Open AccessPathways to Attrition: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Justifications for Police Designations of Sexual Assault Complaints
Author(s) -
Danielle M. Soulliere
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the qualitative report
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.335
H-Index - 35
ISSN - 2160-3715
DOI - 10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1836
Subject(s) - sexual assault , cognitive reframing , criminology , discretion , psychology , attrition , qualitative research , social psychology , poison control , human factors and ergonomics , sociology , law , political science , medicine , social science , environmental health , dentistry
The present analysis is a reframing of an earlier study conducted by the author to compensate for perceived deficiencies in previous studies on police decisions in sexual assault complaints. Specifically, qualitative comparative analysis was employed at the micro-social level to reveal justification scenarios, employed by investigating officers, which resulted in attrition at the police level. It was found that police employed the legal model in justifying “unfounded” designations while police employed both legal and extralegal models in justifying designations of “departmental discretion.” Further rese arch, expanding the database through interview s and participant observation, is necessary to fully explore justification scenarios for police designations of sexual assault complaints