For this Discussion, you will evaluate the use of literature and problem statements in assigned journal articles in your dis

Literature  Reviews

Literature  Reviews Program Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]

NARRATOR: Have you ever  thought about a literature review as  representing your  intellectual heritage or  intellectual genealogy? In his  exploration of the purpose of a literature review, Dr. Patton explains  this  interesting perspective. He also points  out common errors  to avoid when undertaking a literature review.

MICHAEL QUINN PATTON: One of the things  that we do as  scholar  practitioners   is  look  at the knowledge created by  other  people. And we draw on that knowledge as  a way  of positioning our  own work  and understanding where our   contribution to knowledge, our  own research, fits  in that larger  tradition. This  is   often referred to as  the literature review. And the way  that you go about knowing the knowledge that others  have generated, that you're going to build on and contribute to, is  to conduct a literature review.

I tend not to like that terminology, because it sounds  like the purpose is  to review the literature. Literature review is  actually  a means  to another  end. And it's that end, it's that purpose of conducting the literature review that I want to focus  on.

The purpose is  for  you to understand your  intellectual heritage, your  intellectual genealogy. Anytime we undertake an inquiry  into a particular  issue, we are building on the knowledge of others. And we need to know what that knowledge is. It's part of our  obligation as  scholars, is  to understand what work  has  come before us, what concepts  we've inherited, what methods  we've inherited, what measures  we've inherited. Some of which we've adopted, some of which we've parted from. But we need to know that.

Because at the end of a program  of study, a master's  degree, a program  of doctoral inquiry, you're going to be expected to be able to locate your  work  within that tradition. And so it means  that you need to be able to establish the people who formulated the basic  distinctions  that you're drawing on.

Let me share with you some of the mistakes  that I, from  my point of view, find students  engaging in when they  undertake the literature review. One of these is   to simply  do an internet search to see how many  articles  they  can find on a topic. Where they  think  that the game is  how many  citations  you can come up with to show that you've done the literature review.

This  isn't a quantitative game. It's not something where the number  of sources  is   important. It's the quality  of those sources  and your  engagement with them, that you are able to engage with what other  people have done and understand what's relevant, what's not relevant to your  own area of inquiry. So that you're positioning yourself out of those traditions  that others  have engaged in.

© 2016 Laureate  Education, Inc. 1

Literature  Reviews

A second error  is  to think  that the game is  to position your  work  as  unique. It is  to try  to find something that nobody  else has  ever  done, to say  nobody  else has   ever studied this  before. Likewise, for  any  given field, there are burning questions   that have defined that field.

In sociology, which is  my own field, all sociology  derives  from  what we call the Hobbesian question of order. What holds  society  together? Why  doesn't society   fall apart? Every  sociological question stems  from  that question that Hobbes   asked. And therefore, if you look  at sociology  articles  in the premier  journals, the American Sociological Review, the American Journal of Sociology, you'll find that they  typically  begin with a reference to Hobbes  or  to Durkheim  time or  to Weber   or  to Marx  who were asking the original burning questions  in psychology  and sociology.

In psychology, you'll find original references  to Freud and to Adler  and to Jung that go back  to things  like the notion of the unconscious. And whether  you agree or  disagree with various  aspects  of Freudian theory, the notion that there's an unconscious  mind and that that unconscious  mind makes  a difference in what we do is  a part of what has  framed modern psychology.

And so you stand on the shoulders  of people who are trying to understand how the mind works, and who have divided off from  those original classical theorists   and researchers  about how the mind works. The burning question in psychology   is, why  do we behave as  we behave? How do we think  and feel? How do we know and engage the world? And so you need to know who the classic  people were who were asking those questions, who their  disciples  were, what were the splits  along the world, along the journey  where one group went in this  direction and another  group went in another  direction?

Up to the more recent published research, and up to the kind of work  that's now going on that may  not yet be published, where you can get in touch with those people who are engaged in research now. Find out what the funded research is   from  the National Institutes  of Health, the National Institutes  of Mental Health, the major  foundations. And find out what cutting edge work  is  going on so that you have a full scale genealogy  of what your  intellectual tradition is.

