อธิบาย ที่ วิธีการ ของการ เคลื่อนไหว ค่าเฉลี่ย ระบุ คุณธรรม และ ข้อ จำกัด ของมัน

เตรียมตัวสอบ ACT อ่านคำแนะนำบนหน้าปกของหนังสือเล่มทดลอง อ่านคำแนะนำสำหรับการทดสอบแต่ละครั้งอย่างละเอียด อ่านคำถามแต่ละข้ออย่างละเอียด เครื่องคิดเลขอาจใช้ในการทดสอบทางคณิตศาสตร์เท่านั้น นโยบายเครื่องคิดเลข (PDF) ก้าวตัวเองไม่ใช้เวลามากเกินไปในเนื้อเรื่องหรือคำถามเดียว ให้ความสนใจกับการประกาศให้ทราบถึงเวลาที่เหลืออีกห้านาทีในแต่ละการทดสอบ ใช้ดินสอเขียนเลข 2 ดินสอนุ่มด้วยยางลบที่ดี อย่าใช้ดินสอเชิงกลหรือปากกาหมึกถ้าทำเอกสารคำตอบของคุณไม่สามารถทำคะแนนได้อย่างถูกต้อง ทำเครื่องหมายเพียงหนึ่งคำตอบสำหรับคำถามแต่ละข้อและสำหรับแต่ละคำถามให้ตรวจสอบว่าคุณทำเครื่องหมายไว้ในแถวของวงรีด้วยตัวเลขเดียวกับคำถาม กรอกไข่ให้สมบูรณ์และทำเครื่องหมายของคุณหนักและสีดำ ถ้าคุณเปลี่ยนความคิดเกี่ยวกับคำตอบให้ลบเครื่องหมายแรกของคุณโดยสมบูรณ์โดยไม่ต้องมีรอยเปื้อน สำหรับแต่ละคำถามให้ตัดสินใจว่าคำตอบใดดีที่สุด ตอบคำถามง่ายๆก่อนจากนั้นย้อนกลับไปและตอบคำถามยากขึ้นถ้าคุณมีเวลาเหลืออยู่ในการทดสอบ เกี่ยวกับคำถามที่ยากขจัดคำตอบที่ไม่ถูกต้องให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่จะเป็นไปได้ให้คาดเดาในหมู่คนที่เหลือ ตอบทุกคำถาม คะแนนของคุณในการทดสอบแบบปรนัยจะขึ้นอยู่กับจำนวนคำถามที่คุณตอบถูกต้องคุณจะไม่ถูกลงโทษเพื่อคาดเดา เป็นประโยชน์ของคุณที่จะตอบทุกคำถามแม้ว่าคุณจะต้องเดา หากคุณทำการทดสอบก่อนที่จะมีการเรียกเวลาให้ตรวจสอบการทำงานของคุณในการทดสอบครั้งนั้น อย่ามองย้อนกลับไปยังการทดสอบที่ได้รับการเรียกเวลาแล้วและอย่าดำเนินการทดสอบอีก การทำเช่นนี้จะตัดสิทธิคุณจากการสอบ เมื่อมีการเรียกเวลาในการทดสอบใด ๆ ให้วางดินสอของคุณลงทันทีและอย่าทำเครื่องหมายหรือแก้ไขวงรีไข่ในการทดสอบหรือเขียนเรียงความต่อ ถ้าคุณทำคุณจะถูกไล่ออกและเอกสารคำตอบของคุณจะไม่ถูกทำเครื่องหมาย การเขียนเคล็ดลับการทดสอบ: ก่อนที่คุณจะเริ่มเขียนบททดสอบให้อ่านเนื้อหาทั้งหมดในคู่มือการทดสอบเพื่อทำความเข้าใจว่าคุณกำลังถูกถามอะไร คุณสามารถวางแผนการเขียนเรียงความของคุณในหน้า unlined ให้ พวกเขาจะไม่ได้รับคะแนน เฉพาะการเขียนของคุณบนหน้าเรียงรายของเอกสารคำตอบเท่านั้นที่จะได้คะแนนเรานำเสนอหลักเกณฑ์บางประการในการดำเนินการสำรวจทางสังคมในโครงการเกี่ยวกับเชื้อเพลิงจากป่า จุดมุ่งหมายของเราคือการระบุว่ามีเทคนิคใดบ้างที่ควรจะรวบรวม เราสรุปเพราะ generalizations สามารถทำ แต่เราเตือนผู้อ่านว่ามีความหลากหลายมากในชุมชนและแต่ละสถานการณ์ที่เฉพาะเจาะจงต้องใช้วิธีการของตัวเองและการปรับเปลี่ยนของตัวเองของการสำรวจทั่วไป นอกจากนี้จำนวนบุคลากรทรัพยากรด้านการเงินและองค์กรที่มีให้แก่นักวิจัยของโรงฟืนไม้ย่อมแตกต่างกันไปและยังมีข้อสรุปเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับการสำรวจความคิดเห็นที่ควรดำเนินการอย่างลึกซึ้ง การสำรวจสามารถดำเนินการได้หลายวิธีตั้งแต่การตรวจสอบสถานการณ์ในท้องถิ่นที่มีขนาดเล็กจัดอย่างรวดเร็วเพื่อสำรวจในระดับชาติเป็นระยะ ๆ ตลอดทั้งปี ในบทความนี้เราส่วนใหญ่เกี่ยวข้องกับการสำรวจที่ จำกัด มากขึ้นไม่ได้มีการสำรวจแห่งชาติอย่างละเอียด การสำรวจจะแตกต่างกันไปไม่เพียง แต่ในระดับ แต่ยังอยู่ในสถานที่วัตถุประสงค์และวิธีการเราจะระบุว่าสิ่งใดที่เหมาะสมสำหรับความต้องการเฉพาะ ไม่ควรมีการสัมภาษณ์ปากต่อปากการสังเกตการณ์แบบสอบถามที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรการสัมภาษณ์และแบบสอบถามควรให้ความสำคัญอย่างเพียงพอในการเปิดเผยข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับการใช้เชื้อเพลิงทุกชนิด ควรใช้วิธีการและขั้นตอนวิธีการเชิงวิธีในการดำเนินการตรวจสอบบริบททางสังคมวิทยาในการใช้ฟืนไม้เชื้อเพลิงมีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อสร้างหลายแหล่งเพื่อตรวจสอบความเชื่อถือได้ การสำรวจในอุดมคติจะอนุญาตให้จัดสรรเวลาได้อย่างใจกว้างและคนที่มีประสบการณ์ในการสำรวจทางสังคม ระยะเวลาที่เหมาะจะเป็นอย่างน้อยปีที่สมบูรณ์ซึ่งจะอนุญาตให้มีความแตกต่างตามฤดูกาลที่สำคัญ (ไม้จะรวมตัวกันอย่างไรในช่วงฤดูฝน) แต่เราตระหนักดีว่าผู้อ่านส่วนใหญ่จะไม่มีทรัพยากรในการทำแบบสำรวจที่เหมาะ ในหลาย ๆ กรณีการสำรวจจะทำเพื่อตอบสนองต่อคำร้องขอเร่งด่วนหรือคำสั่งจากกระทรวงหรือหน่วยงานระหว่างประเทศ ผู้บริหารอำเภอที่ X กล่าวว่าผู้คนมีปัญหาใหญ่ในการฟืน - ไปและหาว่าตำแหน่งเป็นอย่างไร เราต้องการรายงานในเดือนหน้า นี่เป็นการสำรวจความคิดเห็นฉบับย่อที่รวดเร็วเป็นไปได้ทั้งหมด แต่เราเชื่อว่าเป็นไปได้ที่จะได้รับข้อมูลที่ดีและเกี่ยวข้องแม้ในสถานการณ์ที่ยากลำบากเช่นนี้และเราขอแนะนำวิธีการในการดำเนินการนี้ บางครั้งเจ้าหน้าที่จะมีหน้าที่รับผิดชอบในการต่อต้านการกดดันในการทำแบบสำรวจในช่วงเวลาสั้นเกินไปซึ่งจะเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่จะรวบรวมข้อมูลที่จำเป็น การสำรวจอย่างรวดเร็วอาจมีค่า แต่พวกเขามีข้อ จำกัด ด้านประโยชน์และความถูกต้อง ข้อเสนอแนะเหล่านี้มีไว้สำหรับผู้ที่ต้องการทำป่าไม้การเกษตรและเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐอื่น ๆ ที่ได้รับการเรียกให้ทำแบบสำรวจเชื้อเพลิงจากไม้และเชื้อเพลิงอื่น ๆ เราจำเป็นต้องเน้นความสำคัญของเชื้อเพลิงอื่น ๆ สำหรับในบางส่วนของโลกอย่างน้อยในบางฤดูกาลเชื้อเพลิงเช่นเศษซากพืชหรือมูลสัตว์อาจเป็นแหล่งหลักของเชื้อเพลิงการทำอาหารการสำรวจไม้ที่ดีเป็นจริงการสำรวจทางสังคมเพราะ มันเกี่ยวข้องไม่เพียง แต่กับไม้ แต่ด้วยวิธีการจัดการทรัพยากรสังคมโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งกับปัจจัยต่างๆเช่นการควบคุมและการเข้าถึงการแบ่งหมวดหมู่ของต้นไม้และการจัดระเบียบรูปแบบการใช้แรงงานในการใช้เชื้อเพลิง สะท้อนให้เห็นถึงคุณค่าพื้นฐานของสังคมที่แสดงให้เห็นว่าใครมีส่วนสำคัญและได้รับการยกเว้นดังนั้นจึงไม่ต้องทนทุกข์ทรมานเมื่อน้ำมันขาดแคลนหรือตรงกันข้ามก็จะแสดงให้เห็นถึงกลุ่มสังคมและบุคคลใดเช่นคนจนผู้หญิงผู้สูงอายุและคนพิการ ประสบความยากลำบากมากที่สุดจากการขาดแคลนเชื้อเพลิง การสำรวจไม้เชื้อเพลิงที่เหมาะสมควรเกี่ยวข้องกับกระบวนการสองทาง: ด้านหนึ่งเป็นทรัพยากร - ไม้และแหล่งเชื้อเพลิงอื่น ๆ - และในทางกลับกันเป็นกฎ (และเทคโนโลยี) ที่สังคมใช้ในการจัดการทรัพยากรนั้น เราเน้นความต้องการที่จะมีความยืดหยุ่นในการใช้สามัญสำนึกและมารยาทและเคารพในมุมมองค่านิยมและสิทธิของประชาชนเอง พวกเขาไม่ควรถูกมองว่าเป็นองค์กรแบบพาสซีฟที่รอการพัฒนา แต่เป็นคนที่มีการรับรู้และความรู้ด้านเทคนิคของตนเองและมีส่วนร่วมมาก นี่เป็นการระบุหัวข้อที่สำคัญสำหรับการตรวจสอบ พื้นที่ที่จะสำรวจและในสิ่งที่ความลึกขึ้นอยู่กับสถานการณ์เฉพาะของสถานที่ข้อมูลอื่น ๆ ที่พร้อมใช้งานและความต้องการที่แม่นยำของการสำรวจเช่นเดียวกับเงินเวลาและพนักงานที่มีอยู่ ข้อมูลที่สามารถรวบรวมได้อย่างน้อยในร่างกว้างค่อนข้างง่ายและรวดเร็ว ในการสำรวจทั้งหมดจำเป็นต้องมีความสมดุลระหว่างการได้รับข้อมูลมากเกินไปและน้อยเกินไป สำหรับโครงการเชื้อเพลิงควรมีจุดมุ่งหมายเพื่อให้สามารถตัดสินใจเกี่ยวกับคำถามที่เหมาะสมซึ่งจะให้คำตอบที่เป็นประโยชน์และนำเสนอข้อมูลพื้นฐานที่เพียงพอเพื่อให้ข้อมูลน้ำมันมีความหมาย ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับการเก็บฟืนหรือการผลิตถ่านหรือรูปแบบการทำอาหารไม่ได้มีความหมายมากนักเว้นแต่เกี่ยวข้องกับภูมิหลังทางสังคมต่อบุคคลเฉพาะและสถานที่ที่กำลังศึกษาอยู่ ข้อมูลควรได้รับการรวบรวมด้วยเชื้อเพลิงในใจและเป็นสิ่งสำคัญที่จะต่อต้านการเก็บรวบรวมข้อเท็จจริงที่น่าสนใจในทุกด้านของชีวิตแล้วไม่ทราบว่าจะทำอย่างไรกับผล ไม่มีรายการตรวจสอบเดียวครอบคลุมความต้องการข้อมูลทั้งหมดอย่างครบถ้วน แต่สิ่งที่ตามมาแนะนำช่วงของข้อมูลที่อาจมีความเกี่ยวข้องขึ้นอยู่กับวัตถุประสงค์และข้อ จำกัด ของการสำรวจแต่ละครั้ง ก่อนอื่นต้องตั้งเป้าหมายไว้แล้วขั้นตอนต่อไปคือการหาหลักการเลือก - สิ่งที่ต้องรวมคำถามที่ต้องถามคำถามอะไร จำนวนผู้อาศัยอยู่ในพื้นที่นี้เป็นปัจจัยสำคัญอย่างหนึ่งในการพิจารณาความต้องการใช้เชื้อเพลิง คำถามอื่น ๆ เกี่ยวกับความหนาแน่น (จำนวนคนต่อตารางกิโลเมตร) และการกระจายอายุและเพศ จำนวนผู้สูงอายุหรือเจ็บป่วยที่เป็นคนพิการในการรับไม้ฟืนอัตราการเสียชีวิตและการเสียชีวิต (ถ้าทราบ) และตัวเลขเหล่านี้เปรียบเทียบกับตัวเลขระดับชาติอย่างไรอัตราและรูปแบบการย้ายถิ่นฐาน ย้ายจากพื้นที่อื่น ๆ ) การเปรียบเทียบเหล่านี้มีความสำคัญเนื่องจากเราจำเป็นต้องทราบว่าพื้นที่ใดเป็นแบบใด สิ่งแวดล้อม อะไรคือพื้นที่ทางกายภาพที่เรากำลังติดต่อกับสิ่งนี้เป็นสิ่งบ่งชี้ชัดเจนหรือควรจะมีการกำหนดโดยพลการสิ่งที่ทรัพยากร (โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งที่ดินดินพืช) มีอยู่สิ่งที่เป็นที่รู้จักเกี่ยวกับสภาพภูมิอากาศ, น้ำ, ลาด, การระบายน้ำข้อมูลนี้ให้ความรู้สึกบางอย่าง ความเพียงพอของปริมาณสำรอง (ความเป็นจริงและศักยภาพ) ของเชื้อเพลิง ประวัติศาสตร์ มีเหตุผลสองประการที่ควรรู้ว่าอย่างน้อยคือโครงร่างทั่วไปของประวัติศาสตร์ท้องถิ่นที่ตระหนักถึงความสำคัญของสถานที่สำคัญและบุคคลสำคัญ ประการแรกปัจจุบันสามารถเข้าใจได้ในความสัมพันธ์กับอดีตแม้ในการศึกษาทั่วไปที่เห็นได้ชัดเช่นเชื้อเพลิง ประการที่สองคนในท้องถิ่นเห็นว่าประวัติศาสตร์ของพวกเขาเป็นสิ่งสำคัญดังนั้นจึงเป็นเรื่องที่สมควรและเป็นอัธยาศัยที่จะรู้เรื่องเหตุการณ์สำคัญ ๆ รูปแบบของการใช้เชื้อเพลิงไม่ควรถือเป็นความคงที่ในอดีตเนื่องจากเหตุการณ์และการเปลี่ยนแปลงเช่นการเคลื่อนไหวของประชากรการขยายตัวของเกษตรกรรมการสร้างถนนสงครามหรือการเติบโตของการดำเนินงานไม้เชิงพาณิชย์อาจมีผลกระทบสำคัญต่อการใช้เชื้อเพลิง ชุมชน เรากำลังศึกษาชุมชนคนส่วนที่สำคัญที่สุดคือความสัมพันธ์ที่แน่นแฟ้นระหว่างความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างผู้ชายกับผู้หญิงเพื่อนบ้านญาติพี่น้องในบ้านเจ้าของบ้านและผู้เช่าคนรวยและคนจน , และอื่น ๆ ความสัมพันธ์เกี่ยวข้องกับความขัดแย้งและความร่วมมือและแสดงออกในกิจกรรมเฉพาะอย่างหนึ่งซึ่งเป็นกิจกรรมที่เกี่ยวกับเชื้อเพลิง ดังนั้นกิจกรรมด้านเชื้อเพลิงจะช่วยชี้แจงโครงสร้างทางสังคมของชุมชนและเข้าใจได้ง่ายขึ้นเมื่อเข้าใจโครงสร้างทางสังคม ชุมชนมักจะมุ่งเน้นไปที่สถานที่กลางหมู่บ้านหรือหมู่บ้านเล็ก ๆ โดยทั่วไปแล้วจะมีรูปแบบการตั้งถิ่นฐานและการใช้ประโยชน์ที่ดินที่ชัดเจนซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องกับสภาพแวดล้อม ในประเทศ ควรเป็นไปได้ที่จะทำให้การจัดประเภทที่คร่าวๆของครัวเรือนซึ่งเป็นคำที่แม้ว่าบางครั้งคลุมเครือดีกว่าครอบครัวหรือฟาร์ม ครัวเรือนมักถูกกำหนดให้เป็นกลุ่มคนที่ใช้ห้องครัวร่วมกัน (หรือสถานที่ทำอาหาร) และตระหนักถึงหัวหน้าครัวเรือนคนหนึ่ง ครัวเรือนสามารถแยกแยะได้ตามขนาดและจำนวนสมาชิกที่มีผลต่อความต้องการและอุปทานของฟืนน้ำ ครัวเรือนยังมีรายได้ที่แตกต่างกันซึ่งโดยปกติจะเป็นเรื่องยากที่จะวัดได้เนื่องจากหลายคนไม่สามารถหรือไม่เต็มใจที่จะให้ตัวเลขรายได้ที่แน่นอน ดังนั้นเราจึงมองหาตัวชี้วัดพร็อกซี่ที่จะให้ความคิดที่ดีของรายได้และความมั่งคั่ง สิ่งปลูกสร้างเหล่านี้อาจรวมถึงที่ดิน (กรรมสิทธิ์และการใช้งาน) ปศุสัตว์ต้นไม้ถาวรประเภทและขนาดของสารประกอบและบ้านเรือน (วัสดุหลังคาเฟอร์นิเจอร์) และทรัพย์สินส่วนตัวและของใช้ในครัวเรือนเช่นเครื่องประดับนาฬิการถจักรยานวิทยุเสื้อผ้า - เป็นเรื่องง่าย (ดูด้านล่าง) และใช้มาตราส่วน Guttman เพื่อแสดงความมั่งคั่ง graduations (ดูคู่มือฟิลด์แนะนำในส่วนถัดไปของกระดาษสำหรับคำอธิบายของมาตราส่วน Guttman) จุดประสงค์ของการนี้คือการกำหนดช่วงและขอบเขตของความไม่เสมอภาคและความแตกต่างระหว่างครัวเรือนและเกี่ยวข้องกับรูปแบบการใช้เชื้อเพลิงและการขายเชื้อเพลิง (โดยเฉพาะเพื่อการส่งออก) สังคมและเศรษฐกิจ หมวดนี้ขอข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับความแตกต่าง - วิธีการเข้าถึงที่ดินที่กำหนดไว้และใครเป็นผู้ควบคุมที่ดินวิธีการหลายพื้นที่รกร้างว่างเปล่าหรือ nearlandless จำนวนที่ดินให้เช่าเหล่านี้เป็นคำถามสำคัญในการพิจารณาการเข้าถึงไม้เชื้อเพลิง สิ่งที่เป็นระบบการผลิตหลักสำหรับการเกษตร (การดำรงชีวิตและพืชเงินสด) และปศุสัตว์สิ่งที่เป็นรูปแบบทั่วไปสำหรับเทคโนโลยีตลาดเครดิตและหนี้สินการพาณิชย์การสื่อสารการประกอบอาชีพการแบ่งหมวดหมู่ ของแรงงานตามอายุและเพศหน่วยงานหลักทางสังคมเชื้อชาติและศาสนาคืออะไรและสิ่งเหล่านี้เกี่ยวข้องกับสถานะทางเศรษฐกิจอย่างไรแม้ว่าจะไม่จำเป็นต้องได้รับข้อมูลอย่างละเอียดเกี่ยวกับประเด็นเหล่านี้ ยกตัวอย่างเช่นการปรากฏตัวของตลาดที่เป็นที่ยอมรับทั่วไปและเจริญรุ่งเรืองเชื่อมต่อกับถนนทุกสายสภาพอากาศจะช่วยให้ยอดขายไม้ฟืน บริการ หน่วยงานภาครัฐหรือเอกชนในด้านการศึกษาการสาธารณสุขการส่งเสริมการเกษตรการป่าไม้การพัฒนาชุมชนและการพาณิชย์มีหน่วยงานใดบ้างที่สำนักงานตั้งอยู่บ่อยครั้งเจ้าหน้าที่เข้าเยี่ยมชมอย่างไรบริการต่าง ๆ เปรียบเทียบกับที่มีให้กับชุมชนอื่น ๆ การจัดเรียงข้อมูลเหล่านี้ จะมีความสำคัญโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งหากการสำรวจเรียกร้องข้อเสนอแนะเช่นการปลูกต้นไม้ การเมือง - การบริหาร อะไรคือช่องทางที่เป็นทางการและไม่เป็นทางการของผู้มีอำนาจสิ่งที่เชื่อมโยงกับศูนย์อำนาจระดับภูมิภาค (และระดับชาติ) อะไรคือขอบเขตของการมีส่วนร่วมในท้องถิ่นในการตัดสินใจอะไรกฎหมายข้อบังคับและการลงโทษที่ไม่เป็นทางการในท้องถิ่นมีผลต่อไม้ฟืนเช่น ผู้ที่ได้รับอนุญาตให้ออกต้นไม้ที่รายการนี้ไม่ครอบคลุมและต้องมีการปรับเปลี่ยนสำหรับสถานการณ์เฉพาะ ตัวอย่างเช่นควรมีข้อมูลที่จำเป็นสำหรับการศึกษานอกเหนือจากข้อมูลพื้นฐานที่จำเป็นเช่นรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับโรงเรียน (สถานที่คะแนนหรือมาตรฐานนักเรียนชายและหญิงครู) และการรู้หนังสือ ในบางพื้นที่โรงเรียนที่อยู่อาศัยอาจเป็นผู้ซื้อรายใหญ่และเป็นผู้บริโภคไม้เชื้อเพลิงหรือครูอาจเป็นผู้ซื้อถ่านหลักในพื้นที่อื่น ๆ สัดส่วนของเด็กในโรงเรียนที่สูงขึ้นอาจหมายถึงเด็ก ๆ จำนวนน้อยที่สามารถขอความช่วยเหลือในการเก็บเชื้อเพลิงได้ เป้าหมายควรมีความเกี่ยวข้องกับการสอบถามถึงเป้าหมายเฉพาะเชื้อเพลิงดังนั้นจึงอาจเป็นเรื่องสำคัญที่จะต้องตรวจสอบให้แน่ใจว่าปัญหาขาดแคลนเชื้อเพลิงทำให้เกิดผลกระทบต่ออาหารและสุขภาพ ในการจัดทำแบบสำรวจทางสังคมศาสตร์หนึ่งต้องมีความสำคัญอย่างต่อเนื่อง - ฉันถามคำถามที่ถูกต้องสิ่งที่ฉันได้ละเลยฉันจะได้รับข้อมูลอย่างรวดเร็วในเรื่องนี้โชคดีที่เชื้อเพลิงในหลายพื้นที่ยังคงเป็นหัวข้อที่ค่อนข้างเปิดกว้าง ในกิจกรรมที่ผิดกฎหมายเช่นการโจรกรรมไม้ซุงตัดต้นไม้ในป่าสงวนหรือการขายถ่านโดยไม่ได้รับใบอนุญาตเขาหรือเธออาจจะเป็นสหกรณ์และตอบสนองตามที่คนส่วนใหญ่รับรู้แล้วว่าน้ำมันเป็นปัญหาและพวกเขายินดีต้อนรับโอกาสในการบรรเทา . แม้บุคคลที่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องทางเทคนิคในแง่มุมที่ผิดกฎหมายในการใช้เชื้อเพลิงมักให้ข้อมูลที่มีค่าแก่ผู้สืบสวน ขึ้นอยู่กับขอบเขตของผู้ตรวจสอบ กล่าวได้ว่านักวิจัยอิสระบางครั้งอาจมีเวลารวบรวมข้อมูลในเรื่องบางอย่างได้ง่ายกว่าเจ้าหน้าที่บริการด้านการป่าไม้แม้ว่าคำกล่าวเหล่านี้จะไม่ถูกต้องเสมอไป ในทุกกรณีควรมีการพยายามเปรียบเทียบชุมชนที่ศึกษาร่วมกับผู้อื่นในท้องถิ่นภูมิภาคหรือประเทศเดียวกัน ในประเทศที่เข้ามา (อินเดียเคนยา) มีข้อมูลที่ดีมากสำหรับการเปรียบเทียบ อย่างไรก็ตามสำหรับประเทศส่วนใหญ่จะมีข้อมูลโดยละเอียดเพียงเล็กน้อยเกี่ยวกับความพร้อมใช้งานและการใช้เชื้อเพลิงฟืนไม้ ดังนั้นจึงขอแนะนำว่าเมื่อทำการสำรวจพื้นที่เฉพาะบางแห่งจะถูกเลือกสำหรับการสำรวจ ข้อมูลพื้นฐานบางอย่างเกี่ยวกับชุมชนต้องได้รับการรวบรวม แต่ไม่ค่อยมีความจำเป็นที่จะต้องรวบรวมข้อมูลอย่างละเอียดเช่นพิธีกรรมความเชื่อขลังหรือรายละเอียดเกี่ยวกับการสมรส อย่างไรก็ตามพิธีการจะมีผลต่อการใช้ไม้ฟืนเช่นเดียวกับการปฏิบัติตามหลักศาสนาฮินดูที่ก่อให้เกิดความต้องการไม้มาก จะต้องมีเรื่องเกี่ยวกับการแต่งงานเพื่อทราบว่าการหย่าร้างมีผลต่อการทำงานของผู้หญิงและการเข้าถึงฟืนของเธออย่างไร ผู้หญิงที่หย่าร้างที่อาศัยอยู่ตามลำพังหรือกับลูก ๆ ของเธอต้องเผชิญกับความยากลำบากมากขึ้นในการจัดหาแหล่งจัดหาเชื้อเพลิงที่เพียงพอประเด็นก็คือการกำหนดว่าข้อมูลประเภทใดที่เกี่ยวข้องและเพื่อให้เกิดความสมดุลระหว่างความรู้ความเข้าใจเกี่ยวกับชุมชนที่ดีพอสมควร ภาพบนมือข้างหนึ่งและบนมืออื่น ๆ ตลอดเก็บรายการเล็กน้อยเพราะพวกเขาอาจมีประโยชน์ คำแนะนำส่วนใหญ่เกี่ยวกับงานภาคสนามมานุษยวิทยาไม่ได้เกี่ยวข้องกับวัตถุประสงค์ในปัจจุบันของเราโดยเฉพาะเนื่องจากพวกเขาใช้กับสถานการณ์ที่จำเป็นต้องมีการรวบรวมข้อมูลอย่างละเอียดและแม่นยำมากและการทำภาคสนามเป็นระยะเวลานาน สำหรับการสำรวจฟืนไม้จำนวนมากจะไม่มีเวลาสำหรับการตรวจสอบอย่างละเอียดและละเอียดและจะเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่จะกลายเป็นจมอยู่กับคำถามที่ละเอียดและมีนัยสำคัญทางสถิติแม้ว่าวิธีการสำรวจจะต้องมีจุดมุ่งหมายเพื่อความถูกต้อง การประเมินชนบทอย่างรวดเร็วใช้เทคนิคง่ายๆและตาม Robert Chambers Simple มีความเหมาะสม (Chambers, 1978) นี่เป็นคำแนะนำง่ายๆคือ 1. เดินสังเกตฟังและตั้งคำถาม 2. จำได้ว่าการสำรวจภาพอย่างรวดเร็วสามารถทำอะไรได้มาก 3. ใช้ความยืดหยุ่นใช้สามัญสำนึกและตระหนักว่าไม่มีวิธีใดที่เหมาะสมอย่างทั่วถึง 4. ระวังช่วงและรูปแบบของพฤติกรรมและทัศนคติตลอดจนกลุ่มของกระจุกกระจิกอยู่เสมอ ลองหาบรรทัดฐานหรือค่าเฉลี่ย 5. มีส่วนร่วมกับคนในท้องถิ่นในการสำรวจ 6. ในการสัมภาษณ์และบทสนทนาพัฒนาสไตล์ของคุณเองที่สอดคล้องกับบุคลิกภาพของคุณมากกว่าการใช้รูปแบบที่เหนือกว่าที่คิดไว้ 7. อย่าถามมากกว่าที่คุณต้องการหลีกเลี่ยงการรวบรวมข้อมูลส่วนเกินที่ไม่จำเป็น 8. มองไปที่ชุมชนเปรียบเทียบอื่น ๆ เราให้รายละเอียดเพิ่มเติมด้านล่างเกี่ยวกับวิธีการใช้คำแนะนำเหล่านี้ ในส่วนนี้เราจะนำเสนอภาพรวมของขั้นตอนที่ใช้ในการเก็บข้อมูลภาคสนามเพื่อแนะนำวิธีการพื้นฐานที่จะเป็นประโยชน์ในการทำแบบสำรวจเชื้อเพลิง ผู้อ่านที่สนใจในการรักษาในเชิงลึกมากขึ้นสามารถปรึกษาบางส่วนของหนังสือมาตรฐานเกี่ยวกับวิธีการภาคสนาม (ดูตัวอย่างเช่นยาง, 1955 Mbithi, 1974 Kearl, 1976 Connell and Lipton, 1977) นอกจากนี้ยังมีการอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับวิธีการในกรณีศึกษาเช่น Lewis, 1951 Hill, 1972) ส่วนต่อไปนี้แบ่งออกเป็น 6 ส่วน ครั้งแรกอธิบายถึงแหล่งข้อมูลที่เขียนด้วยข้อมูลต่างๆเกี่ยวกับชุมชนในชนบท ประการที่สองข้อดีและข้อเสียของการใช้ข้อมูลที่สำคัญจะกล่าวถึง ส่วนที่สามพิจารณาถึงความสำคัญของข้อสังเกตด้วยการสังเกตการณ์ของผู้เข้าร่วมและผู้ที่ไม่ได้เป็นส่วนหนึ่งรวมถึงการศึกษาการจัดสรรเวลาด้วยเช่นกัน ในส่วนที่สี่สัมภาษณ์ถูกตรวจสอบ แบบสอบถามและคำถามเกี่ยวกับกรอบจะได้รับการจัดการในส่วนที่ห้า ส่วนสุดท้ายเกี่ยวข้องกับข้อผิดพลาดเกี่ยวกับระเบียบข้อบังคับและความลำเอียงและความละเอียด โดยปกติแล้วข้อมูลจะรวบรวมได้หลายวิธีโดยใช้ข้อมูลที่ถูกนำมาใช้เพื่อเสริมอื่น ๆ ตัวอย่างเช่นในการเก็บรวบรวมข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับเชื้อเพลิงที่ใช้สำหรับวิธีการทำอาหาร ได้แก่ การวัด (ของเชื้อเพลิงที่ใช้) การสัมภาษณ์ (สิ่งที่ผู้คนพูดว่าพวกเขาทำ) การสังเกต (พยายามที่จะตัดสินใจว่าจะใช้หูนัยน์ตาและจมูก) ไม่มีวิธีใดดีกว่าทั้งหมดจำเป็น ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับชุมชนหรือภูมิภาคในชนบทโดยเฉพาะอาจมีจากแหล่งข้อมูลทางการประวัติศาสตร์แหล่งมานุษยวิทยาหรือแหล่งข้อมูลอื่น ๆ ประการแรกรายงานจากรัฐบาลกลางเช่นสำนักสำรวจสำมะโนประชากรกระทรวงเกษตรหรือกระทรวงที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการป่าไม้หรือกระทรวงทางเทคนิคของถนนงานสาธารณะหรือน้ำอาจมีข้อมูลระดับชุมชน คุณภาพปริมาณและความถี่ของการเผยแพร่ข้อมูลแตกต่างกันไปในแต่ละประเทศ รัฐบาลท้องถิ่นและสาขาท้องถิ่นของหน่วยงานระดับชาติอาจสามารถให้ข้อมูลที่เป็นประโยชน์ได้ ตัวอย่างเช่นสถิติอัตราภาษีท้องถิ่นเป็นเครื่องมือในการเลือกตัวอย่างแบบแบ่งชั้นสำหรับการสำรวจการใช้เชื้อเพลิงในซูดาน (Digernes, 1977: 51) สำนักงานป่าไม้ในท้องถิ่นอาจมีประวัติเกี่ยวกับการขายต้นไม้หรือการประเมินการตัดไม้ที่ผิดกฎหมาย เจ้าหน้าที่การเกษตรมักเป็นแหล่งข้อมูลที่ดีเช่นเดียวกับเจ้าหน้าที่เช่นเจ้าหน้าที่พัฒนาอำเภอเคนยา วรรณคดีสังคมศาสตร์เป็นอีกหนึ่งแหล่งข้อมูลที่เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร การศึกษาเกี่ยวกับการจัดการฟาร์มรายงานเกี่ยวกับชาติพันธุ์วิทยาและการสำรวจทางสังคมวิทยาสามารถให้ข้อมูลพื้นฐานที่เป็นประโยชน์เกี่ยวกับชุมชนชุมชนกลุ่มชาติพันธุ์หรือกลุ่มทางสังคมวัฒนธรรมอื่น ๆ รายงานการไหลเวียนโลหิตที่ไม่ถูกเผยแพร่อาจมีประโยชน์มากการศึกษาเหล่านี้ควรได้รับการปฏิบัติเช่นเดียวกับแหล่งข้อมูลทางประวัติศาสตร์ที่มีข้อผิดพลาดใด ๆ ที่ดีที่สุดพวกเขาให้พื้นฐานกับสภาพปัจจุบันที่สามารถเปรียบเทียบและเปรียบเทียบและเป็นแหล่งที่ดีของสมมติฐานเพื่อเป็นแนวทางในการสำรวจและการสำรวจ ในแง่ของข้อมูลที่เฉพาะเจาะจงเกี่ยวกับการใช้น้ำมันเชื้อเพลิง แต่วรรณคดีสังคมศาสตร์มักมีข้อมูลโดยละเอียด วัฒนธรรมที่สำคัญที่สุดของโลกมีอย่างน้อยหนึ่งชาติพันธุ์ที่โดดเด่นซึ่งมีบัญชีทางสังคมและระบบนิเวศที่เป็นปัจจุบันที่สมเหตุสมผล ตัวอย่างที่ดีคือการสำรวจทางชาติพันธุ์ของแอฟริกา ซึ่งครอบคลุมทุกกลุ่มชาติพันธุ์ที่สำคัญและให้ข้อมูลพื้นฐานที่ดีเยี่ยมและบรรณานุกรมเกี่ยวกับชีวิตทางสังคมเศรษฐกิจในประเทศและพิธีทางศาสนา หนังสือเล่มนี้เป็นภาษาอังกฤษและฝรั่งเศสตีพิมพ์โดยสถาบันระหว่างประเทศแอฟริกัน แหล่งข้อมูลอื่น ๆ ที่เขียนอาจทำให้ชุมชนมีประวัติความเป็นมาและรูปแบบของการใช้เชื้อเพลิงและทรัพยากร บัญชีทางวิทยาศาสตร์ของแหล่งข้อมูลท้องถิ่นประวัติท้องถิ่นประวัติโบสถ์ประวัติเดินทางและประวัติของสวนหรือเหมืองแร่เป็นแหล่งข้อมูลที่สำคัญ อีกครั้งหนึ่งต้องใช้ความระมัดระวังในการใช้แหล่งข้อมูลดังกล่าวเนื่องจากระเบียนบางรายการอาจล้าสมัยและไม่สมบูรณ์ บันทึกข้อมูลที่เป็นประโยชน์ช่วยให้ภูมิหลังทางประวัติศาสตร์ของแต่ละหน่วยงานศึกษาและประชากรนอกจากนี้ยังสามารถช่วยในการสร้างบริบททางสังคมวัฒนธรรมการเมืองเศรษฐกิจและระบบนิเวศน์ของไม้ฟืนและการใช้พลังงานอื่น ๆ ในชุมชน ในขณะที่ชาวเม็กซิกัน (ออสการ์ฮลูอิส) (1951) ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่ารูปแบบการเปลี่ยนแปลงการใช้ประโยชน์ป่าในท้องถิ่นตลอดเวลาและความเข้าใจเกี่ยวกับการเปลี่ยนแปลงเหล่านี้และความเกี่ยวข้องของพวกเขาจำเป็นต้องเข้าใจถึงสภาพแวดล้อมในท้องถิ่นและความสัมพันธ์กับกลุ่มใหญ่ทางเศรษฐกิจและสังคม . มหาวิทยาลัยในท้องถิ่นวิทยาลัยเทคนิคและสถาบันวิจัยอาจเป็นแหล่งข้อมูลที่ดีสำหรับการวิจัยที่ไม่ได้เผยแพร่ การสอบถามข้อมูลควรได้รับการนำเสนอไม่เฉพาะในสาขาสังคมศาสตร์เท่านั้น แต่ยังรวมไปถึงวิทยาศาสตร์ธรรมชาติด้วย นักพฤกษศาสตร์นักสัตววิทยานักนิเวศวิทยาหรือนักธรณีวิทยาเช่นผู้ที่ทำงานอย่างมีระบบในพื้นที่อาจเป็นแหล่งข้อมูลที่ดีเยี่ยมสำหรับข้อมูลบางประเภท ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญคือคนที่มีความรู้ความสามารถที่มีรายชื่อและผู้ที่เต็มใจที่จะพูด บางครั้งผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญจะได้รับการคัดเลือกด้วยตัวเองว่า Big Men ในท้องถิ่น (ตามที่ได้รับการเรียกในหลาย ๆ ส่วนของโลก) มักเป็นคนแรกที่นำเสนอตัวเองให้กับผู้ตรวจสอบภาคสนาม ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญมักเป็นบุคคลที่มีความโดดเด่นเป็นคนพูดได้ (เช่นคนในหมู่บ้านพ่อค้าเจ้าของบ้านเกษตรกรรายใหญ่หรืออาจารย์ใหญ่ของโรงเรียนในท้องถิ่น) ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญที่สำคัญอาจรวมถึงผู้ที่ไม่ได้เป็นสมาชิกของชุมชน แต่มีประสบการณ์และข้อมูลเชิงลึกที่มีคุณค่าเช่น ampa เจ้าหน้าที่ด้านการเกษตรหรือผู้บริหารหรือนักวิทยาศาสตร์ทางสังคมที่ทำวิจัยในพื้นที่ ในการสำรวจเชื้อเพลิงคุณควรเลือกผู้เชี่ยวชาญเช่นผู้ผลิตถ่านหรือช่างตัดไม้เพื่อเสริมมุมมองของผู้นำ ข้อเสียของการใช้ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญประการที่สองคือปัญหาเรื่องอคติและการเป็นตัวแทน ในการเลือก - หรือตามที่บางครั้งการเลือกโดย - ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญควรจดจำว่าไม่มีบุคคลใดเป็นตัวแทนของการรับรู้ทุกมุมมองทุกมุมมองของชุมชนผู้ขัดขวาง คนมักจะแตกต่างกันไปตามเพศและอายุและโดยปกติความแตกต่างอื่น ๆ เป็นผลมาจากความมั่งคั่งสถานะอาชีพหรือความรู้ความเข้าใจและความเข้าใจเฉพาะอย่างใด บางครั้งนักวิจัยภายนอกจะถูกนำมาใช้โดยบุคคลที่มีความรู้และเป็นมิตรซึ่งเห็นได้ชัดว่าเป็นส่วนสำคัญต่อชุมชนแห่งนี้ อาจเป็นเพราะความคิดเห็นนอกรีตของเขาหรือเพราะเขาใช้เวลาหลายปีนอกชุมชนหรือเพราะประวัติส่วนตัวของเขานั่นหมายความว่าเขาจะไม่ใช่แหล่งที่ดีของความคิดและทัศนคติทั่วไปของสังคมแม้ว่าเขาจะช่วยได้ ในการวิเคราะห์พฤติกรรมจากมุมมองภายนอกที่ผิดปกติของเขา โดยทั่วไปผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญไม่ควรพึ่งพาข้อมูลโดยไม่ต้องมีวิธีการเก็บรวบรวมข้อมูลอื่นที่จะตรวจสอบความถูกต้องของข้อมูล แม้จะมีข้อเสียผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญสามารถเป็นประโยชน์ในการสำรวจเชื้อเพลิง หากมีข้อ จำกัด ด้านค่าใช้จ่ายและเวลาการใช้ข้อมูลสำคัญอาจเป็นวิธีที่มีประโยชน์และรวดเร็วในการรวบรวมข้อมูล แท้จริงวิธีเดียวที่มีประสิทธิภาพในการรับข้อมูลบางอย่างได้อย่างรวดเร็วอาจเป็นการหาคนเก่งและมีน้ำใจ ในขั้นตอนเบื้องต้นของการวิจัยผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญสามารถช่วยผู้ตรวจค้นให้คุ้นเคยกับพื้นที่สามารถอธิบายประเด็นในท้องถิ่นของหัวข้อการตรวจสอบโดยเฉพาะและยังสามารถช่วยในการพัฒนาสมมติฐานเบื้องต้นเพื่อเป็นแนวทางในการศึกษา สมมติฐานเหล่านี้สามารถใช้ในการพัฒนาคำถามนำร่องเพื่อทดสอบกับคนอื่น ๆ เป็นสิ่งจำเป็นในการพัฒนาเครือข่ายของผู้ให้ข้อมูลซึ่งอาจขยายออกไปจากผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญรายเดิม ข้อดีอย่างหนึ่งที่ทำให้การสอบถามข้อมูลครอบคลุมคือการสร้างเครือข่ายผู้คนให้เห็น โอ้คุณต้องพูดคุยกับพระบิดา Damiano เขาอาศัยอยู่ที่เมือง X มาหลายปี ที่คุณเคยเห็น Sentildeor Rodriques เขาเคยขายสินค้าในหมู่บ้านนี้ทุกสัปดาห์ คุณรู้ไหมว่าเขาเป็นคนขับรถของ Sea Never Dry และรู้ว่าสถานที่เหล่านั้นเป็นอย่างไร ในที่สุดแล้วเครือข่ายจะเริ่มปิดฉากเช่นไม่ได้มีการแสดงชื่อใหม่ ๆ คุณสามารถรู้สึกมั่นใจได้ว่าได้มีการติดต่อแหล่งที่มาที่สำคัญ ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญคือคนที่ไม่ธรรมดาและไม่จำเป็นต้องให้ข้อมูลทางสังคมวิทยาทั่วไปหรือถูกต้อง แต่พวกเขาช่วยคนนอกเพื่อขอบคุณจุดต่อไปนี้ไม่มีอะไรที่เป็นคำถามง่ายๆทุกอย่างที่เกี่ยวข้องกับทุกอย่างอื่นคำตอบขึ้นอยู่กับคำถามมักจะเห็นได้ชัดว่าไม่มีที่สิ้นสุดระดับของความซับซ้อน เมื่อพิจารณาถึงสถานะที่ซับซ้อนนี้ลักษณะคำถามที่ถามโดยละเอียดและคำถามที่ถามก็มีความสำคัญอย่างยิ่ง แม้คุณจะเก็บฟืนก็ตามใครเป็นเจ้าของป่าแห่งนี้คุณจ่ายค่าธรรมเนียมในการทำไม้คุณขายถ่านหินในตลาดในวันศุกร์ที่กินอาหารเป็นประจำในครัวเรือนของคุณอาจพิสูจน์ได้ว่ามีความซับซ้อนมากและ รับผิดชอบเฉพาะในข้อกำหนดเฉพาะของแต่ละสถานการณ์ นั่นหมายความว่าคำถามแต่ละข้อต้องเกี่ยวข้องกับสถานการณ์เฉพาะหรือเฉพาะบุคคลเพราะถ้ามีการเปลี่ยนแปลงลักษณะของคำถามจะมีการเปลี่ยนแปลง เป็นสิ่งจำเป็นที่จะต้องค้นหาคำถามที่ถูกต้องซึ่งจะมีความหมายกับผู้ตอบแบบสอบถามและจะให้ข้อมูลและคำอธิบายที่ต้องการ ผู้ให้ข้อมูลสำคัญที่ดีอาจเป็นประโยชน์ในการช่วยเหลือนักสำรวจข้อมูลเพื่อถามคำถามที่เหมาะสมในลักษณะที่ชัดเจนและมีประสิทธิผลมากที่สุด รากฐานของการรวบรวมข้อมูลในการวิจัยทางสังคมคือการสังเกตการณ์ ในการวิจัยภาคสนามเราใช้รูปแบบการสังเกตที่แตกต่างกันซึ่งจะกล่าวถึงสามรูปแบบดังนี้การสังเกตจากผู้เข้าร่วมการสังเกตการณ์ที่ไม่ได้มีส่วนร่วมและการศึกษาการจัดสรรเวลา การสังเกตจากผู้เข้าร่วมเป็นยุทธศาสตร์การวิจัยที่สำคัญของนักมานุษยวิทยาซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องกับการรวบรวมข้อมูลการสัมภาษณ์แบบไม่เป็นทางการซึ่งรวบรวมไว้ในลักษณะที่ไม่มีโครงสร้างและมีความยืดหยุ่น ผู้ตรวจสอบมักจะตัดสินใจล่วงหน้าว่าต้องมีการสังเกตและบันทึกกิจกรรมประเภทใดโดยเฉพาะและแม้แต่รูปแบบของบันทึก งานภาคสนามโดยทั่วไปเกิดขึ้นในช่วงเวลาที่ยืดเยื้อเป็นช่วงเวลาที่นักวิจัยสร้างความสามัคคีที่เพียงพอกับประชากรที่ศึกษา ในบางกรณีการสังเกตจากผู้เข้าร่วมจะช่วยให้ผู้สังเกตการณ์กลายเป็นคนในวงได้ นั่นคือผู้ตรวจสอบมีส่วนร่วมโดยตรงในกิจกรรมการศึกษาประชากรซึ่งอาจจะมาพร้อมและช่วยให้สมาชิกในครัวเรือนรวบรวมฟืน สิ่งนี้ช่วยให้เข้าใจถึงประชากรที่ศึกษาและกิจกรรมจากมุมมองของตนเอง ในเวลาเดียวกันความแตกต่างระหว่างสิ่งที่ผู้คนพูดและสิ่งที่พวกเขาทำได้สามารถตรวจสอบได้ เราเน้นความได้เปรียบของการรู้คำศัพท์ภาษาถิ่นเนื่องจากความรู้ภาษาท้องถิ่นมีความสำคัญในการสังเกตการณ์ของผู้เข้าร่วม คำศัพท์สั้น ๆ ในสนามรวมถึงแรงกดดันจากภาระหน้าที่อื่น ๆ แทบไม่อนุญาตให้มีการเรียนรู้ภาษาใหม่ อย่างไรก็ตามขึ้นอยู่กับความสนใจและความมุ่งมั่นและความสามารถทางภาษาศาสตร์ในระดับน้อยกว่าจะเป็นการยากที่จะได้คำศัพท์พื้นฐานโดยพูดคำพูดเป็นภาษาไทยถึงยี่สิบถึงสองสามร้อยคำ ในโดเมนเชื้อเพลิงตัวอย่างเช่นควรรู้และใช้แม้ในขณะที่มีล่ามคำพูดในท้องถิ่นสำหรับฟืนถ่านไม้กากพืชมูลสัตว์ต้นไม้เตาเด็กผู้หญิงเด็กขวานและอื่น ๆ . ความรู้และการออกเสียงที่ถูกต้องของเมืองสำคัญบุคคลและสายพันธุ์หลักของต้นไม้จะช่วยในการชักจูงคนพื้นเมืองให้มากขึ้นว่าผู้สอบถามข้อมูลมีความสนใจในแนวคิดเรื่องความเข้าใจมันเป็นความอนุเคราะห์แก่พวกเขาและการรับรู้ถึงคุณค่าของวัฒนธรรมของพวกเขา การมีเพศสัมพันธทางสังคมและจะชวยใหบุคคลภายนอกเขาใจถึงการรับรูในระดับทองถิ่น ในการสังเกตการณ์ที่ไม่ใช่ผู้สังเกตการณ์ผู้สังเกตจะแยกจากกิจกรรมของประชากรที่ศึกษาและพยายามที่จะไม่สร้างความรำคาญ อาจเป็นไปได้ในการจัดโครงสร้างการสังเกตการณ์อย่างน้อยที่สุดเท่าที่จะเป็นการตัดสินใจที่จะมุ่งเน้นไปที่กิจกรรมเฉพาะอย่างเช่นการเก็บไม้การทำอาหารการเพาะปลูกต้นไม้หรือการขายไม้ฟืน อาจมีการใส่ใจในการสังเกตการณ์ในแง่ของการพัฒนาสมมติฐานที่จะทดสอบหรือติดตามความสัมพันธ์ที่ไม่ชัดเจน แต่ผู้สังเกตการณ์ต้องระมัดระวังไม่ให้ใช้ความคิดอุปาทานและต้องมีความยืดหยุ่นและเปิดกว้างสำหรับการตีความใหม่ แม้ว่าผู้สังเกตการณ์จะพยายามไม่สร้างความรำคาญเราไม่แนะนำให้พยายามหลอกลวง ด้วยเหตุผลด้านจริยธรรมและในทางปฏิบัติความซื่อสัตย์สุจริตเป็นนโยบายที่ดีที่สุดในการทำวิจัยภาคสนามและผู้ที่ปฏิบัติตามข้อสังเกตมีสิทธิที่จะทราบขอบเขตและวัตถุประสงค์ของการศึกษา การสังเกตการณ์ของผู้เข้าร่วมและผู้ร่วมสังเกตการณ์มีข้อดีและข้อเสียหลายประการทั้งเป็นวิธีการหาข้อเท็จจริงที่มีประโยชน์ในการหาข้อมูลเชิงคุณภาพ โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งเมื่อผู้ตรวจสอบต้องการอธิบายวัฏจักรของเหตุการณ์ ตัวอย่างหนึ่งคือคำอธิบายของการตัดต้นไม้การก่อสร้างแตร (เตาอบดิน) การขนส่งและการขายถนนที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการผลิตและการจำหน่ายถ่านหิน ในการอธิบายถึงวัฏจักรดังกล่าวจะเป็นการรวมการสัมภาษณ์และข้อสังเกต เทคนิคการสังเกตการณ์ทั้งสองมีประโยชน์ที่ยังไม่มีบันทึกการศึกษาก่อนหน้านี้ เทคนิคเหล่านี้มีความสำคัญในการศึกษาสมาชิกที่ได้รับการคัดเลือกในชุมชนเช่นคนชราหรือคนพิการซึ่งอาจไม่ได้รับการคัดเลือกในแบบสุ่มหรือแบบแบ่งชั้น เทคนิคโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งผู้สังเกตการณ์ร่วมช่วยให้นักวิจัยสามารถพัฒนาการเอาใจใส่เพื่อการศึกษาของประชากรโดยการฟังและการมีส่วนร่วม ปัญหาคือข้อ จำกัด ของค่าใช้จ่ายและเวลา โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งการสังเกตจากผู้เข้าร่วมต้องมีสัมพันธภาพที่ดีระหว่างผู้สังเกตการณ์กับผู้สังเกต ซึ่งอาจใช้เวลานานในการพัฒนา With studies of fuelwood, such as descriptions of production techniques or marketing, this may be less of a problem than with more sensitive issues such as village politics or wealth differences, though the usage of fuel may be part and parcel of these more sensitive issues. The difference between participant and non-participant observation may parallel that between a resident and a non-resident observer. That is, participant observation can seldom be achieved without the sort of acceptance and rapport that comes from being at least a temporary resident of the community. Therefore, in deciding on the objectives of the survey, this is a question to be considered - does the survey need the sort of detailed information that can only be gained by a resident observer, or will the costs (in time, and money) outweigh the benefits If so, can use be made of local assistants, and how No observation is unstructured, in a strict sense. That is, the observers preconceptions, biases and knowledge all colour what is observed. Anyone who has made observations in another culture - or even in an unfamiliar sub-culture in ones own society - can recall, with embarrassment, the sense of seeing and not seeing, because of lack of understanding of the society. It is surprising how one can consciously and effectively enlarge the vision, so that what was once a blur of vague shapes soon fits into meaningful categories, For example, many first-time visitors to African savanna country remark on the apparent sameness of the social and physical landscape, and exclaim How dull this is But those of us who have spent some time in the savanna, and who have opened our eyes, see it as a marvellously changing scene, where human activities are fitted, in complex ways, to natural resources, at least until disturbed by population pressure and technological innovation. The discovery of the hidden savanna - as has been experienced by many fieldworkers who have walked and listened and truly observed - is an exciting experience, reminding us how blind most of us are until we open our eyes. Fieldwork means constant questioning and seeking new perceptions. And this is especially important in studying a complex topic such as rural energy patterns. In observation, then, one should have a clear idea of the main goal of the enquiry, which is to gather information on fuel for instance but it is also important to be responsive to new stimuli, to be flexible and to follow new paths. Here is a delicate dilemma: how far should one stray along new paths that might eventually lead to new illuminations, and to what extent should one follow a systematic schedule Ultimately, the observer will be guided by a sense of what is appropriate to the specific situation and by his own hypotheses. An important aspect of any fuelwood survey concerns the amount of time spent in tasks such as collecting wood, preparing charcoal, cooking and other energy-related activities. It may be difficult to get precise information, because local people perceive and evaluate time in a different way from the investigator, so there may be a cultural misunderstanding in questioning them there are important daily and seasonal variations in time spent, and there is also variation in proportion of time spent by different households, as well as by individuals within the same households. How can one determine a meaningful average for time spent on fuel activities One way (which has been found successful when investigators have enough time) is to make random spot observations on what community members are doing at particular times, The investigator (and preferably come research associates) note basic details (when where what how with whom how long) of what particular people are doing, over a long enough period to generalize. The random spot checking technique has several benefits. It eliminates the problem of representativeness of the data. Variability between sex, age, and, depending on the criteria used in selecting the sample, wealth differences, is indicated, The position and proportion of energy-related tasks within the daily work rhythm can be ascertained. The latter is particularly important where intervention in the local energy system is being considered. Finally, the survey can be combined with other investigation in the community of such topics as nutrition, employment, or farm management studies. The biggest problem with the random spot checking technique is that of data over-collection, recalling one of our initial warnings on avoiding collection of surplus data. Considerable time is often spent in non-energy-related tasks. For example, in Erasmus study (Erasmus 1955: 324-328) only about 3 percent of the observations made of men were related directly to energy tasks such as collecting or chopping wood or food preparation, although such tasks took up at least 28 percent of the womens time (including ironing). In some areas, where household members venture far to gather wood, direct verification of their labour time may be impractical, and other tasks performed on the fuelwood trip may go unrecorded. Nonetheless, random spot checks should be employed, where possible, in studying fuelwood-related labour time allocation. Interviews are an integral part of social research. We shall postpone discussion of the selection of interviewees (see the section on Sampling), with one important exception. Fuelwood collection, cooking, and other energy-related tasks are usually gender-defined. In most cases, such as in cooking, women perform the work and are the ones directly consuming the fuelwood. Moreover, women may have a greater knowledge of consumption patterns than the men. Thus, women should be involved in most aspects of fuelwood and household energy-use surveys. At the same time, strong sexual stratification and customs may restrict access of interviewers, particularly males, to women. The importance of sexual stratification should not be underestimated in surveys. In Muslim areas, it will be essential for a woman to interview female household members, and even in non-Muslim regions a woman interviewer often has better success in getting the women to talk about their fuel tasks. Where should the interview be conducted In many cases the best place will be in the respondents house or compound, although for information on commercial activities, an interview at the office or factory may help to get greater accuracy. Sometimes there is no choice, and the interview has to be held in a public place, or on a farm, or walking to do a chore. In an interview, it is usual to have at least a set of questions to ask, and in most circumstances we recommend an open-ended type of interview, which allows the conversation to be directed to some extent by the respondent. Closed-form questionnaires, consisting of entirely preselected questions, are seldom the best approach, unless the interviewer already has extensive, accurate and up-to-date knowledge of the community in general and the energy system also. In general, a format that allows flexibility is best. Having a schedule (a set of pre-arranged questions to ask) gives interviews some structure and comparability. Having at least come open-ended questions on a questionarie allows for flexibility and the inclusion of respondent perceptions. Questionnaires and a completely open-ended interview do not exclude each other, because questionnaires should never be used alone. They should be combined with relatively unstructured case-studies of specially selected households or villages (even a few will be helpful). These case studies can serve (a) to develop preliminary hypotheses which help to focus and define the limits of the survey, (b) to check on any initial tabulation and analysis of results and (c) to follow up, and find explanations for, any puzzling or unclear relationships or associations. In both interviews and questionnaires, questions must be carefully phrased so that they can be understood by the local people. Questions should follow in a logical order so as to obtain the maximum amount of information, and to remind people of aspects on which they might comment. Questions ought to fit with indigenous knowledge systems, and with local perceptions. One way of ensuring this fit is by pre-testing the questions, using key informants and others who can be critical. This should remove ambiguities and also sharpen the focus of the questions. It will often be impossible to conduct an interview in private with one person, as friends, neighbours and passers-by are likely to listen and even join in the conversation. Rather than resenting this as an interruption, a skilful interviewer can bring in the other people and create an informal group interview, although in a strict random sample the extra volunteered information should be excluded, so as not to skew the sample. How does an audience affect the interview Some people may become boastful, or try to present their actions in a favourable way others may be suspicious and silent lost they give away valuable information. Obviously it depends on the specific culture and situation, but an audience can often be used to good advantage. Field investigators should not be surprised or discouraged if they initially encounter an unwillingness among local people to be interviewed. Why dont you see the other people first They are much better off than I and have better things to talk about, may be a typical response to a question. Besides a general distrust of outsiders, people may be reluctant to speak about their landholdings or other assets. Such caution in dealing with outsiders is obviously a justifiable mechanism of self-protection. Some people may give answers designed to please, rather than reflecting a true state of affairs, also as a self-protective device. Some cultures promote more suspicion than others, and within cultures some individuals are likely to be more anxious than others, about giving away potentially incriminating information. Other reasons for reluctance to answer questions can be that people simply are not accustomed to being interviewed, or people may be reluctant to be interviewed because they already had been saturated with surveys and no effort had been made by previous researchers to convey the results or significance of the surveys back to the people. Even where people are not suffering from survey fatigue they may be reluctant to be questioned because they view the interview as an imposition from outside forces. That is, the interview is something in which they had little choice of participation, and something from which they will receive few, if any, tangible benefits. In many cases their perceptions are entirely correct. Interviewing people in itself need not imply local participation. Efforts should go in the planning and fact-finding stages towards identifying and incorporating the desires, needs, and aspirations of community members and social groups. And, importantly, local individuals and groups must be involved in analyzing the collected information and in suggesting policy alternatives. Many instances exist where people may be reluctant to talk, especially where government regulations have curtailed free cutting and a black market in fuelwood exists. In Nepal, where fuelwood is in critically short supply, people are reluctant to answer questions on forest utilization (Donovan, 1979). Given the