This article presents an approach to systematic reviews that combines the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice standards and the realist notion of contexts-mechanisms-outcomes (CMO) configurations. Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks, and the authors will make a case for combining both approaches to profit from their advantages without having to deal with their separate weaknesses. They proceed to discuss how their approach should be put into practice and illustrate its use by giving a concise description of an example from their own work on the effects of prevention of violence. The authors conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of their suggested approach and state that combining Campbell standards and the realist evaluation approach should be done more often.
Bijleveld, C. (2007). Fare dodging and the strong arm of the law: An experimental evaluation of two different penalty schemes for fare evasion . Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(2), 183-199.
2.
Eck, J.E. (2006). When is a bologna sandwich better than sex? A defense of small-n case study evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 345-362.
3.
Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Farrington, D.P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49-68.
6.
Farrington, D.P. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anticrime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 329-337.
7.
Farrington, D.P., Gottfredson, D.C., Sherman, L.W., & Welsh, B.C. (2002). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13-21). London: Routledge.
8.
Harrell, A.V. (2006). Towards systematic knowledge building: An anti-crime research and development continuum. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 339-344.
9.
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Leeuw, F.L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation , 24(1), 5-20.
11.
Leeuw, F.L. (2005). Trends and developments in program evaluation in general and criminal justice programs in particular. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 11, 18-35.
12.
Leeuw, F.L., van der Knaap, L.M., & Bogaerts, S. (2007). Reducing the knowledge-practice gap: A new method applied to crime prevention. Public Money & Management , 27(4), 245-250.
13.
Lipsey, M., Petrie, C., Weisburd, D., & Gottfredson, D. (2006). Improving evaluation of anti-crime programs: Summary of a National Research Council report. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 271-307.
14.
Mason, I., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Nuttall, C. (2003). The Home Office and random allocation experiments . Evaluation Review, 27(3), 267-290.
16.
Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
17.
Pawson, R. (2002). Evidence-based policy: The promise of “realist synthesis.” Evaluation, 8(3), 340-358.
18.
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
19.
Pawson, R., & Klein Haarhuis, C. (2005). Evaluatie van complexe programma's: Een theoriegestuurde aanpak [Evaluation of complex programs: A theory-driven approach]Justitiële verkenningen, 31(8), 42-53.
20.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1994). What works in evaluation research? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 291-306.
21.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London : Sage.
22.
Petrosino, A., Boruch, R.F., Soydan, H., Duggan, L., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 14-34.
23.
Petticrew, M. (2003). Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. British Medical Journal, 326, 756-758.
24.
Pullmann, M.D., Kerbs, J., Koroloff, N., Veach-White, E., Gaylor, R., & Sieler, D. (2006). Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 375-397.
25.
Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 355-379.
26.
Rossi, P. (1987). The iron law of evaluation and other metallic rules. InJ. Miller & M. Lewis (Eds.), Research in social problems and public policy (Vol. 4, pp. 3-20). Greenwich, UK: JAI Press.
27.
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J.E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
28.
Simosi, M. (2003). Using Toulmin's framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations. Argumentation, 17, 185-202.
29.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
van der Knaap, L.M., Nijssen, L.T.J., & Bogaerts, S. (2006). Violence defied? A review of prevention of violence in the public and semi-public domainThe Hague, Netherlands: Boom Juridische Uitgevers/ WODC.
31.
Welsh, B.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention . In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places (pp. 1-20). Dordrecht , Netherlands: Springer.
32.
Wilson, D.B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 459-487.