When you have finished that inquiry  over  a period of time, you're able to then say, these are the people on whose shoulders  I stand. These are the intellectual traditions  that I'm a part of. This is  my intellectual DNA. Here is  what I've drawn on. Here are the places  where I'm departing from  others. And here is  where I'm going to make my  contribution. That's the purpose of a literature review. You're positioning yourself in a stream  of knowledge, in a flow of knowledge.

As a part of that work, a third error  that I think  students  often make is  to only  read second-­hand and third-­hand accounts  of the classics. The classics  got to be

© 2016 Laureate  Education, Inc. 2

Literature  Reviews

classics  for  a reason. People over  the years  read those works  and found the thinking in them  profound.

Yes, in some cases, the findings  may  be out of date. But a part of what you ought to be learning as  you engage in a literature review and in your  intellectual history   is  not just the specific  findings. You are learning how scholars  think. You're learning how scientists  think. You're learning how a researcher  thinks.

So read those works  not only  for  what they  found out. Read them  for  their   methods. Look  for  the methods-­findings  linkage. How did particular  findings  yield and come from  particular  methods? How did those methods  develop over  time? And how did the classic  writers  think  about things, inquire into things?

So as  you're engaging in that, it has  two streams  that you're paying attention to. One is  the theoretical stream. What are the findings? What are the constructs   that you've inherited? And the other  is  the methodological stream. What are the methods  of inquiries, the measures, the instrumentation, the ways  of going about recording what you observe that we've inherited?

Both of those are your  rich inheritance as  scholar  practitioners. And one of the things  that you ought to come out of your  education with is  knowing what that intellectual heritage is, both conceptual and methodological, and then where you're going to make your  contribution.

© 2016 Laureate  Education, Inc. 3

Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 1

Problem Statement Checklist Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s problem statement:

• Is a problem identified that leads to the need for this study?

• Is a rationale or justification for the problem clearly stated?

• Is the problem framed in a way that is consistent with the research approach?

• Does the statement convey how the study will address the problem?

• Are the citations to literature current (i.e., within the past 5 years with the exception of seminal works)?

Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University

© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 1

Use of Literature Checklist Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s use of literature. • Look for indications of the following ways the author used literature:

• Introduce a problem

• Introduce a theory

• Provide direction to the research questions and/or hypotheses

• Compare results with existing literature or predictions

• Did the author mention the problem addressed by the study?

• Is the purpose of the study stated?

• Are key variables in the study defined?

• Is information about the sample, population, or participants provided?

• Are the key results of the study summarized?

• Does the author provide a critique of the literature?

• Are sources cited to support points?

• Are the citations to recent literature (within the past 5 years with the exception of seminal works)?

• Does the literature justify the importance of the topic studied?

Surveillance as casework: supervising domestic violence defendants with GPS technology

Peter R. Ibarra & Oren M. Gur & Edna Erez

Published online: 27 September 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Academic discussion about surveillance tends to emphasize its proliferation, ubiquity, and impact on society, while neglecting to consider the continued relevance of traditional approaches to human supervision, an oversight insofar as surveillance is organized through practices embedded in justice system-based casework. Drawing from a multi-site study of pretrial personnel utilizing global positioning system (GPS) technology for domestic violence cases in the U.S., a comparative analysis is offered to illustrate how the handling of a “problem population” varies across commu- nity corrections agencies as they implement surveillance regimes. In particular, the study finds that surveillance styles reflect whether an agency is directed toward crime control and risk management, providing treatment and assistance, or observing due process. These programmatic thrusts are expressed in how officers interact with offenders as cases, both directly and remotely. In contrast to the ambient monitoring of environments and populations through data-banking technologies, the interactive surveillance styles described in the present study highlight the role of casework in surveillance.

Introduction

Surveillance has become pervasive as information systems that document people’s quotidian activities have multiplied [49]. These systems collect steadily increasing streams of personal information that are stored in unevenly regulated, coordinated, and accessible data banks, to be tapped into on an “as needed” basis by market- and government-based actors.1 The assembly and retrieval of these digitized data reflect the institutionalization of surveillance as an ordinary and “ubiquitous” feature of

Crime Law Soc Change (2014) 62:417–444 DOI 10.1007/s10611-014-9536-4

1These data banks need not be remotely located; for example, “smart phones” provide veritable troves of banked data (cf. [69]).

