Blurring the Distinction Between Empirical and Normative Legitimacy? A Methodological Commentary on 'Police Legitimacy and Citizen Cooperation in China'
Blurring the Distinction Between Empirical and Normative Legitimacy? A Methodological Commentary on 'Police Legitimacy and Citizen Cooperation in China'
复制标题
模糊了经验合法性和规范合法性之间的区别？
DOI：
10.1007/s11417-019-09289-w
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Jackson J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jackson J
在对南方中国的警察合法性性质的一项有趣的研究中，孙中山等人。(2018)提出的证据表明，研究人员以前被视为可能的合法性来源--按照程序正义、分配正义、有效性和合法性界定的公众对警察行为的看法--实际上是合法性的组成部分。在这篇方法论评论中，我们认为，用于得出这一结论的经验策略不符合目的，因为两种概念性立场--合法性的可能来源或合法性的组成部分--都符合相同的符合统计模型。我们还分析了来自欧洲及其他地区30个国家的具有代表性的数据，结果还表明，无论你往哪里看，都可能发现对这种衡量方法的错误支持。对文化背景敏感意味着使用一种不强加合法性前提条件的方法，我们反对国际犯罪学开始出现的趋势，而这种趋势恰恰相反。
In a fascinating study into the nature of police legitimacy in Southern China, Sun et al. (2018) present evidence that what researchers have previously been treated as possible sources of legitimacy—public perceptions of police conduct defined along the lines of procedural justice, distributive justice, effectiveness and lawfulness—are in fact constituent components of legitimacy. In this methodological commentary, we argue that the empirical strategy used to reach this conclusion is not fit for purpose because both conceptual stances—possible sources of legitimacy or constituent components of legitimacy—are consistent with the same fitted statistical model. Analysing nationally representative data from 30 countries across Europe and beyond, we also show that erroneous support for the approach to measurement is likely to be found wherever one looks. To be sensitive to cultural context means using a methodology that does not impose the preconditions of legitimacy, and we counsel against a trend starting in international criminology that does precisely the opposite.