Author
Listed:
- Nick Tilley
- Gloria Laycock
Abstract
Evidence-based policy in relation to crime, as in other policy areas, is all the rage. It looks like plain common sense. Yet getting good evidence to policy and policy to good evidence faces an uphill struggle. Ideology is important in any consideration of crime and crime policy, limiting the potential of hard evidence. Common sense ideas about crime are also powerful influences on policy, and they are not easily overturned by research evidence, which may contradict them. Even where there is space for research to impact on policy and practice, it can easily mislead, if treated uncritically and unreflectively. Much research is technically weak. Single studies that appear to be methodologically sound can generate findings that subsequent investigations contradict. Programmes shown by evaluation studies to work in one context may not work in another. It is often not clear what it is about a programme which has worked and hence what needs to be replicated to produce the same effects. Yet, there are examples of studies, and series of studies, yielding valid and useable policy-relevant findings. Examples relating to property marking and to repeat victimization and its prevention are given. Ways in which members of the policy-making and research communities can facilitate the appropriate production and use of evidence in policy-development and practice are suggested. More generally, evidence-based policy calls for a more policy-literate research community, and a more research-literate policy community. Policy-making, however, can and should be informed by more than research evidence alone.
Suggested Citation
Nick Tilley & Gloria Laycock, 2000.
"Joining up Research, Policy and Practice about Crime,"
Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 213-227.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:21:y:2000:i:3:p:213-227
DOI: 10.1080/01442870020019507
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cposxx:v:21:y:2000:i:3:p:213-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cpos .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.