Abstract
This study looked into the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992) that emphasizes the role of procedural justice in the public evaluation of and support for the police, focusing on victim-police interactions. The abstract fulfills most of the requirements by the American Psychological Association (2001) and any reviewers have to look extremely hard to point out any weaknesses in it. It gives an adequate, summarized description of the task under study, the participants (number and reason for using them), and research methods employed in the study (qualitative and quantitative methods). Notably, it states the results of both methods and compares their degree of agreement with each other and previous research exercises. The conclusion, however, is presented being more of an individual opinion than a conclusive summary of the research exercise. Therefore, it is not sufficiently convincing. Further, the abstract misses mentioning the report’s implications for future research.
Introduction
The introduction part of the article is remarkably well written, again observing the set guidelines as in the case of the abstract. The authors have ensured they provide the definitions of all the unfamiliar words and phrases, providing their meanings either directly or by enclosing them in brackets. On several occasions, their synonyms are provided. The authors have analyzed each method of study and provided their strengths and limitations, skillfully justifying the use of a hybrid method approach.
The introduction has provided an extensive literature review into the concept of research into procedural justice, dating back to 1975 (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). For example, two possible explanations for this phenomenon are adequately discussed:- the instrumental and the non-instrumental approach. The authors have paid attention to the main aspects in line with their research, capturing the most noteworthy details and ignoring the unessential ones. Each point presented drives the reader closer and closer towards the problem at hand.
An attempt was made to include research within the recommended 5-year range. For example, references into Hinds & Murphy (2007); Reisig, Bratton & Gertz (2007); Irwin (2008) and Murphy (2009). However, most of the references to the most significant arguments presented in this journal lie outside this range; for instance Tyler (1990, 1996), Tyler & Lind (1992). These previous works have formed the purpose of this research exercise, which was to investigate the validity of a relational model of authority in victim-police interactions. Clear hypotheses were formulated, so were the research questions for each method used as well as the primary and secondary aims.
Method
This section of the article was excellent. It clearly explains how the study was conducted. The participants’ subsection thoroughly analyses the participants, giving their number (110) and several of their demographic characteristics (age, sex). However, information such as educational level and income is not mentioned in this subsection, though it comes up later in the journal as having been recorded in the interview schedule. This journal states that the participants had reported a crime over the past 12 months, and were a representation of people who reported crime in Victoria in 2008/2009 as per gender ratios (Victoria Police, 2010). There is no mention of approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, grant support for the study exercise from the Australian Research Council was mentioned in the endnote section below the journal’s abstract.
The Interview Schedule subsection provides information about how the interviews were executed, identifying the use of various techniques such as the Procedural Justice Scale, The Legitimacy Scale, The Justice Sensitivity Scale, The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, and Qualitative Terms. Adequate measures were taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the various scales. These included Cronbach’s alpha of the scales and mean correlation. Data analysis techniques are covered under another subsection, subdivided into qualitative and quantitative subtopics. There is no mention of the statistical analysis software used, however. All in all, adequate information regarding the method was provided; and it is possible to replicate the procedure if need be.
Results
A comprehensive results section is included, showing the results of the above-mentioned analyses. This section is subdivided into two: the qualitative and quantitative findings subsections. Notably, the demographic characteristics of the sample were left out under this section. The results of quantitative analysis are presented in three tables, with two forming the preliminary analyses and one the main analyses. One table is used to represent the qualitative findings. A thorough statistical analysis was carried out on the results, including sufficient p, R, and R2 values. The results are also adequately explained in straightforward language. In addition, included tables have relevant tables and footnotes, hence are understandable without referring to the text.
Discussion
A comprehensive yet easy-to-understand summary regarding the findings of this research exercise is made under this section. The authors have compared their results with previous works of research in the same field. The quantitative results support the proposed hypotheses. Further, an agreement with previous research covering tests on the relational model of authority in citizen-police interactions is discovered. A similar analysis was derived for the qualitative method results. The findings further highlighted the benefits of the mixed methods approach. The authors further mentioned several limitations encountered during the research, including the use of a non-random sample and the cross-sectional approach of the study. The authors also presented the implications of their work and its possible applications, especially in motivating individuals to obey the law. They further suggest areas where the further investigation should be carried out.
In conclusion, this study can be said to be a success, having achieved the desired goals. The journal was well written and presented, combining detailed information and analysis for the interested specialists and easy grammar and sufficient interpretation for the ordinary person. Further, the verified outcomes can be applied in real life to better the relationship between citizens and the police. As such, this article is of utter importance to anyone it may concern; and that is virtually everyone, I included.
References
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42. doi:10.1375/acri.40.1.27
Irwin, S. (2008). Data analysis and interpretation: Emergent issues in linking qualitative and quantitative evidence. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 415–436). New York: Guilford Press.
Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 159–178. doi:10.1375/acri.42.2.159.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1028. doi:10.1177/0093854807301275.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1996). Procedural fairness and compliance with the law. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 133, 219–240.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.
Victoria Police. (2010). Crime statistics 2008/2009. Melbourne: Author.