IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i4p166-d787898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflecting on the Value of Community Researchers in Criminal Justice Research Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Doyle

    (Public Service Research Group, School of Business, UNSW Canberra, Canberra 2610, Australia)

  • Sophie Yates

    (Public Service Research Group, School of Business, UNSW Canberra, Canberra 2610, Australia)

  • Jen Hargrave

    (Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3052, Australia
    Women with Disabilities Victoria, Melbourne 3000, Australia)

Abstract

While the importance of community researchers has long been acknowledged in disability studies, inclusive research practices such as these are less common in research about another marginalised group: people who are in prison or have spent time in prison. Over the past decade in Australia, the number and rate of people imprisoned has risen rapidly, and recidivism rates remain high, indicating a need for improved services. In this article, we draw on methodological reflections from two case studies on research with marginalised communities, one in disability studies and one in post-prison research. We apply insights from disability research to argue the importance of incorporating community researchers in qualitative research projects seeking to explore the experiences of people involved with the criminal justice system, such as people who have been released from prison.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Doyle & Sophie Yates & Jen Hargrave, 2022. "Reflecting on the Value of Community Researchers in Criminal Justice Research Projects," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:166-:d:787898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/4/166/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/4/166/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amanatullah, Emily T. & Tinsley, Catherine H., 2013. "Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 110-122.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dreber, Anna & Heikensten, Emma & Säve-Söderbergh, Jenny, 2022. "Why do women ask for less?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. Kokić, Erna & Wagner, Laure & García López del Amo, Ana & Giering, Charlotte L. & Ly Truong, Van & Petrowsky, Hannes M. & Husen, Onno M. & Loschelder, David D., 2024. "Empowered or informed? Seeking to mitigate gender differences in first-offer assertiveness through pre-negotiation interventions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Das,Smita & Delavallade,Clara Anne & Fashogbon,Ayodele Emmanuel & Ogunleye,Wale Olatunji & Papineni,Sreelakshmi, 2021. "Occupational Sex Segregation in Agriculture : Evidence on Gender Norms and Socio-Emotional Skills in Nigeria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9695, The World Bank.
    5. Brad Greenwood & Idris Adjerid & Corey M. Angst & Nathan L. Meikle, 2022. "How Unbecoming of You: Online Experiments Uncovering Gender Biases in Perceptions of Ridesharing Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 499-518, January.
    6. Smita Das & Clara Delavallade & Ayodele Fashogbon & Wale Olatunji Ogunleye & Sreelakshmi Papineni, 2023. "Occupational sex segregation in agriculture: Evidence on gender norms and socio‐emotional skills in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 179-219, March.
    7. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: The economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Steffen Andersen & Julie Marx & Kasper Meisner Nielsen & Lise Vesterlund, 2021. "Gender Differences in Negotiation: Evidence from Real Estate Transactions," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(638), pages 2304-2332.
    9. Lauren Dundes & Madeline Streiff Buitelaar & Zachary Streiff, 2019. "Bad Witches: Gender and the Downfall of Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos and Disney’s Maleficent," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Najib A. Mozahem & Moniat El Noufous K. El Masri & Nazhat M. Najm & Samah S. Saleh, 2021. "How Gender Differences in Entitlement and Apprehension Manifest Themselves in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 587-610, June.
    11. Katharina Brütt & Huaiping Yuan, 2022. "Pitfalls of pay transparency: Evidence from the lab and the field," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 22-055/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Nohe, Christoph & Hüffmeier, Joachim & Bürkner, Paul & Mazei, Jens & Sondern, Dominik & Runte, Antonia & Sieber, Franziska & Hertel, Guido, 2022. "Unethical choice in negotiations: A meta-analysis on gender differences and their moderators," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Säve-Söderbergh, Jenny, 2019. "Gender gaps in salary negotiations: Salary requests and starting salaries in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 35-51.
    14. Maryam Safari & Jacqueline Birt & Yi Xiang, 2022. "The sociology of compensation inequality in upper‐echelon positions: evidence from Australia," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2615-2649, June.
    15. Bogodistov, Yevgen & Presse, André & Krupskyi, Oleksandr P. & Sardak, Sergii, 2017. "Gênero e capacidades dinâmicas em microempresas," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 57(3), May.
    16. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    17. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    18. Gallus, Jana & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2020. "Gender, power and emotions in the collaborative production of knowledge: A large-scale analysis of Wikipedia editor conversations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 115-130.
    19. Jens Mazei & Julia B. Bear & Joachim Hüffmeier, 2022. "Avoiding Backlash or Proving One’s Manhood? Beliefs About Gender Differences in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 81-110, February.
    20. Hart, Einav & Bear, Julia B. & Ren, Zhiying (Bella), 2024. "But what if I lose the offer? Negotiators’ inflated perception of their likelihood of jeopardizing a deal," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:166-:d:787898. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.