Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the methods used in criminology, drawing on both natural and social sciences. However, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration that need to be addressed.

One-sided reporting is evident in the section on official statistics, which suggests that they are not very reliable as a measure of crime in society or changes over time. While this is true to some extent, it overlooks the fact that official statistics can still provide valuable insights into crime trends and patterns. Moreover, the article fails to mention the limitations of victimization surveys, such as underreporting due to fear of retaliation or mistrust of authorities.

The article also lacks evidence for some claims made, such as the statement that self-report surveys generally survey juveniles rather than adults. This claim needs to be supported by data or research studies.

There are unexplored counterarguments in the section on experimental methods, where the article notes that experimentation is criticized by justice officials and the public because they believe equal treatment should be accorded to equals. However, there are other valid criticisms of experimental methods, such as ethical concerns about manipulating variables or withholding treatment from certain groups.

The article also has promotional content in its description of action research, which emphasizes its practical results through collaboration with field-workers. While this may be true in some cases, action research also has limitations such as lack of generalizability and difficulty in establishing causality.

Overall, while the article provides a useful overview of criminological methods, it could benefit from more balanced reporting and deeper exploration of counterarguments and limitations.