Examining the quality of gender measurements in criminological and criminal justice research: pervasive apathy or bad research methods?

Criminology has often been criticized for its lack of gender inclusivity and ‘androcentrism,’ particularly by feminist and queer criminologists who note that the field rarely uses separate measures of gender and sex assigned at birth or ones that extend beyond the binary, severely limiting the applicability of evidence-based, gender-responsive services in the criminal justice system. Other fields have adopted measures of gender that capture multiple identities and acknowledge the complexity of gender. However, it is unclear whether criminology has heeded these calls for inclusivity. Using a gender theory perspective, the current study analyzed 566 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from four criminological and criminal justice (CCJ) journals to explore the published studies’ gender operationalizations. Findings indicate that quality gender measurements are lacking, gender and sex assigned at birth are often conflated, and author and publication type are significant with regards to the inclusion of quality gender measurements.

Grantor dc:publisher

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Author dc:creator

• Clark, Jadon

Contributors dc:contributor

• Crittenden, Courtney A.
• Hancock, Katelyn P.; Policastro, Christina N.
• College of Arts and Sciences

• Criminology--Research--Methodology
• Criminal justice, Administration of--Research--Methodology

Licence

• http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Language dc:language

English, eng

Repository record dc:identifier

https://scholar.utc.edu/theses/844

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:scholar.utc.edu:theses-2022