• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >THE RELATIONSHIP OF FEDERAL FUNDING TO CRIMINOLOGY AND POLICING RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.
【24h】

THE RELATIONSHIP OF FEDERAL FUNDING TO CRIMINOLOGY AND POLICING RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES.

机译：联邦资助与社会科学中的犯罪学和政策研究的关系。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

An increasingly prominent feature of social research in the past two decades has become its sponsorship by Federal agencies. This so-called marriage between researchers and Federal sponsors has been viewed as destructive by some, essential by others. By examining Federal sponsorship of criminal justice research, particularly policing studies, within the context of a sociology of knowledge, two issues are addressed: (1) The ideological configurations underlying knowledge production, and (2) The possible politicization of research by Federal funding.;The second strategy employed a precise coding instrument for a content analysis comparing funded and non-funded policing studies in six sociological and criminal justice journals. Two findings emerged from the content analysis: (1) Federal funding does not seem to generate research results that are more politicized than non-funded research, and (2) There are several ideological biases found in both funded and non-funded research, but these ideological features may be embedded in research activity itself rather than derive from the influence of state sponsorship.;There are several conclusions derived from this study. First, the relationship between the state and the activities it sponsors cannot be understood solely by examining formal rules and procedures or intents of Federal agencies and corresponding authorizing legislation. This is because there exists a variety of factors which mediate between state activity and other features of the social world. Second, the content analysis suggests that the politicization of research occurring in both funded and non-funded policing studies seems to originate in the preconceptual stage of research, suggesting that the prior ideology of the researcher may be a normative feature of research rather than shaped by state sponsorship. Third, a sociology of knowledge requires a theory of both structural and individual ideology as well as a theory of the state in modern industrial society in order to more adequately account for the production of the politicization and ideological figures underlying knowledge production. This project is a first step in this direction.;Two research strategies have been employed. First, drawing the distinction between state power and state apparatus, the organizational processes underlying Funding decisions for one particular agency, the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ) are examined. By examining the state's organization for the production of knowledge, insights into how state power is translated into research by state apparatus becomes possible, and also helps identify particular features, both structural and interactional, which radiate state power. The organizational study entailed interviewing key NILECJ personnel, Congressional aides and other persons related to Institute activity, and also included attending legislative hearings and other appropriate sessions. It also entailed a documentary analysis of legislation, policy documents and NILECJ correspondence and memorandums. Two findings emerged from the organizational study: (1) State power is mediated by a variety of structural and interactional features such as individual discretion, sub rosa rules, and tacit understandings of particular persons, as well as by conflicting and contradictory goals or strategies between state agencies and the social environment. As a consequence, funded research cannot be understood simply as a direct expression of state power and the corresponding interests such power serves; (2) Although the findings suggest that criminal justice research is politicized, this politicization may reflect features of the research community at least as much as it does any particular ideological perspective of either state power or state apparatus.
机译：在过去的二十年中，社会研究的一个日益突出的特征已成为联邦机构的赞助。研究者与联邦资助者之间的这种所谓的婚姻被某些人视为破坏性的，而另一些人则认为是必不可少的。通过在知识社会学的背景下研究联邦对刑事司法研究（特别是警务研究）的赞助，可以解决两个问题：（1）知识生产所基于的意识形态配置，以及（2）联邦资助可能将研究政治化。 ；第二种策略是使用精确的编码工具进行内容分析，比较六种社会学和刑事司法期刊中资助和未资助的警务研究。内容分析得出了两个发现：（1）联邦资助似乎没有产生比非资助研究更政治化的研究结果；（2）在资助和非资助研究中都发现了几种意识形态偏见，但是这些意识形态特征可能嵌入到研究活动本身中，而不是源于国家赞助的影响。首先，不能仅通过检查正式规则和程序或联邦机构的意图和相应的授权立法来了解国家与其发起的活动之间的关系。这是因为存在多种因素在国家活动和社会世界的其他特征之间进行调节。其次，内容分析表明，资助和非资助治安研究中发生的研究政治化似乎起源于研究的概念前阶段，这表明研究人员的先验意识形态可能是研究的规范性特征，而不是受其影响。国家赞助。第三，知识社会学需要结构和个人意识形态的理论以及现代工业社会中的国家理论，以便更充分地说明政治化的产生和作为知识生产基础的意识形态人物的产生。该项目是朝这个方向迈出的第一步。;已采用了两种研究策略。首先，通过区分国家权力和国家机构之间的区别，研究了一个特定机构，国家执法和刑事司法研究所（NILECJ）的资助决策所依据的组织过程。通过检查国家组织的知识生产，可以深入了解如何通过国家机构将国家权力转化为研究，并且还可以帮助确定辐射国家权力的特定特征，包括结构特征和相互作用特征。组织研究包括采访NILECJ关键人员，国会助手和其他与研究所活动有关的人员，还包括参加立法听证会和其他适当的会议。它还需要对立法，政策文件以及NILECJ信函和备忘录进行文献分析。组织研究得出了两个发现：（1）国家权力是由各种结构性和互动性特征介导的，例如个人的自由裁量权，罗莎规则，对特定人的默契，以及相互之间相互矛盾的目标或策略。国家机构和社会环境。结果，受资助的研究不能简单地理解为国家权力及其直接作用的直接表达。 （2）尽管调查结果表明刑事司法研究已政治化，但这种政治化至少可以反映研究界的特征，至少可以反映出国家权力或国家机构的任何特定意识形态观点。

著录项

  • 作者

    THOMAS, JIM.;

  • 作者单位

    Michigan State University.;

  • 授予单位 Michigan State University.;
  • 学科 Criminology.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1980
  • 页码 266 p.
  • 总页数 266
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号