An analysis of contributors to the journal of criminal justice

An analysis of contributors to the journal of criminal justice

of Crrrnmd Justice. Vol. Y. pp. 93-Y7 Perpamon Prcsa. Printed in u S.A. Journal AN ANALYSIS ( ISi1) OF CONTRIBUTORS OF CRIMINAL DUDLEY W. Assis...

278KB Sizes 3 Downloads 50 Views

of Crrrnmd Justice. Vol. Y. pp. 93-Y7 Perpamon Prcsa. Printed in u S.A.

Journal

AN ANALYSIS

( ISi1)

OF CONTRIBUTORS OF CRIMINAL

DUDLEY

W.

Assistant

TO THE JOURNAL

JUSTICE

MELICHAR

Professor

I. GAYLE SHUMAN Associate Professor Center of Criminal Justice College of Public Programs Arizona State University Tempe. Arizona 85282

ABSTRACT An analysis of the contriburors ofpublications to the Journal of Criminal Justice was underlaken to evaluate if the initial objectives of the editorial board had, in fact. been achieved. Analysis was based upon authorship, academic discipline of author(s). general topic area. source of article. and specific component area of article.

In 1973, the initial issue of the Journal of Criminal Jusrice (JCJ) was published. As stated in the introduction of the volume, the journal was established to provide a forum for the exchange of theories. concepts, and methodologies concerning problems in the criminal justice system (JCJ 1, no. 1 [ 19731). It was hoped that the journal would act as a communication channel between theorists and practitioners of the criminal justice system. In light of this aspiration the editorial board appealed for articles from scholars and practitioners concerned with criminal justice issues. In addition to the introductory remarks mentioned above. the following general

aspects of the criminal justice system were listed as “of concern” to the journal: Administration and management of system components and the system as a whole Planning Research Science and technology Education System studies relating to the criminal justice system or its components In this review of the contributors to the Journal of Criminal Justice, the authors attempted to determine if. in fact, the basic desires and/or expectations of the editorial board had been achieved. The l

l

l

l

l l

94

DUDLEY

W. MELICHAR

and I. GAYLE

SHUMAN

TABLE 1 NUMBER OF AUTHOR(S) PER PUBLICATION

Number

of Authors

Frequency

1 2 3 4

Percentage Frequency

82 47 19 2

54.7 31.3 12.7 1.3

150

100.0

TABLE 2 ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT OF AUTHOR(S)

Academic

Department

Not Reported Criminal Justice-Related Urban-Public Affairs Political Science-Government Economics Engineering-Mathematics Sociology-Related Psychology-Human Development Business-Public Administration Not Applicable

six initial volumes of the journal underwent review and all articles and/or notes were categorized with reference to the following: 1. Authors (number per article) (see Table 1). 2. Academic department of author(s) (see Table 2). 3. General topic area of article/note (based on initial journal areas of concern) (see Table 3).’ 4. Source of article (academic or practitioner field) (see Table 4).

Frequency

Percentage Frequency

10 54 6 7 6 6 14 6 7 34

6.7 36.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 9.3 4.0 4.7 22.7

150

100.0

5. Specific component-problem topic (see Table 5). When multiple authorship and/or multiple affiliation (whether it was academic-academic, practitioner-practitioner, or academicpractitioner) was indicated, academic department of author and source of article were tallied according to first author listed. It should be pointed out that there were a minimal number of multiple authorships from differing academic institutions. academic disciplines, or academic-practitioner submit.tals. In view of this, jt was felt that the assign-

95

An Analysis of Contributors to the Journal of Criminal Justice

there were 9 that were multiple-authored by an academic-practitioner unit. Although it is indeed difficult to measure the value of sharing of academics’ and practitioners’ ideas in the development of theories, concepts, and methodologies, it is our belief that. in certain topic areas such as criminal justice education, such sharing is relevant.

ment of credit in this manner was just and also did not distort the data frequencies. AUTHORSHIP