frequent reference to illicit cutting or wood theft in areas as diverse as the Sudan, Kenya, India, the Philippines, Mexico and Guatemala, the interviewer should recognize the problem of dealing with sensitive matters. The interviewer and investigator should ensure the confidentiality of the respondents. Frequency of interviews depends upon the research design and the various timecost constraints often only one interview will be possible. Memory recall of respondents depends upon the frequency, regularity, and significance of events. Twice weekly visits have been recommended, since daily visits may seem like pestering, and gaps of more than three or four days lead to increased recall errors. Seasonal differences should be accounted for. A short-cut method of rapidly gathering data is to interview groups rather than individuals. This method presents problems of representativeness, since any group chosen is unlikely to represent a true cross-section of the local population, though attempts should be made to include individuals of different socio-economic status. The knowledge and experience of several individuals may serve as checks on information given by each others. There is nothing specialized about a group interview. In fact, any one who interviews, i. e. asks questions, is likely to find that an impromptu group interview situation develops. As many individual interviews are conducted in public places, and also because of differing conceptions of public and private space, other community members often stop, from curiosity, suspicion, desire to help, or officiousness, when they see a stranger talking to one of their groups Instead of resenting what westerners (or western-educated people) may see as an interruption, it is often advantageous to accept and use the situation. This is especially so with fuel, where an individual alone is unlikely to divulge secret information that could not be publicly disclosed, so that the presence of many people should not be an obstacle to obtaining good information. But if the interviewer is a forestry official, his police duties may have alienated him from the villagers, who would then be cautious in answering questions. The response will in large part be determined by existing cultural and historical factors. For example, in parts of India, women (who have been hidden behind a partition) have been known to interrupt an interview and contradict the man being interviewed, thus constituting an unusual form of group interview. A group of people can be highly informative, in modifying, supplementing or even contradicting individual statements. A group of Indian, Nigerian or Colombian peasants (men andor women) might engage in a conspiracy to deceive an outsider over enquiries about fuelwood, but, because of their perceptions of the fuelwood crisis are at least as likely to impress the visitor with their problems, perhaps even exaggerating the situation. However, one thoughtful individual will often say No we do not walk ten kilometers to collect wood, it is only as far as from here to x, ensuring a degree of reliability. Properly handled, group interviews can provide a useful check on reliability. There are limitations as some individuals will be reluctant to speak on certain topics, or they may wait for a senior or more powerful person to speak, then be unwilling to make any open contradiction, even when privately disagreeing. This happens in all communities, and provides a careful observer with a chance to observe patterns of hierarchy and influence. There are no universal rules for proper handling of a group interview, except to say that it requires courtesy, and common sense, combined with two other qualities - a firm sense of what information is required, plus an appreciation of how flexibly the conversation can be guided. One does not wish autocratically to out off at once a speaker who wanders from the main topic, but who may be providing useful information, nor can one afford to let the conversation be dominated by the village bore, who may drive away more sensible villagers. In this, as in other field situations, it is important not to raise false hopes, but to make clear what specific changes are possible or likely, and what cannot be done. One interviewer reported the result of a group interview of unemployed Nigerians in Lagos the men turned on the interviewer with hostility and said in effect, If you cannot offer us jobs, dont waste our time with stupid questions. Group interviews in urban situations however, offer many advantages, as they are easy to set up because of the population density. Questionnaires are a popular method of data collection. The advantages of using a questionnaire are well-known: data can be collected quickly on specific items these data can be easily transferred into forms allowing quantified and computerized analyses and data collection tasks can be delegated to less expensive field staff. Questionnaires also compel the adoption of some organized structure upon data collection, but will be most effective when used by someone who can support and test the questionnaire findings with personal observations and insights and knowledge. Using questionnaires is one means of recording data, but it is not the only means and it is not adequate to not cover all the information required. As we said earlier, no one method of information gathering is adequate for all purposes - all should be supplemented and checked. However, several problems can arise when using a questionnaire. This is especially true where a questionnaire is the primary means of collecting information. A questionnaire can impose a rigid, preconceived idea of reality which may be inappropriate for the particular situation. If field enumerators are not supervised properly, errors in recording data can occur. Problems arise from respondents concealing, misreporting, or misunderstanding questions. Recall errors often happen, especially with regard to seasonal activities. The design and preparation of a questionnaire are extremely important, as they will influence the type of information collected, in somewhat the same way as the mesh-size of a fish-net determines the fish that are caught. Careful thought, then, must be given to the selection and phrasing of particular questions. Sometimes it is good to start with a general question, what do you think about X followed by increasingly specific questions. First, one must have enough basic knowledge of the community to know which questions would be meaningful, and how, exactly, they should be framed so as to minimize the possibility of creating ambiguity, embarrassment or resentments The purpose of questions is to discover what people know, not what they do not know. Thus, the second stage should be a brief pre-testing, which allows for refining and clarifying the questions so that they really do elicit, in precise form, the information required. Third is the administration of the questionnaire, which - as noted elsewhere requires constant supervision (see below), for even at this stage ambiguities are likely to occur. One perceptive interviewer may point out that Question 14 could be interpreted in two ways, for example, and a quick resolution of the problem could be communicated quickly to other interviewers to ensure consistency and accuracy. Fourth, there is the analysis of the results, to see what sort of picture emerges. And finally, there is a consideration of whether any supplementary questions are desirable. Throughout all stages, constant close supervision and cross-checking are necessary, combined with repeat interviews, supplementary observations, and, most important, regular discussion with interviewers. This both provides a check on the accuracy of the answers, and also encourages the interviewers to be conscientious. Although the questionnaire ought to cover all questions needed, it should not be too elaborate nor too long an hour is usually the maximum time period for any one questionnaire to be administered. Most rural people, especially women, have many demands on their time - collecting firewood and water, cooking, washing, cleaning, looking after children - and cannot spend too much time in answering questions. Whether to use a closed form (with itemized answers) or an open-ended form questionnaire depends on the researchers own needs and requirements. If the closed form is used, a space for comments by the respondent and the interviewer should be included. In framing questions, there are several simple alternatives such as: yesno checking a scale (of incidence, or preference, or quantity) of 0-5. Some questions invite discursive answers, as in the open-ended questionnaire while others ask for a straightforward factual answer - how many times each day are cooked meals prepared. Depending on the nature of the survey, a simple rapid survey might be the best. Where computer facilities are available, it is advisable to frame and to code questionnaires so that computer analysis is possible. When a large number of sample households are involved, such as in a national or other macro-level survey, the use of computers is almost essential. By computer, we refer not only to macro-computers but also micro-computers, and even some calculators that can be programmed for regression analysis may be appropriate. But the use of computers is by no means indispensable in all surveys, particularly in more micro-level analyses, at least in the initial stages, Manual analysis often can be done quickly and cheaply so that a preliminary idea of results is obtained in a few days, instead of waiting at the mercy of the computer for months. When computers are used, it is recommended and probably necessary that a member of the computer staff be part of the research team. In a perceptive article (Chambers, 1979 see also Chambers et al . 1979 Chambers, 1980) Robert Chambers has described many methodological shortcomings associated with field research and project evaluations. These shortcomings are important to note because they bias data collection and lead to an inaccurate analysis. Field research tends to be conducted during the dry season. In part this is because accessibility to many rural areas is easier during this season. Academic summer vacations also coincide with this period of relative prosperity, after the crops have been harvested, In contrast, the wet season, before the harvest, is generally a harsh time in rural areas. Sickness and hunger prevail, particularly among the poorer households. The wet season is also the worst period for fuel collection, with wet wood, slippery paths, more illness, less time for collection and inadequate drying and storage facilities. Thus, research often has a seasonal bias, with conditions appearing more prosperous than they are over the balance of the year. Researchers tend to visit the field for short periods, and seldom stray from the roads. In this respect, the Land Rover or Toyota Land Cruiser have been mixed blessings for development planning and research: while they do provide greater mobility, they offer the impression of roughing it in the bush, when in fact what can be visited on rural roads is hardly representative of rural society. This is especially important if one is concerned, as are most development agencies, with seeing that benefits accrue to poor people, sometimes referred to as the lower 40 percent. For these people often live in remote localities, inaccessible except on foot. Few poor old widows live on a roadside the people most ill, children and elderly especially, are more likely to be suffering inside some decrepit house rather than walking or sitting outside in any visible way. To summarize, there are a number of biases typically found in field research that cause the worst rural poverty to go unperceived. Dry season, spatial, elite, male and project and adopter biases operate so as to hide the poorest sectors of the population, especially at the times they are the poorest. What emerges is an inaccurate portrayal of rural society and rural property. What can be done to overcome such biases We have mentioned several promising approaches, and here we summarize: 1. Go to the field well prepared, aware of what has been written, and of work being done by social scientists, especially local people. 2. Cooperate with officials, but obtain unofficial views, too. 3. Travel alone or in small groups, not as part of a large official party. 4. Tell the people you meet about yourself, your aims. Share information. 5. Spend longer in the field, preferably overnight, when it is easier to talk, and when peripheral people may appear. 6. Walk, Listen. Be silent when silence is appropriate. 7. Concentrate on one topic (fuelwood), but be aware of related topics. 8. Never rely on questionnaires alone. Always supplement with direct observation and participant observation. 9. Find out when the stress periods - of seasonal hunger and shortages - occur. We have not attempted to provide a thorough examination of all methods, and their associated problems. Instead, we have been highly selective and, we hope, realistic, in recognizing that most readers will not be able to arrange elaborate prolonged investigations. So our emphasis is on what can be done quickly and on how to make the best use of limited resources. Although the resources available, the study population and the informational needs will differ for each fuel survey, we recommend that a combination of methodologies be used. This is to ensure against the biases and limitations that are inherent in any manner of data collection, so that a reasonably accurate description can emerge. This section is concerned with how to select a population to study. We first deal with the concept of community - how it is defined, the question of representativeness, and procedures for selecting a research site. Next, we examine the basic unit of study in most fuelwood surveys - the household, while also mentioning other possible study units. This section ends with a discussion of sampling procedures and their applicability to fuelwood surveys. We have assumed that there will be some choice of which community to study, but we recognize that sometimes the researcher will be directed to do a study of a particular problem. However, governments and development agencies are unlikely to pinpoint a particular community or village, they will rather choose a wider area, so there may still be some degree of choice. The terms community and village connote socio-cultural, residential, and administrative units with supposedly clearly demarcated boundaries, although in actuality these boundaries are seldom clearly defined. Instead, subsumed under these terms is a complex array of historical, spatial, social, economic, political and other relationships. When you travel by road, you see, of course, only those people whose homes can be reached by road or jeep track, and you do not see hidden pockets of poverty that are often scattered about at some distance from road or track. In looking at rural fuel situations, it is vital to include the peripheries, and not to concentrate only on members of the core elite who are likely to be the first people one meets. The ideal way to obtain a comprehensive picture of rural energy use would be to spend at least a full year in a community. This would allow the investigator to notice important seasonal changes and how these affect patterns of labour allocation, social relations, and energy usage. A long residence is also likely to lead to good rapport with the community, and consequently to a better understanding of their ways and an ability to ask the right questions. Unfortunately, many surveys and their researchers will have little opportunity or resources to conduct such detailed investigations. There are intermediate steps, though, in terms of research design and manner of field research. On large-scale projects, such as a national energy survey, case studies of selected communities, chosen according to appropriate environmental, economic, socio-cultural and other variables, could be used to supplement and to round out the data gathered by questionnaires and less intensive methods. Specific consideration should be given in all projects to include data collection during the wet season, the pre-harvest period, and times of peak agricultural labor demand. For the field researcher, a recommended method is the walk and listen approach, which can be adopted even on one-day field visits. Leave the vehicle, arranging to meet it later, and walk a few hours away from the road, checking (by observing, and questioning an interpreter may be needed) on what one knows. For example, conventional wisdom may have it that people prefer certain species of trees for charcoal that women go in groups to gather firewood that certain trees are never out, because of a ritual prohibition that women do not climb trees that men never carry firewood that land-owners do not permit non-kinsmen to collect wood. All such statements may be true, or true in certain circumstances, or subject to considerable reservations, or simply false. It is important to distinguish between past norms of behaviour and past values, and present practice. There may well be some confusion in the minds of local people about this. There is no substitute for walking and listening to check on such universal generalisations, even, or particularly, when these are confidently made by community members. In all societies there is a difference between what people actually do, and what they say they do. People tend, if asked about social behavior, to present an idealized picture of what ought to happen. For example, in Ghana we were told that when a man died, his property was inherited by his fathers younger brothers son: an investigation of actual cases of inheritance showed that only a minority followed the ideal pattern in practice. The walk and listen approach is not without potential problems of bias. As mentioned in the key informant section, the rural elite tend to be the people who come forward, while the poor do not speak up. The researchers own sense of politeness may inhibit him from probing into the lives of the poor. Unless one has some immediate benefit to offer, questioning the poorest people often appears to be an unwarranted and immoral intrusion. Another problem is that of male bias, since researchers tend to be males and their contact with women, especially poor rural women (who constitute a deprived class within a class), is generally limited. A final type of bias centers around projects and innovations. Researchers tend to go or to be taken into a place where something is happening, where a project or innovation seems to be having a favourable or the desired impact. The short-visiting researcher may tend to meet only those individuals who are the users or adopters of innovations, such as new stoves. This project and adopter bias leads researchers to neglect those areas, communities and people who have not benefitted but who might have been affected in an indirect (or even direct) fashion by the project. For example, meeting with a landowner who had his cotton