Article Critique

In research methodology, feminist scholars blamed qualitative studies which many times failed to bring out the realities of women’s lived experiences (Price & Sokoloff, 2004). Although these experiences are unfortunate common struggles for women offenders, there seemed to be limited research that explored how those struggles in women’s lives seemed to affect their likelihood of recidivism. At last, the “pathways” perspective, which investigates whether women have distinct pathways to initial crime and recidivism compared to men, is improved mainly by qualitative methodologies. In the current study: Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers’ Paths to Incarceration, featured in the Journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior, authors Emily J. Salisbury and Patricia Van Voorhis quantitatively investigate women’s possibilities of ongoing criminal behavior (2009). Although some implications did arise, this study is important to the field by offering explanations of female offending which can offer proper interventions to help reduce recidivism. Throughout this paper I will be summarizing and critiquing the above article.

The mentioned study uses a path analytic statistical procedure with a sample of 313 newly convicted women probationers selected by the Missouri Department of Corrections according to a stratified sample, to investigate three gendered pathways to women offenders’ incarceration: 1) a pathway beginning with childhood victimization that contributed to historical and current form of mental illness and substance abuse; 2) a relational pathway in which women’s dysfunctional intimate relationships facilitated adult victimization, reductions in self-efficacy, and current mental illness and substance abuse; and 3) a social and human capital pathway in which women’s challenges in the areas of education, family