Empirical evidence is facts or proof that is obtained by way of investigation or testing as noted by Creswell (2014). Empirical evidence is considered knowledge that is documented, examined, and determined by scientists which are the fundamental method that is a component of the scientific approach. In the article by Jacques (2014), the experimental procedure commences with researchers developing questions or theories by obtaining the information that will either attest to or prove false a particular hypothesis. From my understanding, this is where the compilation of empirical evidence will come into play. It is also noted that empirical research is known as the method of finding empirical substantiation. In other words, empirical data is the knowledge that materializes from the analysis. On the other hand, Anecdotal Evidence relates to an individual’s personal history which is evaluated and based on inner experience rather than fact. Based on this information it would include mistakes made in the individual’s understanding and memory of their background which is not adequate to communicate knowledge of another person’s behavior. In other words, Anecdotal Evidence is information that is based on private experiences which also includes short accounts or records that are frequently used to generate a point (Creswell, 2014; Jacques, 2014). As you can see, there is a difference between the two in which empirical evidence is about facts or proof that is obtained by way of investigation and Anecdotal Evidence relates to an individual’s personal history or life story.
How do these differences inform how criminal justice data might be evaluated and interpreted in published research findings?
According to Lenz (2016) when it comes to the criminal justice system and their use of the empirical research method it will help agencies at the local, state, and federal levels of law enforcement in determining what works in the operations of crime prevention, corrections, and policies and procedures. Empirical research is considered an important connection between analysis and policy-making and one of the main reason researchers in the criminal justice system make it a point to investigate the problems of crime and due process reliably. What mainly happens with empirical research is the scientist will choose areas of significance to analyze, introduce their learnings, print their conclusions in criminal justice and criminology chronicles, and convey their fact-findings in such a way that and administrators in law enforcement and the government who make guidelines and procedures can interpret by putting into place more productive anti-crime strategies (Lenz, 2016). On the other hand, according to Lenz (2016), he stated that with the anecdotal research method, it would be more beneficial in the use statements made by eyewitnesses when it comes to criminal acts that occurred. With the anecdotal research as noted by Creswell (2014), it can be used in such a way that will promote individual personal awareness when it comes to events that happened in the day-to-day operations of a police officer along with other officers that can be translated into anecdotal research findings format. I feel that anecdotal research does have its use in formal research when it comes personal experiences of administrators and officers regarding certain criminal topics.
Is there a place in formal research for anecdotal data?
In the article by Jacques (2014), he stated that when it comes field of criminal justice, there is an array of interesting criminal topics and problems. Scientists are committed to all areas of research in the criminal justice system that make use of qualitative and quantitative evidence in their exploration to acquire answers to the numerous concerns in the theoretical study of criminal acts and human actions. In saying this, it is necessary for viable, ethical, and robust investigations that data employed by scientists be used judiciously and evaluated correctly. When it comes to anecdotal it evidence does not meet the expectations for experimental proof for the reason that its disposition impedes it from being examined by deductive means.