OF ARTICLES/NOTES

As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of the publications (54.7 percent) were singleauthored. Of the remaining multipleauthored articles, most were by two authors. Our reason for collecting these data was to find out the extent of multiple authorship that represented an academicpractitioner submittal. Of the 150 article/ note presentations in the initial six volumes,

SOURCE

OF ARTICLE

In view of the editorial board’s hope that the publications would be a communicating avenue between theorists and practitioners,

TABLE

3

GENERAL TOPIC AREA

General

Topic Area

Administration-Management Criminal Justice System Planning Research Education Specific Component International Comparison

Frequency

Percentage Freguency

3 20 3 14 13 92 5

2.0 13.3 2.0 9.3 8.7 61.4 3.3

150

100.0

TABLE 4 SOURCE OF ARTICLE OR NOTE

Source

Academia Courts Corrections Private Federal Local-State Government Combination

Frequency

Percentage Frequency

111 1 2 13 6 7 10

74.0 0.6 1.3 8.7 4.0 4.7 6.7

150

100.0

96

DUDLEY

W. MELICHAR

and I. GAYLE

SHAMAN

TABLE 5 SPECIFIC COMPONENT-PROBLEMTOPIC AREAS

Specific Component

Frequency

Police Courts Corrections Juvenile Delinquency Recidivism Sentencing Detention-Rehabilitation-Prevention Not Applicable

our data on the source of contributors reveals some shortcomings. Nearly three-fourths (74 percent) of the journal publications came from the academic field (see Table 4). We note that there were articles that dealt with the criminal justice court system, yet only one such article was submitted from the courts. Also, there were publications that dealt with the police, yet no contributors specifically came from police departments. If, in fact, the exchange of ideas is beneficial to the criminal justice system, contributors from the practitioner field need to be recruited.

ACADEMIC

DEPARTMENT AUTHORS

OF

As would undoubtedly be expected. the largest percentage of academic contributors were from the criminal justice discipline (48.6 percent). The variety of academic areas represented by the contributors attests that criminal justice is indeed,multidisciplinary and that an exchange of ideas and philosophy is occurring.

GENERAL

TOPIC

AREA

In classifying the publications under the categories that were initially listed as “areas

Percentage Frequency

36 15 17 9 3 5 7 58

24.0 10.0 11.3 6.0 2.0 3.3 4.7 38.7

150

100.0

of concern” by the journal. the largest percentage fell under the “specific component” label (see Table 3). As would be expected, there was overlapping of many of the reported articles’ general topic areas, making it difficult to be very specific in the assignment of the publications according to the predetermined categories. Of some concern to us was the low frequency of publications, by our classification, in the areas of administration-management and/or planning. A much more detailed method of assigning publications to general topic areas would be needed in order to evaluate whether a broad range of areas of concern was being covered in the hoped-for exchange of problems and solutions in the criminal justice system.

SPECIFIC COMPONENT PUBLICATIONS As can be seen in Table 5, there is a fairly good representation of problem topic areas covered in the journal publications. Of the three categories of police, courts, and corrections. each has seemingly good coverage, although the police component is somewhat overrepresented in comparison to the other two. Whether the other specific areas are

An Analysis

of Contributors

to the Journal

underrepresented is a matter of individual opinion, and so no good assessment can be made. Categorizing the articles according to specific component areas was difficult in that each publication could, in fact, have been placed in a single category by itself. We attempted to categorize according to the areas of police, courts, and corrections, as well as other specific, recognized areas of concern of the criminal justice system.

of Criminal

07

Justice

there has been representation along the initially proposed areas of concern. The single shortcoming revealed by this review is in the area of source of publication. The fact that only one-fourth of the articles and notes came from outside the academic community does not indicate as much of an “exchange of theories, concepts. and methodologies” between theorists and practitioners as would be desired. NOTE

SUMMARY In summary, the initial basis for the establishment of the journal has been achieved with relative success. Review of the general topic areas of the publications shows that

’ An additional aspect was added to our analysis (international comparison). since articles of this nature were published.

REFERENCE Journal of (1973-1979).

Criminal Jusfice

(JCJ).

Volumes

l-6