Advertisement

History and Design of the ISRD Studies

  • Josine Junger-Tas
  • Ineke Haen Marshall
  • Dirk Enzmann
  • Martin Killias
  • Majone Steketee
  • Beata Gruszczynska
Chapter

Abstract

The present volume is the first official publication on the second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-2), an international collaborative research enterprise with a cross-national description and explanation of juvenile delinquency as its main objective.

In general, the cross-national description of the prevalence and incidence of delinquent behaviour allows for the assessment of national crime rates by comparing them with the crime rates of other countries. The questions to be answered are: Is juvenile delinquency normal, ubiquitous and transitional? Is there a pattern of similarity in the offending behaviour of juveniles across countries or are there any important differences? Descriptive comparisons of crime rates will call for explanations, especially if differences are observed. What are the national socio-economic or cultural differences, or the characteristics of legal or criminal policies that can explain such differences? However, one should not forget that similarities call for explanations as well.

Another goal of cross-national criminological research is the explanation of delinquent and criminal behaviour or the falsification of criminological theories. To the extent that the findings related to different nations are similar, the confidence in existing theories is strengthened. Divergent results call for explanations that will modify and ultimately improve our theories under test.

Keywords

Crime Rate Delinquent Behaviour Juvenile Delinquency Hard Drug Criminological Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Hough, M., Maxfield, M., Morris, B., and Simmons, J. (2007). The British Crime Survey after 25 years: progress, problems, and prospects. In: Hough M. and Maxfield M. (Eds.), Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of the British Crime Survey. Cullomptom, UK: Willan, pp. 7–31Google Scholar
  4. Huizinga, D. and Elliott, D.S. (1984). Self-Reported Measures of Delinquency and Crime: Methodological Issues and Comparative Findings. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  5. Junger-Tas, J., Terlouw, G.-J., and Klein, M.W. (Eds.) (1994). Delinquent Behavior Among Young People in the Western World: First Results of the International Self-Report Delinquency Study. Amsterdam: KuglerGoogle Scholar
  6. Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I.H., and Ribeaud, D. (2003). Delinquency in an international perspective: The International Self-Reported Delinquency Study (ISRD). Den Haag: KuglerGoogle Scholar
  7. Klein, M.W. (Ed.) (1989). Cross-National Research in Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency. Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  8. Lauritsen, J.M. (Ed.) (2006). EpiData Data Entry, Data Management and Basic Statistical Analysis System. Odense, Denmark: EpiData Association, [http://www.epidata.dk]
  9. Lucia, S., Herrmann, L., and Killias, M. (2007). How important are interview methods and questionnaire designs in research on self-reported juvenile delinquency? An experimental comparison of internet vs. paper-and-pencil questionnaires and different definitions of the reference period. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maxfield, M.G. and Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  11. Oberwittler, D. and Naplava, T. (2002). Auswirkungen des Erhebungsverfahrens bei Jugendbefragungen zu ‘heiklen’ Themen - schulbasierte schriftliche Befragung und haushaltsbasierte mündliche Befragung im Vergleich. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 51, 49–77Google Scholar
  12. Ragin, C.C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkely, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  14. Rennison, C.M. and Rand, M. (2007). Introduction to the National Crime Victimization Survey. In: Lynch J.P. and Addington L.A. (Eds.), Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and the UCR. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–54Google Scholar
  15. Saint-Arnaud, S. and Bernard, P. (2003). Convergence or resilience? A hierarchical cluster analysis of the welfare regimes in advanced countries. Current Sociology, 51, 499–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SCP (Social Cultural Planning Office) (2001). The Netherlands in a European Perspective-social Cultural Report 2000. The Hague: SCPGoogle Scholar
  17. Thornberry, T.P. and M.D. Krohn (Eds.) (2003). Taking Stock of Delinquency – An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies. Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  18. van Dijk, J., van Kesteren, J., and Smit, P. (2008). Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective. Key Findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Den Haag: WODC, http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf]
  19. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in Crime - The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josine Junger-Tas
    • 1
  • Ineke Haen Marshall
  • Dirk Enzmann
  • Martin Killias
  • Majone Steketee
  • Beata Gruszczynska
  1. 1.University of Utrecht, Willem Pompe Institute of CriminologyUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations