or nonsignificant findings in some of the past research. Second, the unit of analysis is typically the instructor, not the class. Since top researchers might disproportionately teach small classes at the graduate level, and that SETs are usually higher in such classes, the small relationships between research excellence and SETS found in previous research may be spurious. The present study corrects for each of these issues. It analyzes data from 167 classes in the social sciences and on 65 faculty. The quality of research productivity (raw citations/post-PhD year) is not related to SETs. However, when the distribution of citations is corrected for skewness, a significant positive relationship between research productivity and SETs emerges. This relationship survives controls for course and instructor characteristics, and holds for both the faculty member and the class as units of analysis. This is the first systematic investigation to demonstrate a significant relationship between the quality of research (citations) and SETs.     

论刑事立法的主观主义与刑事司法的客观主义

刑法学派的不同立场对刑事立法和司法都会产生重大影响。综观我国的刑事立法现状和司法困境,当前的刑事立法应当坚持刑法理论上的主观主义,以解决“立法爆炸”和“刑罚威慑”问题,并且维护一个稳定的刑法典,促成人们对刑法规范的信仰和遵守;而当前的刑事司法则应该坚持刑法理论上的客观主义,以解决“保护人权”和“限制国家刑罚权”问题,使刑罚权在有限的空间内合理地运行。司法机关与立法机关之间应当按照宪法和法律规定的权限分工在法定权限内各司其职、相互配合与制约,对不属于自己权限范围的事项不能越权,最终形成立法机关与司法机关的良性互动,从而更好地发挥刑法的功能。     

Service-Learning: Implications for the Academic,Personal, and Professional Development of Criminal Justice Majors

An exploratory senior and alumni survey was administered to better assess the experiential learning opportunities, including Service-Learning, offered to students in a criminal justice department. This article highlights the academic, personal and professional development of students, based on the perception of criminal justice majors in the department who completed a Service-Learning course. Educators continue to assess the academic outcomes for students and the benefits to the community. What may be less appreciated is how Service-Learning can also benefit students in their professional skills development. This article illustrates these potential benefits, and also discusses why Service-Learning courses are a critical part of development for criminal justice majors.     

Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of Gender and Family-Related Factors

This study explores the role of several family-related factors in faculty research productivity for a large, nationally representative sample of university faculty members. The role of marriage, children, and aging parents is examined after controlling for other personal and environmental factors, such as age, rank, department, and intrinsic motivations to conduct research, that previous research has shown to influence research productivity. Analyses are conducted on a sample of 8,544 full-time teaching faculty (2,384 women and 6,160 men) at 57 universities nationwide. Results show that factors affecting faculty research productivity are nearly identical for men and women, and family-related variables, such as having dependent children, exhibit little or no effects on research productivity.     

Deepening the Effects of the Academic Inbreeding: Its Impact on Individual and Institutional Research Productivity

Research in Higher Education - In this study, the effects of academic inbreeding on individual and institutional research productivity are examined to understand its impact as a recruitment policy....