Prediction, policy, and quantitative inquiry: A reply to Worrall

Abstract

In his critique of my 1997 JCJE article, John Worrall attempts a partial defense of the current emphasis on quantitative methods in criminal justice education and research. Despite some hesitation, especially near the end of his critique, he suggests that it is reasonable for quantitative methods to receive more attention than qualitative methods. His argument centers on the ability of quantitative methodology to facilitate correct predictions in the field of criminal justice, the contributions of quantitative research to criminal justice policy, and a distinction between theoretical and methodological problems. In this reply, I argue that Worrall's examination of these issues is insufficient and reflects several misinterpretations. I conclude there remains no clear logical basis for the privileging of quantitative methods over qualitative methods in criminal justice education.