land converted to an eucalyptus plantation might reveal little about how this affected his labour force. The terms also refer to a certain pattern or style of living typified by personalistic relationships, social solidarity, and a local orientation. Impersonality, factionalism, and a shrewd understanding of how to manipulate outside social forces have been found to typify rural life. The delineation of the community or village as a unit of study depends on several local factors, including residential patterns, administrative divisions, land-use systems, and local peoples perceptions. Formal administrative boundaries by themselves can be misleading indicators of community boundaries. For example, census villages in India do not always correspond with residential clusters: it is not uncommon for two adjoining houses to belong to two different revenue villages. A major concern about any survey is how applicable the findings of one area or community are to other areas and communities. To a large extent, the representativeness of a community depends on how comparable its internal composition is with other communities. Five key characteristics of a community should be identified in order to serve as a basis for inter-community comparison: a. Population - including the total number of people and sex and age distributions. At a broad level this will indicate the aggregate local demand level for fuelwood and other fuel resources. ข Peopleland ratio - with information on tenure relationships, types of agriculture, land quality and use patterns, land distribution, and ecological zones. Household access to trees and other fuel resources, as well as the condition of these resources, will be among the important variables considered here. ค Urban contact - the nearness to urban centres, linkages with roads, the amount of farm, fuel, and village output sold outside the community, and the amount of employment community members find outside. A crucial variable to be considered is the amount of wood and other fuel sources imported into or exported from the community. d Resource distribution - how wealth and productive resources are distributed thus, the extent to which the community is economically and socially stratified. Once again, household access to fuel resources (whether direct access to trees or its ability to purchase fuelwood) would be considered. อี Occupational structure - the relative importance of agriculture, seasonal wage labor, tenancy, nonfarm income and so on. Of particular importance for fuelwood surveys is the scale of fuelwood sales and degree of wage labor involved in fuelwood enterprises within the community. These headings correspond in some degree to our Topics on which to gather information, presented at the beginning of this chapter. But these are selective, and chosen to be relatively easy to identify and to aid an effective selection of villages. Identification of these variables allows the investigator to see how typical the community is in comparison to other communities. The question of typicality or representativeness is meaningful if a good national survey exists, to allow for comparison. The variables will also help in eliminating a village that clearly is unrepresentative - e. g. by being located close to a sugar-mill. In choosing a community to study, it might be desirable to consider the degree to which local people recognize that there is a fuel problem. Where there are clear perceptions of a crisis, that warrants serious attention, the response to the survey is likely to be good. When available, village-level census data (if reliable, and up-to-date) lots the investigator check beforehand how representative a community is in these variables. Studies of rural communities rarely mention why and how the particular community was chosen for study. When reasons are given, most choices are purposive. For example, Frederick Conway explains why he selected a particular site in Haiti: Fonds Parisien, east of Croix-des-Bouquest in the Plains du Cul du Sac, was chosen as the field site because it had been an important center of charcoal production and remains a center of charcoal exchange, because deforestation as a result of fuelwood collection is advanced there, and because the contractor had established rapport through previous research in the area. The last factor was essential in obtaining reliable information in a brief period of time (Conway, 1979:4). Conways quotation also demonstrates one of the advantages of having the investigator restudy a community. Scarlett Epstein has given an account of how she was able to gather remarkable amounts of information in a five-week visit to two south Indian villages that she knew well from an earlier study (Epstein 1978:128). Often, convenience and practical considerations are the most important factors behind the selection of a community. Communities may be chosen on account of their accessibility, or their congenial political and social climate. Reasons for deciding on one community over another may reflect the investigator rather than the community, as the former may prefer (though seldom is this admitted) a place that has friendly inhabitants, or good access to medical facilities, or absence of mosquitoes, or a pleasing view. Representativeness is also important: in his survey of energy use in rural Southern Africa, Marc Best purposely chose three villages which represented different biophysical environments (Best 1979:5). One of the villages was selected because of its remoteness and its traditionalness (that is, Best considered the village to be not strongly affected by modernization, although it, like the other two, was purposely affected by the migrant labour system). This purposive selection process has often resulted in bias, since communities with good transportation, communications facilities, and other amenities are generally more developed. According to Connell and Lipton (1979:99): The relatively developed state of accessible villages is likely to give both those undertaking village surveys and those reading them an unduly optimistic view of rural conditions. Meanwhile, the worst poverty goes undetected or unobserved. Some researchers have recommended using area sampling to select a community. This involves randomly selecting a community from a large number of possible communities, each possessing an equal chance of being selected (see the discussion of sampling in the next sections.) Factors such as location, environmental setting, farming type, and population can be taken into account. But area sampling presents several problems, and is not feasible unless a large sample in used, together with extensive knowledge of many villages. Maps, aerial photography, and rapid surveys of a number of villages can help overcome the lack of a sampling frame, combined with an interval sampling technique. Sometimes accurate maps are unobtainable, and aerial photographs, if enlarged, can be effectively used as maps. Infra-red photography can be useful in high lighting the vegetation. In some parts of the world, good aerial photographic coverage exists, and is available in others, either little aerial photography has been done, or it is not accessible, perhaps for reasons of national security. Overall, in selecting a community, the research should take into account the key variables mentioned (Population peopleland urban contact resource distribution and occupational structure). Each variable must be regarded for its relevance to fuelwood, as indicated above. Key is used in specific relation to fuel problems, not in a general senses. The community, and adjoining communities, should be visited and looked at carefully before research begins. Factors such as local historical and ecological variables, and location which would limit the applicability of inferences made from the community to other areas, should be considered. Above all, the reasons for selecting a particular community should be explicitly stated. Most surveys take the household as their basic unit of study. In some cases a household consists of a nuclear family - a man and woman with their children. However, it sometimes includes the extended family - the grouping together of several nuclear households for example, a man with several wives and their children andor his or his wives parents. There also may be fragmented households, such as an elderly or young or divorced person who lives alone. In general, a household may be considered as a grouping of people who share the same cooking facilities. Even with such a broad definition of household, problems can arise. One common problem is that households are constantly changing in composition, and some members may be away for various time periods, from two days to two years or more. This is especially so when migrant labour is common. At the same time there may be several visiting guests and relatives who increase demand for fuel. In many parts of the Middle East, and also in other regions, belief in the influence of an Evil Eye makes people reluctant to disclose exact numbers of children to strangers. In reckoning per-capita fuel consumption of a household, one obviously needs to know which members are physically present. Household size and composition influences how production is organized and what are relative consumption levels. In most households family labour is the most abundant resource, so that the number of household members available for doing work is crucial. Family size and the availability of energy resources are often correlated. This is important for fuelwood as the available forest stock diminishes and as the time required for collecting fuel increases, so does the value increase of children as gatherers. Information about household members occupations helps in determining household size. This would appear particularly necessary where seasonal wage labour migrations are prevalent. Besides the household, fuelwood surveys may concentrate on other socio-cultural and economic units, John Briscoe (1979) for example, is concerned with analyzing his studied households in terms of their socio-economic class. Several indices, such as landholding size, sources and amount of income, house size and composition, ownership of consumer goods, and so on, can be used in assigning households a relative wealth position. Local people are often able to identify and to rank, with a keen precision, relative household wealth positions (See Castro et al . 1981, for a discussion of indicators of inequality). Other possible social groupings include ethnic groups, caste divisions, religious groups, charcoal producers, kinship groupings (such as lineages) and neighbourhood groups. Relevant economic units include various shops, restaurants, industries, businesses, and public institutions that consume fuelwood, Donovan (1979 and 1980), for example, has studied small-scale industries in Nepal that consume fuelwood. Digernes (1977) surveyed the shops, schools, and similar units which consume fuelwood in Bara, Sudan. Surveys may also consider the contractors, dealers, and other entrepreneurs who are involved in the production and marketing of fuelwood. Researchers are rarely able to examine every possible unit of study in a given population. It is necessary to choose a sub-set or sample of the population for investigation. Thus, the issue for researchers is to decide what kind of sampling procedures to use. The manner of sample selection is critical because it defines how representative of the population the chosen group will be and therefore the extent to which findings from the study can be applied to the population as a whole. Sampling methods are generally divided into two major types: non-probability and probability sampling (Kearl, 1976:27). A non-probability sample means that the individual units of study are selected either purposely (on the basis of some judgemental criteria) or accidentally (on the basis of whomever is met or whatever is seen). Thus, a non-probability sample is unique, but not necessarily unrepresentative of the population. That is, in a non-probability sample every unit of a population does not have an equal chance of being selected. However, a sample can be purposively selected so that it contains the general characteristics of a population (this will be discussed below in greater detail). A probability sample is based on the principle that every unit of a population has an equal chance of being selected for study. This ensures, theoretically, that the chosen units of study are representative of the population. Probability sampling involves a random or systematic manner of selection, for example selection based on a table of random numbers, or based on every nth unit, such as every tenth household. Selecting the appropriate sampling procedure depends upon the particular situation, and in all situations each manner of selection will have its own advantages and inherent limitations. Although we will describe each sampling method as an exclusive type, in practice they are often combined. Thus, a village may be selected purposively, on the basis of environmental, economic and other variables, while the sample selected in the village may be done randomly. Non-probability sampling allows for considerable flexibility in selection, an important consideration when the study universe is undefined or unclear, or when there is a problem obtaining consent from those selected. But non-probability sampling has several drawbacks. Any group may be easily under or over representated in the sample. There is a tendency to select those individuals who are more articulate or approchable, which generally means the wealthier or more educated community members. The actual basis of selection may appear in retrospect as having been largely ad hoc even when specific criteria were considered. Probability sampling is generally seen as more scientific because it supposedly will yield a sample that is precisely representative of the population. In practice, though, there are limits to the use of probability sampling. A random or systematic sample needs to be drawn from a defined universe, but frequently little census information is known about the population and its geographical distribution is undermined. Thus, a sampling frame has to be created. Sometimes maps and aerial photographs, perhaps combined with an overflight of the area, can help to construct a sampling frame. An area sample could be chosen, then one particular area randomly selected on the basis of agro-environmental and socio-economic variables. Households in the selected area can then be listed and a random or systematic sample chosen. Not all researchers have had to start from scratch. Digernes used the local rates lists (which show the assessments for public services) in Bara, Sudan, to construct a stratified random sample. Fortunately, rates are based on such important socio-economic variables as house size, location, number of rooms, building materials, number of-latrines, number of household members, and their socio-economic position. Digernes, who carried out her study in 1976 and 1977, found that the latest list was from 1973, and it seemed complete and fully representative. She stratified the households into three groups according to the levels of rates paid, selecting a 10 percent random sample from each group. Twenty-five of the 162 sampled households had moved or been dissolved and were excluded from the survey. No new households were added. A list of the twenty-five public institutions and private businesses using charcoal was obtained from the local government, and these were included in a fuelwood consumption survey (Digernes, 1977:57). Another problem with probability sampling is that a high percentage of those selected must consent to being studied. In most cases some households will not consent and others will have to be chosen. Conversely, households that were not selected will want to be studied. When possible in such cases the data ought to be collected, although it should not be included with the sample. All communities, even the poorest, have gradations of poverty and wealth. Stratifying the sample is usually essential. This means dividing the population into different strata or groups, based on income or other relevant variables. In probability sampling, study units can be selected randomly or systematically from each strata. With non-probability sampling, a quota might be allocated to each stratum, and case studies might be selected from each for intensive study. Once again, there is often a paucity of data on income, land ownership and other critical variables necessary to stratify a sample. Proxy indicators of income, such as housing type, condition and construction materials, and possession of consumer goods, can be used to rank households. Perceptions of local people can also be used in constructing a stratified sample. Hill asked several key informants to rank village households according to their ability to cope with seasonal food shortages. A random sample was taken of the resulting strata and several measures, including land and capital equipment ownership, were used to test the perception. Hill found that the local people were extremely accurate in their ranking, in that their subjective assessment correlated closely with other objective measures (Hill, 1972:59). Several factors need to be considered to determine the appropriate size of the sample. Sample size is related to costs that can be afforded by the researchers. The most critical consideration, though, is that the sample be large enough to be adequately representative of the study population. Too small a sample can undermine the validity of months of research. In populations that are socio-economically homogenous, a small sample is sufficient because describing one unit describes them all. But such populations are increasingly rare, indeed it is doubtful if they were ever as prevalent ass once believed. Some analysts recommend that surveys include at least 10 percent of the households with the proportion increasing with bigger, more heterogeneous communities (Connell and Lipton, 1977:106). A final consideration is that sample size affects techniques and questions. For example, a recent survey in Nigeria covered 11,000 households, so detailed techniques were out of the question. Where a sample is very small, such as fewer than 10, they more resemble case studies than a sample survey. Especially among the rural agricultural peoples with whom we are primarily concerned, there will be little difficulty in finding suitable assistants, or associates, to use a more exact term. We consider some aspects of selection, training, supervision and logistics. Depending on the particular local circumstances, one obvious initial source of likely recruits is among local unemployed high-school graduates, or high-school students or teachers - who are on vacation. We have found that many have the appropriate level of education: what is needed are adequate skills in reading, writing, record-keeping, and interpretation of questions, together with qualities of reliability, honesty and ability to ask