P. R. Ibarra (*): O. M. Gur: E. Erez Department of Criminology, Law, and Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 W. Harrison St., BSB 4022 (M/C 141), Chicago, IL 60607, USA e-mail: [email protected]

O. M. Gur Department of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University, Abington College, Abington, PA 19001, USA

contemporary life [28]. Such ambient surveillance entails the kind of data collection and information management that occurs routinely, silently, and unobtrusively when, for example, visiting web sites, swiping ID cards upon entry to a secured facility, dialing telephone numbers, having one’s image captured on closed-circuit television (CCTV), carrying credit cards containing radio frequency (RF) ID tags, or using social media.2

A number of academic disciplines consider surveillance an object of inquiry; of interest to criminology is the penetration of surveillance technologies across all phases of the criminal justice process. These developments reflect broader trends in the growth of the “surveillant assemblage” [36], whereby surveillance has become increasingly democratized3 and embedded, i.e., “rhizomatic” ([36], p. 614, citing [18]). Key to understanding surveillance in United States criminal justice contexts is the idea of the case, for the fact that a person is a case means that surveillance becomes interactive, shaped less by its ubiquitous reach and more by the focused processes that organize, for example, supervision or investigation. Whereas ambient surveillance is faceless, dif- fuse, and operates impersonally, interactive surveillance is personified, focused, and pursued in response to a person’s status, identity, or actions.4 Interactive surveillance is purposeful and directed, characterized by unique practices—often including the use of face-to-face interaction—that yield information not necessarily digitized or searchable on demand or by algorithm. Interactive surveillance entails, minimally, interaction between a surveilling agent and an object of surveillance: a case. Rather than consti- tuting a bifurcated pairing, however, ambient and interactive surveillance can function symbiotically: exemplifying “function creep” ([17], passim) [48] (cf. [87]), i.e., the repurposing of technological tools and systems, innovations adopted by justice institu- tions appropriate extant surveillant data streams while also contributing to their growth.

Although electronic monitoring (EM) is a common basis for the surveillance of criminal justice populations in the U.S., scholarly investigation has focused on evalu- ating EM’s impact on various outcomes (e.g., desistance, compliance, recidivism) (e.g., [68, 64, 2]), rather than documenting the surveillance processes it engenders.5 The purpose of the current study is to examine “styles of surveillance” among community corrections officers using EM, employing a specific and comparative analysis (cf. [30])

2 Ambient surveillance emerges from the rise of ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (cf. [83]), which essentially document in digitized form an increasing range of human traces (“footprints”) and actions (current location, vehicular movements, economic transactions, interpersonal contacts, online behavior, etc.) (cf. [70, 81]). Ambient surveillance is distinguished from mass surveillance in that the latter is directed by the state, whereas the former encompasses both state- and market-based forms of surveillance. 3 Surveillance has become democratized as people increasingly have their lives and routine activities recorded, documented, tracked, and rendered into searchable databases, including socially powerful individuals who historically could use their status to shield themselves from bureaucratic organizations that might seek to monitor them (see [36], p. 618). 4 Because it works “silently,” ambient surveillance can be ignored, forgotten, and taken-for-granted, or become the subject of folklore, rumor, and speculation, and hence the object of collective action, such as when users of a smart phone application organize to protest changes in a social media company’s “privacy” policies [43]. By contrast, interactive surveillance is difficult to mobilize against politically insofar as those subject to it feel restricted in expressing their rights (e.g., to liberty, privacy), are unaware of their status as a case, or are deemed unsympathetic figures to “rally around.” Nevertheless, on an individual level, it is evident that resistance and sabotage may be practiced by those subjected to electronic surveillance. 5 There has also been extensive work examining how offenders experience the condition of being electron- ically monitored (e.g., [67, 38, 41, 23]).

