In the criticism of a much-publicized report by Holgersson, Grahn, and Wieslander cited 28 Crime-workers (23 women and 5 men), the defense of the company, and of the criticism of the researchers. They argue that the report has ”serious quality problems”.
All of the research has its shortcomings and its nature, it is not easy to get solid results. Crime-the report is, in my opinion, be of good quality, even if the informanternas variety of evidence makes it difficult to clear-cut conclusions. It is, however, a job well done, well thought out and, in part, creatively, for example, in the investigation of the Brås („o“) degree of autonomy in relation to the police force. In the report, it is often important to try and highlight what is important to take into account. To the Crime-investigator and a part of criminologists are turning to the report, is at least as much about politics as about the intellectual judgment.
Among other things, stated that ”the most attention-grabbing conclusions regarding the Brås’s credibility is based largely on the testimony of persons who have been employed in the past, and in some cases for a very long time ago, and at the same time that the impression is that this is an up to date situation. The probability of obtaining an objective picture, by interviewing people who, for various reasons, or have chosen to terminate his / her employment in the agency takes on, ever.”
The Crime-investigators, and some criminologists are turning to the report, is at least as much about politics as about the intellectual judgment.
on sensitive issues, it is usually helpful to interview people who have terminated their employment, it may, of course, to ensure the experience that has become out of date, or people who have a one-sided negative picture. Employees are often wary of what they tell you, and it can be locked in the house and established beliefs. Those who have left the company, is free and has remote.
”Several of us declined to participate, as the purpose seemed unclear, and the study had not been etikprövats. This is to be interpreted in this report as an indication of the tystnadskultur”, said the Kind staff.
for information about the clear view, can control the interview response, and good research is transparent, it does not need to be a problem in that its purpose is not clear. And why should a study of an authority to be examined? The latter sounds very good and is relevant to, for example, in medical research, however, is often an unproductive bureaucratic procedure, for example, in the study of public administration.
Furthermore, the mean, the Kind staff that the ”negative evidence from a relatively small number of people will be of great importance, while the quotes do not support the image they want to convey, is not to be taken into account in the sluttolkningen. In some cases, to be interpreted also as a sign of Brås ‚blind spot‘, that is to say, a sort of lack of understanding. The objectivity of the principal author may also be questioned, as he is in the ‚hiring process‘ to use in his own case, which did not result in a position of authority. All of this takes place within the framework of a study on the forskningsbias is remarkable.”
the Report is clear in the case, and dealing with all of this, however. To be Kind, not employee, said lead author dr. Holgersson is far more sophisticated than that of almost all of the Crime (half of which, according to the report, only a holder of a university degree), and is well known for the integrity and independence of the – said, unfortunately, a lot of Crime, and strengthens the study’s conclusions. In the case where different bodies of evidence, it is often motivated to pay more attention to the statements from the informants that could be considered to be independent, while those who have a vested interest in representing the organization in the light of the day, or are affected by the hemmamiljöns the blind spot may be more unreliable.
it is hoped that the report will not be caught in a political crossfire as well as being used in order to find better ways to Crime-related activities, where, perhaps, a more open relationship with the government, would be consistent with the public interest.
the Crime-and the people also argue that a intervjuperson consider themselves to be misquoted. In this respect Holgersson and others that ”the text within the quotation marks in the report are accurate to that adopted by him, and the interview was about the Brås of the scientific advice, but rådsmedlemmen briefly mentioned his experience of being in the STATISTICS of the european council. In order to protect his identity, the omission that this quote also applied to any other authority than that of Crime. Rådsmedlemmen turned immediately to the media to get the message out about the ’felciteringen‘. If you have an interest in discrediting the report, this is an effective approach. One of the possible felcitering has, of course, not a research paper.
The Crime-employees want to be ”an independent actor to take on the task of reviewing the scientific character in the “ report on Crime”. Myself, I believe that this is not necessary, but please, this is high enough. More important is to further investigate Crime, for the purpose to prove or disprove this.
on this case, the review can then be used for comparison with, and perhaps critique, of this were discussed in the report. This can be a critical point of view, but it is hoped that it has not ended up in the middle of a political crossfire as well as being used in order to find better ways to Crime-related activities, where, perhaps, a more open relationship with the government, would be consistent with the public interest.
<