questions in a polite, respectful yet firm manner. Those who have only primary education are unlikely to manage the written records, nor will they be able to write their own observations. On the other hand, people who have an advanced education are often unsatisfactory because they regard the job as dull, routine and unglamorous or they complain constantly about the rigours of long walks along hot dusty paths, or about the mosquitoes or fleas, or whatever is locally an irritant. This is not an anti-intellectual argument, for university students, both undergraduates and post-graduates, can play very important parts in village surveys it is simply that they regard themselves as over-qualified for the rather routine and relatively low paying task of gathering basic information. Government departments are a good source for survey associates, especially such departments as forestry and agriculture. But where forestry officials have law-enforcement duties, they may have such negative images in the community that people distrust them. In selecting associates, certain qualities are desirable - some degree of literacy and sensitivity to people being interviewed, for example. Age, religion, gender, ethnicity, and experience may all be relevant. Above all, people selected should have a real interest in the survey and an understanding of its aims. It may be possible to ask ten potential associates to do some simple interviews and observations for a day, and to report verbally and in writing. One or two will emerge as natural researchers in that they are interested, competent, sensitive and conscientious in short, they have the necessary sociological imaginations. High school students are not the only people to be considered, Given the poverty in most communities, and the lack of non-farm opportunities, there are likely to be many applicants. Sometimes there will be so many that the choice of individuals becomes difficulty especially when, as often happens, locally important people put forward their kinsfolk or dependents. In some cases this can lead to problems because applicants or their sponsors are aligned with factions within the community. One selection device, which worked quite well in Central Kenya, was to ask about one hundred people to do a rapid four-day survey of their villages, suggesting that they add certain types of supplementary information. On the basis of what they wrote, combined with checking their forms for consistency, it was easy to select five or ten of the best, who were invited to continue in helping with the study for one or two months. Who are the best It is easy to identify those who have a sociological imagination, which is not necessarily correlated with a high level of formal education it is also usually easy to determine who has completed the questionnaires in an accurate and careful fashion. Some fieldworkers fudge results, by deciding, for example, that it is not necessary to walk five kilometers to see one household, preferring to guess from their general knowledge. One soon develops a sense of when this is happening, because of inconsistencies, irregular patterns, and erratic or unusual responses to questions. A major aspect of selection is the inclusion of both men and women, as emphasised above. Women should be incorporated because so many aspects of fuelwood, from collecting to cooking, fall mainly within womens sphere of activities, We combine these two categories, as it is rarely possible to organize formal training sessions, beyond perhaps one or two initial meetings when the project is explained, and questions are answered, so supervision becomes doubly important. Here are some guidelines: (a) Arrange a definite time and place for supervisor and fieldworker to meet, preferably at least once a week. (b) Because of the prevailing difficulty of communication, if it proved impossible to meet - for example because of illness, poor road conditions, or vehicle breakdown - arrange a contingency Plan B, making certain that there was some way of communicating. (c) Allow enough time for a thorough check of the fieldworkers records, questioning any unusual or dubious information, and praising any special contribution. This is important, for supervision has both negative and positive goals. As well as serving as a cheek against sloppy or inaccurate performance, it should be used for positive reinforcement. Fieldworkers, like most people, respond well to interest in their work and to appreciation of problems. (d) Engage, if numbers warrant, assistant supervisors, so that it is possible to check adequately on all workers. University students, where they are available, have been found to be good in this role. (e) Constantly and critically assess the survey instrument - are the questions providing the sort of information required (f) Eliminate problem questions, especially if they create too many negative reactions to the interview situation. Research associates should be made to feel that their job is not simply one of mechanically recording responses on a questionnaire. Such an attitude leads the fieldworker to emphasize the rapid collecting of data instead of accurately collecting relevant data. They should fully understand the nature and importance of the survey, and of their own role. Moreover, without any incentive or interest in the research, the fieldworker has little reason or incentive to make or record or induce a new line of enquiry. Field staff should be paid adequately and they should be given full credit for their contributions. Moreover, their perceptions and observations should be constantly invited by the senior researcher. For these reasons, we recommend that research should be regarded as a co-operative endeavor, with the professional investigator, the associates, and the local people all participating in a common enterprise. There are compelling ethical and practical reasons for adopting such an approach, which gives proper credit to associates and villagers and which is likely to lead to better (i. e. more comprehensive, more reflective of actual conditions) reports than does the usual top-down survey. Where associates and villagers are literate it is a good idea to ask them to read and comment on draft reports. If some are illerate, it is easy to organize a bush seminar to present and discuss the major findings. These can be regarding exercises. Even though the fieldworkers will presumably be from the same region, and will speak the local vernacular, they will often be working outside their home communities, which results in two distinct sets of problems. First, they may come from a group or faction or lineage that is not really acceptable, or which is not highly regarded, and this should be investigated. Second, there are often problems of logistics - of transport, of housing, food, even of details of finding a bed, or a place to sleep, or a lamp, or a table. We need not dwell on these, except to say that it is preferable to face these potential problems squarely at the beginning, clearly stating what will and what will not be provided, and also specifying precise duties and responsibilities of each fieldworker. The prospects for misunderstanding, as in any relationship, are limitless We conclude by reiterating three points that should be considered in planning fuel surveys of any scope: (1) using a combination of methods and procedures will probably give the most complete and accurate portrait of energy use (2) be aware of local knowledge, expertise and perceptions invite local participation in the planning, implementation and analysis of the survey and (3) beware of the numerous biases - dry season, elite, male, roadsides, project, etc. that can skew the description and analysis of local fuel situations. The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism 1 User Report: 1999-3 By Paul Gendreau and Claire Goggin, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of New Brunswick, and Francis T. Cullen, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Solicitor General Canada. This document is available in French. Ce rapport est disponible en franais sous le titre: Lincidence de lemprisonnement sur la rcidive . Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Bonta, Ph. D. Corrections Research, Department of the Solicitor General Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0P8. E-mail: bontajsgc. gc. ca. Public Works and Government Services Canada The use of prisons to control crime has increased in frequency in the last decade. Most recently, mandatory minimum sentencing policies have gained widespread popularity throughout the United States, severely limiting judicial discretion in sentencing. The principle rationale for mandatory minimums is the belief that length of time in prison acts as a deterrent to future recidivism. Three schools of thought dominate the area. The first is that prisons definitely suppress criminal behaviour. Given the unpleasantness of prison life and the negative social stigma associated with incarceration, these should serve as deterrents to later criminal behaviour. The second, the quotschools of crimequot viewpoint, proposes just the opposite, that is, that prisons increase criminality. By this account, the barren, inhumane, and psychologically destructive nature of prisonisation makes offenders more likely to recidivate upon release. The third school of thought, which we label the quotminimalistinteractionquot position, contends that the effect of prison on offenders is, for the most part, minimal. This view states that prisons are essentially quotpsychological deep freezesquot, in that offenders enter prison with a set of antisocial attitudes and behaviours which are little changed during incarceration. This perspective also suggests that lower risk offenders may be more adversely affected by greater lengths of incarceration through exposure to an environment typically dominated by their higher risk, more hard core peers. Fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction. The data was analysed using quantitative methods (i. e. meta-analysis) to determine whether prison reduced criminal behaviour or recidivism. The results were as follows: under both of the above conditions, prison produced slight increases in recidivism. Secondly, there was some tendency for lower risk offenders to be more negatively affected by the prison experience. The essential conclusions reached from this study were: 1. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour. 2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications. 3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders attitudes, values, and behaviours while incarcerated. 4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to exact retribution. The application of sanctions by the legal system has been at the forefront of societys efforts to control criminal behaviour. The most recent trend, especially in the U. S. has been to use prison sentences, particularly what are known as mandatory sentences, to achieve this goal. Mandatory sentences are grid-like sentencing prescriptions that attempt to make the quotpunishmentquot fit the crime. Judicial discretion is severely limited as regards weighting of individual circumstances in sentencing. Almost all U. S. states and the federal government have some sort of mandatory laws, wherein drug crimes have figured prominently. California has been a leader in this area as the proponent of one of the broadest, toughest and most rigorously applied mandatory minimum policies, commonly known as the quotthree strikes and outquot law (Stolzenberg amp DAlessio, 1997). The state provides a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony and there is no distinction among types of felonies. To illustrate how harsh mandatory sentences can be, consider one Greg Taylor (Bellisle, 1999), whose first two crimes (or strikes) were stealing 10.00 and a bus pass, then robbing a man on the street. Fourteen years later, he was caught attempting to break into a church to steal food (his third strike). He received a sentence of 25 years to life. Even first strike sentences can be tough as evidenced by the case of a Ms. Rene Boj who has no criminal record. Currently living in Vancouver, she is facing a minimum of 10 years in prison for watering a marijuana plant on a balcony in California should she return to the U. S. (Anderssen, 1999). A major justification 2 of mandatory prison sentences is that they will teach offenders that punishment is certain and severe, and thus that quotcrime does not payquot. In other words, this policy is largely based upon the assumption that certain prison terms specifically deter offenders. In this light, the current paper empirically examines the specific deterrence hypothesis. Our primary concern is with offenders whose criminal history or offense type is serious enough to warrant imprisonment. The schools of thought on the validity of the specific deterrence hypothesis as it relates to the use of prison are reviewed. Then, we present new evidence that directly tests the notion that prison sentences punish or deter future offending. Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what is meant by punishment. While the terms quotdeterrencequot and quotpunishmentquot are often used interchangeably, our preference is to use the behavioural definition of quotpunishmentquot: the suppression of behaviour by response-dependent events (Blackman, 1995). Note that this definition is purely functional. It avoids common sense interpretations of what constitutes punishment, which are often based on gut-level and moral philosophical grounds, and may, therefore, be fallacious 3 (Matson amp DiLorenzo, 1984). Effects of Imprisonment: Three Schools of Thought There are three schools of thought regarding the ability of prisons to punish. The first is that prisons definitely suppress criminal behaviour. The second perspective, the quotschools of crimequot viewpoint, proposes just the opposite, that is, that prisons increase criminality. The third, which we label the quotminimalistinteractionquot position, contends that the effects of prison on offenders is, with few exceptions, minimal. We review the basic assumptions of each school, present the best evidence in support of their views and provide a brief critique of the merits of their position. Prisons as punishment The view that the experience of prison in itself acts as a deterrent is rooted in the simple specific deterrence theory (Andenaes, 1968) which predicts that individuals experiencing a more severe sanction are more likely to reduce their criminal activities in the future. Economists have taken the lead in support of the specific deterrence model (see von Hirsch, Bottoms, Burney, amp Wikstrm, 1999). They maintain that incarceration imposes direct and indirect costs on inmates (e. g. loss of income, stigmatization) (Nagin, 1998 Orsagh amp Chen, 1988 Pyle, 1995 Wood amp Grasmick, 1999). Thus, faced with the prospect of going to prison or after having experienced prison life, the rational individual would choose not to engage in further criminal activities. In addition, another quotcostquot argument, identical to that which the quotschools of crimequot advocates employ (see next section), is that, if prison life is a degrading, dehumanizing experience then it surely must be regarded as an additional quotpsychologicalquot cost of doing time. Surveys indicate that both the public and offenders consider prison to be the most severe or effective punisher of criminal behaviour (Doob, Sprott, Marinos, amp Varma, 1998 Spelman, 1995 van Voorhis, Browning, Simon, amp Gordon, 1997). 4 Policy makers often assume that prison is the severest punishment available (Wood amp Grasmick, 1999). DeJong (1997) remarked that the expectations of the public and policy-makers are that incarceration has powerful deterrent effects. What kind of data is used to support the prison as punishment hypothesis The most persuasive evidence comes from some ecological studies where the results are based on rates or averages (aggregate data). An example of one of the most positive results came from a study by Fabelo (1995) that reported a 30 increase in incarceration rates across 50 U. S. states, corresponding with a decrease of 5 in the crime rate for a five-year period. 5 Fabelos data has been interpreted as convincing evidence that prisons punish (Reynolds, 1996). Some caveats about the potency of the prisons as punishers school should be noted. Not all researchers view the ecological evidence regarding prisons as convincing (Gendreau amp Ross, 1981 von Hirsch et al. 1999). It must be emphasized that ecological studies, based as they are on aggregate data, may say absolutely nothing about individual behaviour (Andrews amp Bonta, 1994 Menzel, 1950 Robinson, 1950). Furthermore, the effects found in aggregate studies, which are expressed in correlational terms, are almost invariably wildly inflated 6 when compared to individual level results (Freedman, Pisani, Purves, amp Adhikari, 1991 Robinson, 1950 Zajonc, 1962 Zajonc amp Mullaly, 1997). Causality, moreover, cannot be inferred as a host of other underlying factors (e. g. economy, demographics, incapacitation policies, etc.) - Henshel (1978) listed 15 such factors - that may influence the prison sanction-crime rate relationship (see also Gendreau amp Ross, 1981 von Hirsch et al. 1999). In addition, Nagin (1998), who feels strongly that the deterrence literature in general is persuasive, despairs that if the rate of imprisonment keeps climbing, prisons will be seen as less stigmatizing thereby neutralizing any possible deterrence effect. Others suggest that only some classes of offenders may be deterrable, such as those who are more strongly bonded to society (i. e. at lower risk) (see DeJong, 1997). Orsagh and Chen (1988) have posited a U - shaped threshold theory for the punishing event, by which a quotmoderatequot dosage of prison would be optimal. And, there is the current view that the modern prison is too comfortable only quotno-frillsquot prisons offer enough punishment to act as an effective deterrent (Corcoran, 1993 Johnson, Bennett, and Flanagan, 1997). As in days gone by, prisons should be places of only bare bones necessities, 7 where life is lived in fear (e. g. caning is appropriate) (Nossiter, 1994). Schools of crime The belief that prisons are quotschools of crimequot also has widespread support. The earliest writings on crime by scholars such as Bentham, De Beaumont and de Tocqueville, Lombroso and Shaw, suggested that prisons were breeding grounds for crime (see Lilly, Cullen, amp Ball, 1995). Jaman, Dickover, and Bennett (1972) put the matter succinctly by stating that quotthe inmate who has served a longer amount of time, becoming more prisonised in the process, has had his tendencies toward criminality strengthened and is therefore more likely to recidivate than the inmate who has served a lesser amount of timequot (p. 7). This viewpoint is widely held today by many criminal justice professionals and policy makers (see Cayley, 1998 Latessa amp Allen, 1999 J. Miller, 1998 Schlosser, 1998 Walker, 1987), some politicians (e. g. Clark, 1970 Rangel, 1999, who said that prisons granted Ph. D.s in criminality), and segments of the public (Cullen, Fisher, amp Applegate, in press). Aspects of our popular culture (e. g. cinema) also reinforce the notion that prisons are mechanistic, brutal environments that likely increase criminality (Mason, 1998). How might prisons enhance criminality There is a large body of literature of primarily an anecdotal, qualitative, and phenomenological nature, which asserts that the prisonisation process destroys the psychological and emotional well-being of inmates (see Bonta amp Gendreau, 1990 Cohen amp Taylor, 1972). In contrast to the prisons as punishment view, quotschools of crimequot advocates view the glass as half-full rather than half-empty. By their reasoning, if prison psychologically destroys the inhabitants, then their adjustment to society upon release can only be negative, with one likely consequence being a return to crime. A more precise specification of the mechanisms involved comes from behavioural analysts. These researchers pay less heed to putative psychologically destructive features of the prison environment, rather, they focus simply on which beliefs and behaviours are reinforced or punished therein. Bukstel and Kilmanns (1980) classic review of the effects of prison literature summarized several studies (e. g. Buehler, Patterson, amp Furniss, 1966) that employed behavioural technologies to examine and record in detail the social learning contingencies that existed in various prisons. Bukstel and Kilmann (1980, p. 472) claimed that each study found quotoverwhelming positive reinforcementquot by the peer group for a variety of antisocial behaviours, so much so, that even staff interacted with the inmates in a way that promoted a procriminal environment. As with the phenomenological literature, the inference here is that prisons should promote criminality. 