Sidebottom, Aiden; Tilley, Nick; (2019) Evaluation evidence for evidence-based policing: Randomistas and realists. In: Fielding, Nigel and Bullock, Karen and Holdaway, Simon, (eds.) Critical Reflections on Evidence-Based Policing. (pp. 72-92). Routledge: London, UK.

Preview

Text Sidebottom & Tilley 2019 EBP chapter proofs.pdf - Accepted Version Download (404kB) | Preview

Abstract

In many countries, evidence-based policing is on the rise. The core idea is simple and largely uncontroversial: that police decisions should combine professional judgement with the best available research evidence. Debate arises over what constitutes ‘best’ evidence in the context of policing. For the purposes of this chapter, we characterise this debate as being between two schools: the randomistas, who advocate the use of randomised controlled trials (or their nearest equivalent) as the gold standard research evidence and the realists, a term derived from realist evaluation, who entertain a broader range of evidence types so long as it speaks to testable theories about what works, for whom, in what circumstances and how. In this chapter we critically discuss, compare and contrast these two perspectives, and consider their roles in advancing evidence-based policing. We illustrate the affinities and differences between these two perspectives by way of a case study on hot spots policing.

Download activity - last month

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLJSONCSV

Archive Staff Only

View Item