Criminology Inaccurate and Selective Observations Are Common

Criminology

Inaccurate and selective observations are common problems in all realms of research. In fact, they are basic perceptual fallacies that can lead to problems like stereotyping. Selective observation and inaccurate observations often occur unnoticed, and it take a lot of effort to recognize when such problems occur. However, researchers must remain aware of such errors, by being vigilant about their own work and by peer reviewing the work of others.

Schutt (2010) defines selective observation as "choosing to look only at things that are in accordance with our preferences or beliefs," (p. 4). Selective observation can be a major impediment to criminological research and law enforcement. One example of selective observation is racial profiling. As Dantzker & Hunter (2011) point out, selective observation "is when one sees only those things that one wants to see" and that "racial and ethnic stereotyping" are among the most common forms of the problem (p. 5-6). There are "positive" and "negative" types of selective observation, neither of which provide an accurate picture of reality. For example, the belief that all females are warm and nurturing will lead one to only notice females who are warm and nurturing and to deny the fact that there are females who are not warm and nurturing. Even if the qualities of warmth and nurture are considered positive, the phenomenon is still overtly one of selective observation. Selective observation can be curbed with vigilance and attention. In research, the scientific method and the process of peer review provide some of the most reliable means to prevent or mitigate the problems associated with selective observation. Dantzker & Hunter (2011) state that the scientific method seeks to "prevent errors of casual inquiry by using procedures that specify objectivity, logic, theoretical understanding, and knowledge of prior research," (p. 6). Because selective observation is a type of casual inquiry, it should be supplemented by the rigors of empirical research before a criminologist jumps to conclusions.

Likewise, the scientific method can reduce the impact of inaccurate observations. As the term suggests, inaccurate observations are simply wrong. They are common mistakes, based either on faulty perceptual cues, such as when a room is dark or when there are obstacles in one's line of vision. Thus, an eye witness to a crime needs to be vetted to prevent the inclusion of inaccurate observations as evidence in a case. Inaccurate observations "often occur in casual conversation and in everyday observation of the world around us" primarily because our perceptions are not as reliable as we may think (Schutt, 2010, p. 5). Dantzker & Hunter (2011) claim that inaccurate observations lead to conclusions that are based on "hasty or incomplete observations," (p. 5). Thus, a person may form a gestalt of a crime scene and jump to conclusions about what happened rather than analyze the forensic evidence completely.