8 Although the literature remains sparse, studies do exist which have correlated the psychological changes offenders undergo in prison with their recidivism upon release. Importantly, the findings from this research are not consistent with the quotschools of crimequot position (see Gendreau, Grant, amp Leipciger, 1979 Wormith, 1984 Zamble amp Porporino, 1990). Many of the coping behaviours or psychological changes seen among prisoners are not predictive of recidivism, and only a few are correlated with changes in recidivism. Different frames of reference have contributed to this perspective. The first three coalesce nicely to provide compelling reasons why prisons should have no appreciable effect on recidivism. There is the human and animal experimental learning and behaviour modification literatures (see Gendreau, 1996). Coupled with the social psychology of persuasion knowledge base, they provide ample evidence to refute the notion that it is an easy matter to coerce offenders. Furthermore, the offender personality literature attests to the fact that the makeup of offenders is a complicating factor. We address each in turn. Firstly, there has been a tremendous amount of research on which punishing events are the most effective in suppressing behaviour (Matson amp DiLorenzo, 1984). Prison life events are not included among them. In addition, there are several absolutely crucial criteria that must always apply in order for punishment to be maximally effective (Schwartz amp Robbins, 1995). Some of these are that the punishing stimuli must be immediate, as intense as possible, predictable, and the delivery of punishment serves as a signal that reinforcement is not available for the punished response. Given the nature of these strictures, it has been noted that quotit is virtually impossible to meet these criteria in the real world in which offenders live unless some unbelievably efficient Orwellian environmentquot (Gendreau, 1996, p. 129) exists akin to a giant Skinner box. Others who have examined this issue have come to a similar conclusion (e. g. Clark, 1995 J. McGuire, 1995 Moffitt, 1983). Furthermore, and this is a critical point, punishment only trains a person what not to do. If one punishes a behaviour what is left to replace it In the case of high-risk offenders, simply other antisocial skills This is why punishment scholars state that the most effective way to produce behavioural change is not to suppress quotbadquot behaviour, but to shape quotgoodquot behavior (e. g. Blackman, 1995). Also, the road travelled from committing a crime to incarceration is circuitous given that only a quottiny fractionquot of criminal victimizations result in prison time, in most cases, months later (Bennett, DiIulio, amp Walters, 1996, p. 49). And, offenders knowledge of sanctions, even of highly publicised ones (e. g. Bennett, et al. 1996 Jaffe, Leschied, amp Farthing, 1987), is far from accurate. Secondly, the social psychology literature on persuasion and resistance processes provides another compelling rationale as to why at least the threat of punishment, such as prison, is decidedly problematic. This is a complex literature which deserves a fuller analysis suffice it to say, that for persuasion to occur the principle of positive reciprocity (i. e. do something nice to somebody) must apply. The source of the message must be credible, attractive, and authoritative (but not authoritarian), and the appeal of the message engineered so that commitment on the part of the receiver is achieved (Cialdini, 1993 W. J. McGuire, 1995). Once commitment has occurred, several other steps must be met in order for behaviour to change (Fishbein, 1995). 9 Additionally, clinicians who are skilled in breaking down resistance to change express empathy, avoid argumentation, support self-efficacy, and do not excessively confront or threaten (Miller amp Rollnick, 1991). To repeatedly threaten someone is to invite the well-documented process of psychological inoculation whereby individuals think of reasons to resist change (see Eagly amp Chaiken, 1993). We suspect that offenders are masters of this behaviour. A study by Hart (1978) of punishment in the army is a good example of the occurrence of the inoculation principle. Thirdly, the question must be asked as to who the criminal justice system wishes to punish. The salient beliefs and attitudes of higher risk offenders, whom one most wishes to change, are antagonistic to education, employment, and supportive interpersonal relationships. Their personalities can be highly egocentric, manipulative, and impulsive. They frequently engage in skewed decision-making processes that greatly over-estimate the benefit of antisocial actions vs. the costs involved (see Andrews amp Bonta, 1998 Carroll, 1978 Gendreau, Little, amp Goggin, 1996 Gendreau amp Ross, 1981 Hare, 1996). 10 They may often be under the influence of a substance thereby further distorting their perceptions of reality. Some would agree that the nature of offenders is such that they may be resistant to punishment even under circumstances where optimal punishment conditions apply (see Andrews amp Bonta, 1998, p. 171-173 Gendreau amp Suboski, 1971). Taken together, these three sets of literature suggest that the effects of prison are likely minimal. A closely allied view is that the effects of imprisonment are conditional, that while prisons generally have little effect on offenders, there are exceptions to the rule. Originally, researchers from this camp came into the field with the expectation that prisons were quotschools of crimequot only to conclude from their work and the available evidence that prisons were basically quotpsychological deep freezesquot (Zamble amp Porporino, 1988). In essence, they were stating that the behaviour seen in prison was similar to that which existed prior to incarceration. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of length of incarceration and differential prison living conditions have found few negative psychological results of incarceration (Bonta amp Gendreau, 1990 Gendreau amp Bonta, 1984) in fact, in some areas the opposite result has occurred (see Zamble, 1992, and the special edition of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, October 1984 volume 26, on the effects of incarceration). Offenders, moreover, who have been the most anti-social in prison and the most likely to recidivate upon release, have also tended to be higher risk going into prison (Gendreau, Goggin, amp Law, 1997). Despite this overall trend, these researchers left room for some interactions to occur (e. g. Bonta amp Gendreau, 1990 Paulus amp Dzindolet, 1993 Wright, 1991) by asking the questions what types of offenders under which prison living conditions might be adversely affected (Bonta amp Gendreau, 1990, p. 366). For example, Zamble and Porporino (1990) found the higher risk incarcerates coped the least well in prison. They suggest that they could be prone to a greater degree of recidivism. On the other hand, a commonly expressed view is that it is low-risk offenders for whom prison has the greater negative impact. Leschied and Gendreau (1994) contended, on the basis of aggregate recidivism trends in Canada and a social learning model of criminal behaviour (Andrews amp Bonta, 1998), that incarcerated low risk offenders should be negatively influenced by the potent antisocial values of their higher risk peers (also see Feldman, Caplinger, amp Modarsky, 1983 Leschied, Jaffe, amp Austin, 1988). Higher risk offenders should be little influenced by a term of imprisonment. In summary, the three schools of thought make different predictions about the effect of prison on recidivism. They are: 1. Prisons as punishment: prisons reduce recidivism. This effect may be moderated by individual and situational factors. Lower risk offenders may be more readily deterred and prisons with fewer quotfrillsquot (e. g. studies conducted in prisons decades earlier) might produce better results. Length of sentence may also be a factor. 2. Schools of crime: prisons increase recidivism for all offenders. 3. MinimalistInteraction: the effect prisons have on recidivism are minimal at best some offenders (lower or higher risk) may fare worse. As this review has noted, however, the data in support of each school is inconclusive in that it cannot be a substitute for an analysis of the effects of prison on the recidivism of individual offenders. Fortunately, there exists a heretofore neglected literature which directly addresses the aforementioned hypotheses (Bonta amp Gendreau, 1992 Levin, 1971 Song amp Lieb, 1993). These authors provided narrative reviews of studies which compared the recidivism rates of offenders who were incarcerated for differing lengths of time as well as offenders incarcerated vs. those sentenced to a community sanction. The conclusions reached were tentative because of the small number of studies assessed ( a dozen studies). 11 The problem with narrative reviews is that they lack precision. Conclusions are often couched in terms of imprecise qualitative (e. g. quotmorequot or quotlessquot) judgements. They are subjective and open to bias, as evidence is sometimes used selectively to support a favoured theory or ideology (see Rosenthal, 1991). In the last decade meta-analytic techniques have supplanted the traditional narrative review as the gold standard for assessing results across studies in medicine and the social sciences in a more precise, objective fashion (Hunt, 1997). Meta-analysis summarizes a collection of individual studies in a quantitative fashion. That is, the findings from each study are pooled and statistically analysed. The end result is a precise, quantitative summary of the magnitude of the effect within a particular body of literature. In addition, meta-analysis examines the extent to which the characteristics of combined studies (e. g. quality of research design, nature of the subjects, etc.) are related to the magnitude of the effect size. This study, therefore, attempts to build upon previous narrative reviews by expanding the literature search 12 and employing meta-analytic techniques to determine the precise effect of prisons on recidivism. Sample of Studies A literature search for studies examining the effects of time in prison on recidivism was conducted using the ancestry approach and library abstracting services. For a study to be included, data on the offender had to be collected prior to the recording of the recidivism results. A minimum follow-up period of six months was required. The study was also required to report sufficient information to calculate a correlation between the quottreatmentquot condition (e. g. prison vs. no prison) and recidivism. This correlation is the phi coefficient ( f ) and is referred to as the effect size. Coding of Studies For each effect size the following information was recorded: geographic location of study, decade in which study was published, offender age, gender, race, risk level, risk assessment methodology, sample size, design quality, type of sanction, type of outcome, length of follow-up. Effect Size Calculation Phi coefficients ( f ) were produced for all treatment - control comparisons in each study that reported a numerical relationship with recidivism. The following is an example of what the f value represents in a particular case where the respective recidivism rates for a group of offenders imprisoned for 5 years vs. 3 years were 30 vs. 25 respectively. The f value was .05, the exact difference between the recidivism rates of the two comparison groups. The reader will note that the f value is a very practical effect size indice and easy to interpret. Unless there are extreme base rates and the sample sizes in the comparison groups vary greatly, the f value represents the exact difference (or fall within 1 or 2 percentage points) in recidivism between two comparison groups (Cullen amp Gendreau, in press). In the event of non-significant predictor-criterion relationships, where a p value of greater than .05 was the only reported statistic, a f of .00 was assigned. Next, the obtained correlations were transformed into a weighted f value ( z ) that takes into account the sample size of each effect size and the number of effect sizes per sanction. (Hedges amp Olkin, 1985). The weighting was done because some would argue that more credence should be given to effect sizes with larger sample sizes. Please note that outcome was recorded such that a positive f or z is indicative of an unfavourable result (i. e. the stronger the sanction - more prison time - the higher the recidivism rate). Effect Size Magnitude The assessment of the magnitude of the effect of various sanctions on recidivism was conducted by examining the mean values of f and z and their respective confidence intervals ( CI ). The CI is the 95 probability that the interval contains the population value. If the CI does not include 0 it can be concluded that the mean effect size is significantly different from 0 (i. e, better than chance alone). If there is no overlap between the CI s, then the conditions being compared are assessed as statistically different from one another at the .05 level. Description of the Studies More vs. Less Time in Prison Twenty-three studies examining the effect of more vs. less time in prison met the criteria for inclusion and generated 222 effect sizes with outcome. 14 All of the studies in the sample were published, either in journals, texts, or government reports. More than 90 of the effect sizes came from American studies, the majority of which were conducted during the 1970s (86). The data set included a substantial range in the number of effect sizes reported per study ( n 1 - 79) and the distribution of sample sizes across effect sizes ( n 19 - 1,608). Ninety-eight percent of effect sizes were generated from adult samples, the majority of them male (90). Race was not specified for the majority of effect sizes (75). Level of risk by effect size was evenly distributed between samples assessed as low (49) versus high risk (49). Determination of risk rarely involved the use of valid standardized psychometrics (16). Rather, for most effect sizes, it was deduced from either the number of prior offences within the sample (47) or the reported percentage of recidivism of the comparison group at study completion (36). A measure of study design quality found that just over half of the effect sizes in the more vs. less domain came from studies rated as strong in design (55). These were studies where the more vs. less groups were similar on at least five risk factors. The period of follow-up for almost two-thirds of effect sizes was between six months and one year (64). The most common type of outcome among this group of effect sizes was parole violation (77). Incarceration vs. Community-Based A total of twenty-seven studies met the criteria for inclusion in the incarceration vs. community-based domain, reporting 103 effect sizes with recidivism. Offenders in the latter category were under various probation or parole conditions. As with the more vs. less data set, here too all of the studies involved were published and the majority of effect sizes came from American studies (68), while 22 were generated from studies conducted in the United Kingdom. Overall, the effect sizes herein were representative of more recently produced studies (96 published since 1980). While the number of effect sizes per study was relatively discrete ( n 1 - 12), there was considerable range in sample sizes associated with effect sizes ( n 24 - 54,633). Sixty-eight percent of effect sizes were generated from adult samples, with 23 coming from juveniles. Regardless of age, the majority of effect sizes involved males (62). Race was not indicated for half the effect sizes (50). Almost two-thirds of effect sizes were associated with offenders considered at high risk to re-offend (59). Risk designation was most commonly determined from the number of prior offences within the sample (61). Among a minority of effect sizes, risk was calculated using a valid standardized psychometric (23). Within the incarceration vs. community domain, study design quality was rated as weak for a majority of effect sizes (62). For almost two-thirds of the effect sizes length of follow-up was between one year and three years (65). The distribution of type of outcome was evenly split among arrest (22), conviction (32), and incarceration (30). Effects on Recidivism Spending more vs. less time in prison or being incarcerated vs. remaining in the community was associated with slight increases in recidivism for 3 of 4 outcomes. These results are detailed in Table 1 which can be read in the following manner. Beginning with the first row, one sees that there were 222 comparisons of groups of offenders who spent more vs. less time in prison. Of these 222 comparisons, 190 recorded the approximate time in months spent in prison. The average length of incarceration for the quotmorequot and quotlessquot groups was 30.0 months vs. 12.9 months respectively (footnote a, Table 1). 