From Theory to Policy and Back Again

Decker, Scott H.

doi:10.1002/9781118512449.ch20

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Problems with legislation are well noted in gang research and it has been suggested that emphasising policy change may be one of the most effective approaches to improving responses to gang-related problems (McDaniel & Sayegh, 2020). Subsequently, scholars have emphasised the need to draw more heavily on gang research and theory (Bjerregaard, 2015;Decker, 2016;Klein, 2001). One of the central issues raised with gang legislation is the lack of a consensus legal definition of gangs (Barrows & Huff, 2009;Klein, 2009), as well as the definitional vagueness regarding what a gang is, who is a gang member, and what kinds of activities may be considered gang related (Bjerregaard, 2003).…”

Section: Laws/legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the above discussions, it is my contention that answering causal questions in gang research does necessarily involve important conceptual and theoretical development; yet such developments are often considered secondary to empirical progress. As described in chapter two, a number of recommendations for improving responses to gang harms have suggested that there is a need to draw more heavily upon research and gang theories (Bjerregaard, 2015;Decker, 2016;Klein, 2001). Yet, given the limitations of our conceptual and theoretical understandings of gangs, questions may be raised regarding the suitability of current gang research to address these "real-world" problems.…”

Section: Chapter Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of pursuing such a project, there have been attempts to align researchers not only in name (i.e., under the Eurogang umbrella) but also more meaningfully at the points of epistemology, methodology, and method 26i.e., regarding the kinds of claims and justifications that are upheld as constituting scientific "knowing" and how to pursue them. For example, the Eurogang Program endorses values of positivism (viewing gangs as an objective, observable, and measurable entity), the collection of data through qualitative and quantitative methods, 27 and the inference and justification of claims through inductive and deductive reasoning 28 (Weerman et al, 2009; for discussions of such trends see also Brotherton, 2018;Decker, 2016;Fraser, 2017;Hallsworth 123 & Young, 2008). In pursuit of such goals, the Eurogang definition, the associated Eurogang research instruments (e.g., city-level instrument, expert survey), and the Maxson and Klein typology (Klein & Maxson, 2006;Maxson & Klein, 1995) are all central tools and have been constructed in a manner that facilitates comparative empirical research.…”

Section: Unification In Gang Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In chapter two I discussed the effectiveness of the practice and policy responses that have been developed to address such harms. While some approaches have indicated promise, it is apparent that the development of effective and ethical responses to gang harms has remained elusive (Bjerregaard, 2015;Boxer, 2019;Decker, 2016;Klein, 2001;Mallion & Wood, 2020a, 2020bMcDaniel & Sayegh, 2020;Pyrooz & Decker, 2019;Roman, 2021;Thornberry et al, 2018). In chapter three I discussed some of the conceptual difficulties with gang research have that have limited our ability to develop effective responses to gang problems.…”

Section: Chapter Nine: Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The academic spotlight has become fixated on gangs due to what is often referred to as the "gang problem", i.e., the observed relationship between gangs (and gang membership) and a range of negative social, economic, and health related outcomessuch as crime, victimisation, homelessness, low educational and employment achievement, and mental health difficulties (Chu et al, 2012;Pyrooz, 2014;Pyrooz et al, 2016;. Despite the severity of harms constitutive of the gang problem, there is still much ground to be covered in the development of effective, reliable, ethical, and evidence-based responses (Bjerregaard, 2015;Boxer, 2019;Decker, 2016;Klein, 2001;Mallion & Wood, 2020b;McDaniel & Sayegh, 2020;Pyrooz & Decker, 2019;Roman, 2021;Thornberry et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding gangs: Developing an epistemically pluralist framework for gang research

Wegerhoff¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gangs are associated with a range of social, criminal, and economic harms. Yet, after almost a century of dedicated research, the development of effective and ethical responses to such harms has proven difficult. Recent attempts to address this have seen the establishment of the Eurogang Program; an international group of gang researchers and practitioners coordinated around a consensus definition of gangs. Since its recent inception, the Eurogang Program has quickly become the dominant framework of research and practice. While much is being staked on the success of the Eurogang Program, the suitability of such a programme for progressing gang research is yet to be thoroughly examined. In this thesis I therefore conduct a meta-theoretical examination of the state of gang research and particularly the Eurogang Program and its associated practices. By examining the frameworks underpinning gang research and drawing upon insights from the philosophy of science, I characterise the Eurogang approach as an attempt to coordinate gang research through means of unification (i.e., through the privileging of particular research perspectives and strategies to achieve coordination through consensus). I draw attention to some major limitations of these unificatory attempts and emphasise how the consensus Eurogang definition does not appropriately set up researchers to be able to develop the various kinds of conceptual and theoretical understandings of gangs required to improve gang policy and practice. Instead, I make the case for a framework known as epistemic pluralism, in which researchers do not pursue consensus but rather cultivate multiple systems of knowing to serve a variety of different research purposes. After establishing the benefit of epistemic pluralism, I examine how such a framework may be applied to the gang field. This involves specific discussion of the various aims of gang researchers and the roles that conceptual strategies (i.e., definitional, classificatory, and explanatory approaches) play in providing the pragmatic and epistemic (i.e., knowledge-related) insights required to meet them. These discussions offer a novel perspective on the roles of conceptual strategies in the process of knowledge production and justification. Having established the general kinds of strategies required for different research purposes, I then consider some specific examples of conceptual strategies that are relevant to meeting the various needs of gang researchers. This takes the form of the Conceptual Framework for Gang Research (CFGR). This novel approach offers greater opportunities for more meaningful kinds of research coordination and maximises the likelihood of establishing the conceptual and theoretical understandings of gangs required to improve gang policy and practice. The value of this thesis as a case study for pursuing epistemic pluralism in the sciences is also discussed.

show abstract