1. The Rise of Visual Criminology: Categories, Approaches, and Testable Propositions J. Wheeldon Norwich University D. Harris San Jose State University

2. Today ✤ Why visualize? Who ’ s visualizing? ✤ Categories and Approaches ✤ Problems ✤ Testable Propositions

3. Why Visualize? ✤ Assumption: use of and interest in visual means and methods growing in many disciplines (Umoquit, Tso, Burchett, & Dobrow, 2012); ✤ Recognition that people are spending an increasing amount of time staring at screens, and engaging visually with their phones, computers, and social media;

4. ahem.

6. Who’s Visualizing? ✤ Criminologists including Burruss (2011), Heidt (2008), Lippens (2004), and Maltz (2009)? ✤ New Directions in Visual Criminology panel at ASC; ✤ This work is based on previous work (Harris, 2013; Wheeldon, 2011) and desire to better define and operationalize what we mean...

7. One take: ✤ Visual criminology: ✤ Techniques for the collection, presentation, and interrogation of data on crime and social control (Wheeldon & Harris, 2013).

8. Existing categories: ✤ 1) exploring research methods through expanded uses of concept maps, mind maps, and other diagrammatic approaches in criminology (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012); ✤ 2) describing data, telling stories, and presenting information using visual analytic approaches (Harris, 2013; Maltz, 2009); and ✤ 3) demystifying theory, challenging research assumptions, and interrogating depictions of crime and social control (Lippens, 2012).

9. Learning Research Methods (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012) How do the differences between concept maps and mind maps underscore epistemological, assumptive, and practical differences between quantitative and qualitative research?

10. Existing categories: ✤ 1) exploring research methods through expanded uses of concept maps, mind maps, and other diagrammatic approaches in criminology (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012); ✤ 2) describing data, telling stories, and presenting information using visual analytic approaches (Harris, 2013; Maltz, 2009); and ✤ 3) demystifying theory, challenging research assumptions, and interrogating depictions of crime and social control (Lippens, 2012).

11. Describing Data: In SF Crime doesn’t Climb (Wintrob &Reinhardt, 2013)

12. Crime and Neighborhoods in DC

13. Describing Data: Most Violent Police Beats in Oakland CA 2011/2012 (Natesh Daniel, 2012)

14. Existing categories: ✤ 1) exploring research methods through expanded uses of concept maps, mind maps, and other diagrammatic approaches in criminology (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012); ✤ 2) describing data, telling stories, and presenting information using visual analytic approaches (Harris, 2013; Maltz, 2009); and ✤ 3) demystifying theory, challenging research assumptions, and interrogating depictions of crime and social control (Lippens, 2012).

15. Depictions of Crime and Criminals

16. Images of Crime/Criminals: Last Suppers (Green, 2012)

17. So What? ✤ New Visual Approaches... ✤ (1) can provide new ways to teach theory, methods, and critical debates in criminology; ✤ (2) offer novel approaches to data collection and analysis; and ✤ (3) create potential for the increased use of visual tools for practitioners within the criminal justice system.

18. Teaching Criminology Theory (Heidt & Wheeldon, Contract) 7 steps of criminological thinking

19. Visual Data Collection

20. Life History Plot (Harris, 2013) ✤ Data Visualization technique ✤ Official criminal history ✤ Life history details (including marriage, divorce, employment, military, births/deaths, trauma/ accidents, hospital stays, and psychiatric observations) were collected

21. Life History Plot - Step 1

22. Life History Plot - Step 2

23. Life History Plot - Step 3

24. An Example from Incarcerated Individual

25. A Picture is Worth a Thousand P- values

26. Problems / Limitations ✤ Images can confuse and fail to clarify; ✤ Visual learning not for everyone; ✤ No clear definition / conceptualization / testable propositions

27. Confusing not clarifying

28. NYTimes, April 29, 2007

29. Mapping not for everyone ✤ Potential for maps contains inherent limitation; ✤ Maps and Visual approaches are weird / different / uncommon way for many to communicate - people may reject without proper training / explanation (Wheeldon, 2012) ✤ While maps can assist to break out of the “canned responses” that can occur in interviews in Wheeldon’s work some senior CJ officials were skeptical / resistant to their use;

30. Thinking about testable propositions CATEGORYCHALLENGEPROPOSITION Collection Not everyone is able to communicate or engage visually Visual data collection is as good as other forms of participant-led data collection techniques Analysis “Looking at the data” first can amount to a fishing expedition (cheating) Preliminary analysis using visualization enables the identification of outliers that warrant exclusion or further study Presentation Reducing criminology to a series of “pictures” simplifies complex issues / relationships / findings The presentation of criminological findings using visual approaches allows more people to access and understand research

31. Some Questions ✤ 1. WHAT are the best uses of visual techniques for teaching and learning criminological concepts? ✤ 2. WHERE are visual approaches most useful to supplement existing data collection methods and research designs; ✤ 3. WHEN do images oversimplify issues instead of expanding criminological thinking? ✤ 4. WHY do images of crime and social control overwhelm more reasoned approaches to criminal justice? ✤ 5. HOW can visual approaches expand partnerships and broaden collaborations?

32. Other Questions? ✤ Johannes Wheeldon (jwheeldo@norwich.edu)jwheeldo@norwich.edu ✤ Danielle Harris ( danielle.harris@sjsu.edu) danielle.harris@sjsu.edu