15 The total number of offenders involved in these comparisons was 68,248. The mean unweighted effect size was f .03, equivalent to a 3 increase in recidivism (29 vs. 26) for those offenders who spent more time in prison. The confidence interval ( CI ) was .03 to .05. When the effect sizes were weighted by sample size, the z was the same (.03) and its CI was .02 to .04. In the case of the incarceration vs. community comparison, the data showed a 7 increase in recidivism (49 vs. 42) 16 or a f .07, for those offenders who were imprisoned. Upon weighting, the effect size became .00. The amount of time spent incarcerated could not be reliably determined ( 10.5 months) as only 19 of 103 comparisons reported this information. Combining the results for the two types of sanctions in Table 1 produced a mean f of .04 ( CI .03 to .06) and a z of .02 ( CI .02 to .02). Effects of Incarceration by Risk Level The more vs. less results presented in Table 1 were sub-divided by risk categories. 17 Of the more vs. less comparisons, 139 were designated as high risk and 78 as low risk. There was a tendency for the lower risk groups to show a greater increase in recidivism. In the higher risk group, those who spent more time in prison had a higher recidivism rate (3) than did their counterparts who spent less time in prison ( f .03, CI .01 to .05). Once weighted, the z was .02 with a CI .01 to .03. In the lower risk group, those who spent a longer time in prison had a higher (4) recidivism rate than those who spent less time in prison ( f .04, CI .01 to .06). Upon weighting, the z was .05 with a CI .04 to .06. In the incarceration vs. community comparison, 69 of the samples were classified as high risk and 25 as low risk. Differences in recidivism rate were virtually identical, whether measured in terms of f or z . and were almost identical within each risk group or between high and low risk categories. Correlation between Length of Time Difference Score and Recidivism by Risk Level Another type of analysis of the risk issue was carried out in the following manner. First, the difference in the amount of time served in months was tabulated for each of the more vs. less comparison groups. Of the 190 effect sizes, 124 were classed as high risk and 66 as low risk. Then, within each of the high and low risk groups, the correlation between the amount of time served in months and recidivism was computed. Table 2 shows that more time served was positively correlated with higher recidivism rates ( f ) for the high risk group ( r .22) and the low risk ( r .15). The CI s of both groups, however, overlapped. When effect sizes were weighted by sample size, the relationship between time served and recidivism ( z ) was higher for the lower risk group ( r .29) than the higher risk ( r .17). Again, the CI s overlapped. Length of incarceration was grouped into three levels: (a) Time 1 - less than 1 year, (b) Time 2 - more than 1 year and less than 2 years, and (c) Time 3 - more than 2 years. No evidence was found to support a U-shaped relationship between the three time periods and recidivism (Time 1 - recidivism 28.2, CI 24.5 to 31.8 Time 2 - recidivism 26.8, CI 24.8 to 28.8 and Time 3 - recidivism 24.1, CI 21.2 to 26.9, respectively). Note that the CI s for all three time periods overlapped considerably. The relationship of selected study characteristics 18 to f was examined within each of the more vs. less and incarceration vs. community sanctions. In the case of the former, none were found to be related to effect size. With respect to the latter, there were four significant comparisons. Mean effect sizes were significantly greater among studies whose quality of research design was rated as higher quality ( f .11, CI .09 to .14) vs. lower quality ( f .04, CI .01 to .08), indicating an increase in recidivism among offenders from well-designed studies. In addition, mean effect sizes were also higher among studies which determined offender risk using valid, psychometric protocols ( f .14, CI .10 to .18) or where it was deduced from the control groups recidivism rate ( f .12, CI .05 to .18) than those where risk level had to be decided on the basis of the presence or absence of a criminal history among the offenders ( f .03, CI .00 to .06). For this same group, effect sizes also differed by length of follow-up, such that those followed for 1 to 3 years had higher mean effect size ( f .10, CI .08 to .13) than did either those followed for less than 1 year ( f -.01, CI -.05 to .03) or those followed for more than 3 years ( f .03, CI -.03 to .08). Mean f values also differed by type of outcome. Both incarceration ( f .13, CI .09 to .16) and court contact ( f .17, CI .03 to .31) were associated with significantly higher mean effects than arrest ( f .01, CI -.02 to .04). The data in this study represents the only quantitative assessment of the relationship between time spent in prison and offender recidivism. The database consisted of 325 comparisons involving 336,052 offenders. On the basis of the results, we can put forth one conclusion with a good deal of confidence. None of the analysis conducted produced any evidence that prison sentences reduce recidivism. Indeed, combining the data from the more vs. less and incarceration vs. community groupings resulted in 4 ( f ) and 2 ( z ) increases in recidivism. In addition, the results provided no support for three other hypotheses. The prediction that recidivism rates correlate with sentence length in a U-shaped fashion was not supported. The view that only lower risk offenders would be deterred by prison sentences was also not confirmed. The lower risk group who spent more time in prison had higher recidivism rates. The hypothesis that quotno frillsquot prisons would be better at punishing criminal behaviour was tested indirectly. The most consistently negative results came from the more versus less group, albeit, one should note that the majority of these effect sizes came from prison studies of 30 years ago, a time when prisons were noted for being barren, harsh environments ( f .03 z .03 with neither CI s including 0). Other results emanating from this research must be approached with considerably more caution because of the nature of the database. The studies reviewed contained precious little information on essential features. Descriptions of the offender samples were cursory and inconsistent (e. g. determinations of risk) across studies. Typical of other prison literatures (e. g. Gendreau et al. 1997), virtually nothing was known about the prisons themselves (i. e. how they were managed, existence of treatment programs, etc.) Many of the results from the more vs. less group came from studies of prison samples from the 1950 to 1970 era, when fewer amenities were prevalent, and from relatively few jurisdictions in one country, the U. S. Additional studies representative of this decade and other countries are urgently required. 19 Therefore, we regard the trend in the findings that prisons are even modest schools of crime (i. e. marginally worse results for lower risk offenders in 3 of 4 statistical comparisons) as tentative. Before addressing any policy implications forthcoming from the study some comments are in order about the equivalence of the comparison groups. It is often assumed that if a study does not have a true experimental design (i. e. random assignment) then the integrity of the results may somehow be diminished. In other words, non-random designs are presumed to report greatly inflated results. Recent meta-analyses encompassing 10,000 treatment studies - including those conducted with offenders - found the magnitude of results is virtually identical between randomized designs and those employing comparison group designs it is only in the case of one design type - pre-post designs - that results are inflated (Andrews, Dowden, amp Gendreau, 1999 Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, amp Cullen, 1990 Gendreau et al. in press Lipsey amp Wilson, 1993). In this study pre-post designs were excluded. Only comparison group designs were included in the analysis after being categorized as to higher or lower quality. The higher quality group comparisons, in our view, were comprehensive given that the experimental and control groups did not differ on at least 5 important risk factors (i. e. criminal history, substance abuse, etc.), and, moreover, many of the comparisons were based on validated risk measures. Where some demographic differences between groups were reported, the results were statistically adjusted to account for these discrepancies. Interestingly, within the incarceration vs. community domain, the higher quality studies reported higher recidivism rates for the incarcerated group There were no differences in effect size by design quality for the more vs. less category. Finally, two effect sizes came from randomized designs they reported 5 and 9 increases in recidivism for the incarceration group. What are the possible policy implications emanating from this study There are, in our view, two viable recommendations. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing future criminal activity. If further research supports the findings described herein, that time in prison increases offender recidivism by even quotsmallquot amounts, then the costs accruing from the excessive use of prison could be enormous. For example, even percentage changes of approximately 5 have resulted in significant cost implications in medicine and other areas of human services (Hunt, 1997). In the criminal justice field it is estimated that the criminal career of just one high-risk offender quotcostsquot approximately 1,000,000 (see Cohen, 1997). Arguably, increases in recidivism of even a quotfractionalquot amount are not fiscally responsible, especially given the high incarceration rates currently in vogue in North America. One should also bear in mind that even the most enthusiastic proponents of the utility of sanctions are not only quite sceptical about the use of prison but state, in no uncertain terms, that the deterrence literature in general is of limited use in formulating public crime control policy (Nagin, 1998). 20 Therefore, the primary justification for use of prisons is incapacitation and retribution, both of which come with a quotpricequot, if prisons are used injudiciously. Locking up chronic high risk offenders for a reasonable period of time is not under debate we can think of no one who disagrees with that policy. In order to lock up enough prisoners, however, to reduce crime rates by a few percentage points (see Gendreau amp Ross, 1981) and to make prisons quotpayquot for themselves (DiIulio amp Piehl, 1991), substantial quotcostsquot will accrue to other government ministries or departments. Unless an infinite source of funds becomes available to governments, fewer expenditures will be directed to education and health care, amongst other things. As a case in point, money spent by states to keep inmates incarcerated recently has risen by 30 while spending on higher education dropped by 19, and costs to keep a child in school represent a quarter of that required to lock up an offender (Dobbin, 1999). As for retribution, what appears to be a conceptually straightforward notion is, in fact, very complex. Walker (1991) has studied the justifications for retribution in considerable detail and has concluded that many retributive lines of reasoning are confounded by utilitarian objectives or run afoul of moral positions. 21 Our second recommendation attests to the sad reality that so little is known about what goes on inside the quotblack boxquot of prisons and how this relates to recidivism (Bonta amp Gendreau, 1990). Only a mere handful of studies have attempted to address this matter (Gendreau et al. 1979 Zamble amp Porporino, 1990). Analogously, could one imagine so ubiquitous and costly a procedure in the medical or social services fields receiving such cursory research attention If a fuller appreciation of the effect of time in prison on recidivism is ever to be gained, then it is incumbent upon prison systems to do the following. They must continuously assess the situational factors that can mediate their institutional climates (i. e. inmate turnover, see Gendreau et al. 1997) and have a potentially negative impact on prisoners adjustment and, possibly, a long-term effect on recidivism. Appropriate measures are available for this purpose (e. g. Wright, 1985). Secondly, it is necessary to conduct periodic assessments of prisoners (e. g. every six months to a year) on a wide variety of dynamic risk factors using valid risk protocols. 22 While we await further confirmation, it is particularly important to closely monitor the progress of lower risk offender while incarcerated. This type of clinical information gathering will provide us with a much more sensitive and precise estimate of the effects of prison time that did the data available to us in this study. Only then will prison managers be able to empirically determine which offenders are more prone to recidivating upon release. With such knowledge in hand something truly constructive can be done (e. g. treatment, surveillance) to minimize risk to the public. 1. The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. Preparation of this report was supported by contract 9914-GE587 from the Solicitor General of Canada. We thank Mike Bradley, Murray Goddard and Travis Pitt for their assistance in the preparation of this document. 2. The recent evidence concerning the consequences of mandatory sentencing for the justice system has been alarming (see Caulkins, Rydell, Schwabe, amp Chiesa, 1997 Crutchfield, Bridges, amp Pitchford, 1994 Dobbin, 1999 Greider, 1998 Tonry, 1998 Wooldredge, 1996). Prison populations have tripled nationwide over the last 20 years and increased fivefold in the federal prison system alone. The U. S. Justice Departments budget has increased from 4 to 21 billion in 12 years. Courts are being clogged as defendants are more likely to insist on trial. Rand researchers econometric analyses estimated that 1,000,000 spent on mandatory sentences would result in a reduction in drug consumption (i. e. cocaine) of only 13 kilograms, while spending the same amount on treatment would see a corresponding reduction in drug consumption of 100 kilograms. Discretion has moved from the hands of judges to prosecutors with the latter being possibly less accountable. Across 90 federal jurisdictions that are responsible for administering mandatory sentencing policies, discrepancies in prison time meted out for similar offenses vary by a ratio of 10:1. Some of the factors influencing the administration of mandatories in various localities are race, public fear of crime, media influences, type of drugs used, cultural values, prosecutorial caseloads, the use of informants, and idiosyncratic interpretation of the legal process. It is claimed that these inequities erode public trust in laws, moreover, hypocrisy flourishes as some prosectors and judges quotbend the rulesquot to avoid what are perceived as blatant injustices. Finally, the evidence to date indicates that mandatory sentences have had little effect on aggregate crime rates (Stolzenberg amp DAlessio, 1997). 3. Common sense definitions often run into difficulty because they cavalierly assume something must be painful. In reality, some events, while not intuitively obviously aversive, may be effective punishers and vice-versa. Here is a fascinating quotreal worldquot example on the basis of common sense, some U. K. prison authorities thought that they had designed a truly quotpunishingquot regime, only to discover that the prisoners found some of the activities reinforcing (Thornton, Curran, Grayson, amp Holloway, 1984) 4. The survey data can be complex. The Doob et al. (1998) study found that the public showed some inconsistencies while endorsing prison as an effective deterrent, over 70 opted for money not to be spent on prisons but on non-prison alternatives (e. g. prevention and rehabilitation). Cullen, Fisher, amp Applegate (in press) have found considerable support for rehabilitation even within conservative areas in the U. S. Spelman (1995) and Wood and Grasmick (1999) reported that some offenders ( 30) would prefer a brief period of incarceration (one year or less) to extensive community sanctions. 5. Fabelos (1995) data can be expressed in terms of a simple correlation between incarceration rates and crime rates. It is r -.41. 6. An example of how aggregate data analysis tends to inflate results in the criminal justice field can be seen in Hsieh amp Pughs (1993) report that the correlation between two indices of social class and violent crime was r .44, whereas, individual level data analyses report a much smaller relationship of r .07 (Gendreau, Little, amp Goggin, 1996). 7. quotNo-frillsquot is defined as no free coffee, visitors bringing food, restrictions on smoking, limiting the number of hot meals, recreational activities, television, telephone access, private property in cells, and having to wear clothing labelled quotconvictchain gangquot (Finn, 1996). 8. Bukstel amp Kilmann were not inferring that all prisons have to function in this manner, and nor are we (see also Andrews amp Bonta, 1998). It is reasonable to suggest, however, that the majority of staff in many prisons are not selected, trained, supervised and rewarded principally for their ability to develop and maintain pro-social attitudes and behaviour amongst inmates with the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism. Secondly, extremely few prisons have generated evidence that they have been successful in rehabilitating offenders (see Gendreau, 1996 for references to those that have). 9. From Fishbein (1995) these steps are: the environment in which the offender lives has no chance of reinforcing the behaviour to be changed. The offender has a positive attitude towards performing the behaviour, believes the benefits outweigh the costs, and the behaviour is consistent with his self-image. Finally, not only should the offender believe heshe can perform the behaviour in a variety of life situations but actually has the skills to do so. 10. There are all kinds of interesting contradictions regarding offenders thoughts about risk of apprehension which is not surprising given offenders personality make-up. For example, in one survey, the majority of offenders claimed that prison was a deterrent while maintaining that they did not deserved to be punished and that society was definitely no safer with them in prison (Van Voorhis, et al. 1997). Risk of apprehension applies more to others or is simply dismissed (Claster, 1967 Wright amp Decker, 1994). Offenders who are more likely to offend in the future had higher risk perceptions of being caught (Horney amp Marshall, 1992). While 75 of young offenders did not know the penalties that applied to them, 90 felt they were well-informed and disagreed with the law anyway (Jaffe et al. 1984). 11. There have also been a few single studies that examined such a large number of comparisons (e. g. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, amp Garofalo, 1977) that, without a quantitative assessment, it was impossible for the authors to precisely determine the direction and magnitude of the results. 