418 P.R. Ibarra et al.

of how the tools of surveillance are integrated into local agendas and routines, variegated traditions and ideologies, and legal and extralegal considerations associated with social control and rule enforcement. Specifically, we examine how a “second generation” [52] EM technology—GPS—is implemented through interactive surveil- lance with domestic violence (DV) defendants in three U.S. jurisdictions. GPS tracking is an instructive technology for conceptualizing the distinction between interactive and ambient surveillance, for it targets a specific group—a set of cases—rather than a general population, and yet its constantly-banked data streams mimic the behavior of ambient forms.

The capabilities of technologies, including GPS tracking, do not describe or explain the practice of surveillance, either in general or as conducted by the criminal justice “system” (cf. [51]). Discussions of the “surveillance society” [50] often posit a unidimensionality to technology-based surveillance that is not supported empirically. According to David Lyon:

Surveillance today is often thought of only in technological terms. Technologies are indeed crucially important, but two important things must also be remem- bered: One, ‘human surveillance’ of a direct kind, unmediated by technology, still occurs and is often yoked with more technological kinds. Two, technological systems themselves are neither the cause nor the sum of what surveillance is today. We cannot simply read surveillance consequences off the capacities of each new system ([50], p. 6).

Surveillance technology acquires its “effects” from how it is used, but surveillance and technology are not coterminous. It is crucial to investigate how technologies are incorporated into the practice of surveillance, and not assume that any given technology is implemented identically by surveilling authorities or with the heterogeneous popu- lations brought under their purview. Paterson and Clamp [66] correctly note:

It is essential to understand surveillance technologies as social and policy con- structs where the function of the technology is determined by the environment in which it is utilized and experienced by the public. Technology manifests itself in different forms in different socio-political and cultural contexts. Therefore, new surveillance programmes must be understood as products of their environment; they are creations of the criminal justice agencies which have developed them and the offenders/victims who interact with the technology ([66], p. 53-4).

As new forms of technology appear, they are “constructed” as useful in responding to “problems” [77, 42] framed through local, instead of, or in addition to, national lenses, and incorporated into pre-existing justice infrastructures. In the current case, EM technology was adopted by courts’ pretrial services programs as a way of ameliorating a “problem” that prior means had been unable to effectively address: keeping DV victims “safe” from their alleged abusers pending adjudication and disposition of a criminal case. Yet, as illustrated below, surveillance technology has been implemented dissimilarly across jurisdictions.

We argue for a view of surveillance as casework (cf. [75]) embedded within interactive processes emerging from defendant-focused regimes of social control. The

Surveillance as casework: supervising domestic violence 419

ends of social control shape the styles of casework, and hence how surveillance is mobilized and experienced. Accordingly, the means and ends of social control should be identified in interpreting the organization and practice of surveillance. Characteristic styles of agency practice vary, highlighting the importance of describing and analyzing surveillant technologies in context. GPS tracking is not simply a mechanism for enforcing curfew and mobility restrictions on DV defendants; rather, its compliance- focused agenda is incorporated into the practice of interactive surveillance by pretrial officers who use GPS in accordance with the traditions in which they have been trained, as favored by the agencies where they are employed. These traditions animate and legitimize the varying approaches to, or “styles” of, interactive surveillance that are observed in action. Because these styles reflect varying methods and philosophies of community corrections, we first address how supervision has been conceptualized in the literature and review prior research on supervision utilizing EM technology, before examining interactive surveillance in three U.S.-based GPS for DV pretrial programs.

Literature review

Supervision styles and penological discourse

EM has been increasingly incorporated as a tool for managing the risks posed by offenders on conditional release, including those accused of DV. The use of partially incapacitative ([35], p. 48) conditional release during the pretrial period in the U.S. entails the creation of supervision programs structured as “probation-like alternatives” ([35], p. 12), fashioned on a casework model (e.g., [13], p. 31).6 The nature of pretrial supervision can be understood by drawing from concepts developed in the probation and parole literature, and by reference to currents in penological discourse that direct or comment on the handling of offenders by the justice system.

Discussions of supervision style in the context of probation and parole have historically centered on the extent to which an officer or agency is oriented toward “law enforcement

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.