Using meta-analysis under conditions of definitional ambiguity: the case of corporate crime

Given the reliance on meta-analyses to produce criminal justice policy recommendations, it is important to think critically about how this method is being applied in practice. In this study, we use data from a meta-analysis of corporate crime deterrence to demonstrate that applying meta-analytic methods to conceptually ambiguous research domains is problematic. Although meta-analysis is capable of modeling methodological variations in different research projects examining the same construct, analysts should not assume that meta-analytic methods are always appropriate; methodological differences may reflect underlying conceptual dissimilarities–this violates an assumption of meta-analysis. We also offer a critique of the corporate crime field for failing to clearly define its outcome, a critique that can be extended to other areas of criminological study.