12. The search did not include boot camp studies which are a form of specialised military quottreatmentquot (Gendreau, Goggin, amp Fulton, in press). 13. For a complete description of the methods, statistics and a list of studies employed in the meta-analysis please contact the first author at gendreauunbsj. ca or by faxing 506-648-5780. 14. Some studies report several effect sizes by comparing differing lengths of prison terms. For example, a study could report recidivism rates for offenders serving 1, 3, or 5 years, thereby offering the comparison of any of the inherent combinations, for a total of three effect sizes (i. e. 1 vs. 3, 1 vs. 5, etc.). 15. These figures are approximate. They represent an underestimation in the quotmorequot category as studies sometimes reported sentences at the upper end as 24 months, with no limit to the upper end. At the lower end studies reported the range of time served within limits (e. g. 6 - 12 months) which we scored at the midpoint. 16. The recidivism rates were higher for this category because the studies in this data set reported longer follow-up periods. Most of the more vs. less effect sizes were associated with short follow-up periods of 6 months to 1 year. 17. Offender risk designation was determined on the basis of the studies having reported prior record among the offender samples, a low risk designation equating with no priors. In the absence of any description of prior record in the original studies, the authors used one of the following criteria to designate risk: the level of risk based on the results of a valid risk measure as reported in the study, or the recidivism rates of the comparison group were used to determine risk (low risk a recidivism rate of 15 in the first year of follow-up or 30 during a follow-up of two years or more). 18. Study characteristics whose frequency distributions were not skewed (i. e. no value gt 60 of the distribution) were selected for further analysis. These included study decade, offender age, offender risk level, risk assessment methodology, quality of research design, type of control group, length of follow-up, and type of outcome. 19. Why there are so few current studies that correlate length of incarceration with recidivism of offenders of similar risk level is puzzling. There has to be a wealth of data which could address this issue in todays prisons. 20. Assume for a moment that future research finds some offenders to be deterred by longer prison sentences or a brief period of incarceration. Psychological theory predicts they would be those offenders who were more introverted, less psychopathic, etc. in other words, those of lower risk (Andrews amp Bonta, 1998, p. 171-173). Can one imagine a justice system, operating under the principles of fairness, invoking a utilitarian policy that meted out more severe sentences to lower risk offenders even though they may have committed crimes of similar nature and severity as their higher risk counterparts 21. Walker (1991) contends (p. 139) that the most logically consistent argument retributivists can assert is the right to have retributive feelings. 22. For a list of some of the most useful risk measures see Gendreau, Goggin, and Paparozzi (1996). It is known that changes in offender risk level are predictive of meaningful shifts in recidivism (i. e. 30-40) (Gendreau et, al. 1996, p. 586). Andenaes, J. (1968). Does punishment deter crime Criminal Law Quarterly . 11 . 76-93. Anderssen, E. (1999, September 2). American woman fights extradition to U. S. Marijuana charges. Globe and Mail . p. A7. Andrews, D. A. amp Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct . Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press. Andrews, D. A. amp Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press. Andrews, D. A. Dowden, C. amp Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts . Unpublished manuscript, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. Andrews, D. A. Zinger, I. Hoge, R. D. Bonta, J. Gendreau, P. amp Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology . 28. 369-404. Bellisle, M. (1999, July 15). Les misrables: Three-strikes law nets man 25 years for bid to steal food. Globe and Mail . Bennett, W. J. DiIulio, J. J. Jr. amp Walters, J. P. (1996). Body count: Moral poverty. and how to win Americas war against crime and drugs . New York, NY: Simon amp Shuster, Inc. Blackman, D. (1995, November). Punishment: An experimental and theoretical analysis. In J. McGuire amp B. Rowson (Eds.), Does punishment work Proceedings of a conference held at Westminster Central Hall, London, UK. Bonta, J. amp Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Law and Human Behavior . 14 . 347-366. Bonta, J. amp Gendreau, P. (1992). Coping with prison. In P. Suedfeld amp P. E. Tetlock, (Eds.), Psychology and social policy (pp. 343-354). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Buehler, R. E. Patterson, G. R. amp Furniss, J. M. (1966). The reinforcement of behavior in institutional settings. Behavioral Research and Therapy . 4. 157-167. Bukstel, L. H. amp Kilmann, P. R. (1980). Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals. Psychological Bulletin . 88 . 469-493. Carroll, J. S. (1978). A psychological approach to deterrence: the evaluation of crime opportunities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 36 . 1512-1520. Caulkins, J. P. Rydell, C. P. Schwabe, W. L. amp Chiesa, J. (1997). Mandatory minimum drug sentences: Throwing away the key or the taxpayers money On-line. Available: rand. orgpublicationsMRMR827 Cayley, D. (1998). Effects of prison: The crisis in crime and punishment and the search for alternatives . Toronto, ON. House of Anansi Press Limited. Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice . New York, NY: Harper Collins. Clark, D. (1995, November). Does imprisonment work through punishment In J. McGuire amp B. Rowson (Eds.), Does punishment work Proceedings of a conference held at Westminster Central Hall, London, UK. Clark, R. (1970). Crime in America . New York, NY: Pocket Books. Claster, D. (1967). Comparison of risk perceptions between delinquents and non-delinquents. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science . 58 . 180-186. Cohen, M. A. (1997). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14 . 5-32. Cohen, S. Taylor, L. (1972). Psychological survival . Hammondsworth: Penguin. Corcoran, L. (1993). Comfortable prisons push recidivism rates. Peacekeeper . 2. 7-8. Crutchfield, R. D. Bridges, G. S. amp Oitchford, S. R. (1994). Analytical and aggregation biases in analyses of imprisonment: Recording discrepancies in studies of racial disparity. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . 31. 166-182. Cullen, F. T. Fisher, B. S. Applegate, B. K. (in press). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research Vol. 27. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cullen, F. T. amp Gendreau, P. (in press). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), NIJ criminal justice 2000: Vol. 3, Changes in decision making and discretion in the criminal justice system . Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. DeJong, C. (1997). Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology . 35 . 561-575. DiIulio, J. J. amp Piehl, A. M. (1991). Does prison pay The Brookings Review . 9. 28-35. Dobbin, M. (1999, June 6). Judges decry mandatory minimum sentences. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . p. A18. Doob, A. N. Sprott, J. B. Marinos, V. Varma, K. N. (1998). An exploration of Ontario residents views of crime and the criminal justice system (C98-931656-4). Toronto, Ont. University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology. Eagly, A. amp Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Fabelo, T. (1995). Testing the case for more incarceration in Texas: The record so far . State of Texas: Criminal Justice Policy Council. Feldman, R. A. Caplinger, T. E. amp Wodarski, J. S. (1983). The St. Louis conundrum: The effective treatment of anti-social youth . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Finn, P. (1996). No-frills prison and jails: A movement in flux. Federal Probation , 60 . 35-44. Fishbein, M. (1995). Developing effective behavior change interventions: Some lessons learned from behavioral research. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David, amp G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer (NIDA Research Monograph No. 155, pp. 246-261). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Freedman, D. Pisani, R. Purves, R. amp Adhikari, A. (1991). Statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In F. X. Harland, (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gendreau, P. amp Bonta, J. (1984). Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual punishment: Sometimes people are Canadian Journal of Criminology . 26 . 467-478. Gendreau, P. Goggin, C. amp Fulton, B. (in press). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195-204). Chichester, UK: John Wiley amp Son. Gendreau, P. Goggin, C. amp Law, M. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 24 . 414-431. Gendreau, P. Goggin, C. amp Paparozzi, M. (1996). Principles of effective assessment for community corrections. Federal Probation . 60 . 64-70. Gendreau, P. Grant, B. amp Leipciger, M. (1979). Self-esteem, incarceration and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 6. 67-75. Gendreau, P. Little, T. amp Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of adult offender recidivism: What works Criminology . 34 . 575-607. Gendreau, P. amp Ross, R. (1981). Correctional potency: Treatment and deterrence on trial. In R. Roesch amp R. Corrado (Eds.), Evaluation and criminal justice policy (pp. 29-57). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gendreau, P. amp Suboski, M. D. (1971). Classical discrimination eyelid conditioning in primary psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology . 77 . 242-246. Gottfredson, D. M. Gottfredson, M. R. Garofalo, J. (1977). Time served in prison and parole outcomes among parolee risk categories. Journal of Criminal Justice . 5. 1-12. Greider, W. (1998, April 16). Mandatory minimums: A national disgrace. Rolling Stone . 42-45, 47-50, 92. Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 23 . 25-54. Hart, R. J. (1978). Crime and punishment in the army. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 36 . 1456-1471. Hedges, L. V. amp Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis . San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Henshel, R. L. (1978). Consideration on the deterrence and system capacity models. Criminology . 16 . 35-46. Horney, J. amp Marshall, I. H. (1992). Risk perceptions among serious offenders: The role of crime and punishment. Criminology . 30. 575-594. Hsieh, C.-C. amp Pugh, M. D. (1993). Poverty, income equality, and violent crime: A meta-analysis of recent aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Review . 18. 182-202. Hunt, M. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis . New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Jaffe, P. G. Leschied, A. D. W. Farthing, J. L. (1987). Youths knowledge and attitudes about the Young Offenders Act: Does anyone care what they think Canadian Journal of Criminology . 29 . 309-316. Jaman, D. R. Dickover, R. M. amp Bennett, L. A. (1972). Parole outcome as a function of time served. British Journal of Criminology . 12 . 5-34. Johnson, W. W. Bennett, K. amp Flanagan, T. J. (1997). Getting tough on prisoners: Results form the National Corrections Executive Survey, 1995. Crime and Delinquency . 43 . 24-41. Latessa, E. amp Allen, H. E. (1999). Corrections in the community (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Leschied, A. W. amp Gendreau, P. (1994). Doing justice in Canada: YOA policies that can promote community safety. Canadian Journal of Criminology . 36 . 291-303. Leschied, A. W. Jaffe, P. G. amp Austin, G. A. (1988). Recidivism of special needs youth: Implications for policy practise. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science . 20 . 322-331. Levin, M. A. (1971). Policy evaluation and recidivism. Law and Society Review . 6. 17-46. Lilly, J. R. Cullen, F. T. Ball, R. A. (1995). Criminological theory: Context and consequences . Thousand Oaks, CA: สิ่งพิมพ์ Sage Lipsey, M. W. amp Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist . 48 . 1181-1209. Mason, P. (1998, August). The prison in cinema. Images On-line serial, 6 . Available: http:imagesjournalissue06featuresprison. htm Matson, J. amp DiLorenzo, T. (1984). Punishment and its alternatives: A new perspective for behavior modification . New York, NY: Springer. McGuire, J. (1995, November). The death of deterrence. In J. McGuire amp B. Rowson (Eds.), Does punishment work Proceedings of a conference held at Westminster Central Hall, London, UK. McGuire, W. J. (1995). Transferring research findings on persuasion to improve drug abuse prevention programs. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David, amp G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer (NIDA Research Monograph No. 155, pp. 225-245). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Menzel, H. (1950). Comment on Robinsons quotEcological correlations and the behavior of the individualquot. American Sociological Review . 15 . 674. Miller, J. (1998, August 15). Juvenile justice: Facts vs. anger. New York Times . A13. Miller, W. R. amp Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior . New York, NY: Guilford Press. Moffitt, T. E. (1983). The learning theory model of punishment. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 10. 131-158. Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research Vol. 23 (pp. 1-42). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Nossiter, A. (1994, September 17). Making hard time harder: States cut jail TV and sports. New York Times . pp. A1, A10. Orsagh, T. amp Chen, J.-R. (1988) The effect of time served on recidivism: An interdisciplinary theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology . 4. 155-171. Paulus, P. B. amp Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Reactions of male and female inmates to prison confinement: Further evidence for a two-component model. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 20 . 149-166. Pyle, D. J. (1995). Cutting the costs of crime: The economics of crime and criminal justice . London, UK: Institute of Economic Affairs. Rangel, C. (1999, February 22). America the jailhouse. Wall Street Journal . p. A11. Reynolds, M. O. (1996). Crime and punishment in Texas: Update (NCPA Policy Report No. 202). Dallas, TX: National Center for Policy Analysis. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review . 15 . 351-357. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analytic procedures for social research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schlosser, E. (1998). The prison-industrial complex. Atlantic Monthly . 282 . 51-58, 62-77. Schwartz, B. amp Robbins, S. J. (1995). Psychological of learning and behavior (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton amp Company. Song, L. amp Lieb, R. (1993). Recidivism: The effect of incarceration and length of time served . Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Spelman, W. (1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . 32 . 107-135. Stolzenberg, L. amp DAlessio, S. J. (1997). quotThree strikes and youre outquot: The impact of Californias new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates. Crime and Delinquency . 43 . 457-469. Thornton, D. Curran, L. Grayson, D. amp Holloway, V. (1984). Tougher regimes in detention centres: Report of an evaluation by the Young Offender Psychology Unit . London, UK: HMSO. Tonry, M. (1998). Mandatory penalties. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 243-273). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Van Voorhis, P. Browning, S. L. Simon, M. amp Gordon, J. (1997). The meaning of punishment: Inmates orientation to the prison experience. The Prison Journal . 77 . 135-167. von Hirsch, A. Bottoms, A. E. Burney, E. amp Wikstrm, P.-O. (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research . Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Walker, N. (1987). The unwanted effects of long-term imprisonment. In A. E. Bottoms amp R. Light (Eds.), Problems of long-term imprisonment (pp. 183-199). Aldershot, UK: Gower. Walker, N. (1991). Why punish New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wooldredge, J. D. (1996). Research note: A state-level analysis of sentencing policies and inmate crowding in state prisons. Crime and Delinquency . 42 . 456-466. Wood, P. amp Grasmick, H. (1999). Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Quarterly . 16 . 19-50. Wormith, J. S. (1984). Attitude and behavior change of correctional clientele: A three year follow-up. Criminology . 22 . 595-618. Wright, K. N. (1985). Developing the prison environment inventory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . 22 . 259-278. Wright, K. N. (1991). A study of individual, environmental, and interactive effects in explaining adjustment to prison. Justice Quarterly . 8. 217-241. Wright, R. T. amp Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars in the job: Street life and residential break-ins . Boston, MA: University of Chicago Press. Zajonc, R. B. (1962). A note on group judgements and group size. Human Relations , 15 . 177-180. Zajonc, R. B. amp Mulally, P. R. (1997). Birth order: Reconciling conflicting effects. American Psychologist . 52 . 685-699. Zamble, E. (1992). Behavior and adaptation in long-term prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 19, 409-425. Zamble, E. amp Porporino, F. J. (1988). Coping behavior and adaptation in prison inmates . New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Zamble, E. amp Porporino, F. J. (1990). Coping with imprisonment. Criminal Justice and Behavior . 17 . 53-70. Mean phi ( f ) and mean weighted phi (z ) for More vs. Less and Incarceration vs. Community sanctions Note. k number of effect sizes per type of sanction N total sample size per type of sanction M f (SD ) mean phi and standard deviation of per type of sanction CI f confidence interval about M f z weighted estimation of f per type of sanction CI z confidence interval about z . a More vs. Less - mean prison time in months ( k 190). More 30.0 mths, Less 12.9 mths, Difference 17.2 mths. b Incarceration vs. Community - mean prison time in months ( k 19): 10.5mths. Correlation between Length of Prison Time Difference Score and Effect Size by Risk Classification Incarceration: More vs. Less 1. High Risk (124) Note. Difference Mean difference in length of time served in months between the quotMorequot and quotLessquot groups r 1 correlation between the mean Length of Prison Time Difference score and f CI 1 confidence interval about r 1 r 2 correlation between the mean Length of Prison Time Difference score and z CI 2 confidence interval about r 2 .