I want to say something about conflict of interest in research; something particularly important in the study of criminal justice. When access to data depends on maintaining warm relationships with the agencies you are studying (eg police) this distorts what you can say! 1/

I interviewed for a job at the NY branch of the Chicago Crime Lab a few years ago, and a large part of our conversations had to do with how important it was to maintain good relationships with NYC agencies, and how delicate that was. 2/

How can you objectively study something when a primary goal is to not piss off the group you are studying? It affects what questions you ask and how you frame the answers you find. It affects other research projects, because you want to maintain a certain sort of "reputation".3/

Honestly, I think this type of conflict of interest is as or more important than the conflict that arises from research funding. But there is no requirement to report such conflict of interest when you publish, and so people usually don't know about it. 4/

I think all empirical scholars face this to a certain degree. But I think these issues are particularly important for research groups whose agenda depends on ongoing relationships, like the Crime Lab. 5/

(Don't get me wrong, I think there are lots of wonderful, ethical, thoughful people at the Crime Lab. I just don't like how they are structured, in terms of the importance placed on maintaining relationships with the police and other agencies.) 6/

One final point: intellectually, I had been aware of this type of conflict for years. But it wasn't a particularly emotional issue for me bc I have never been victimized by the police; I've never had a family member sent to prison. 7/

It didn't occur to me as a big problem until a long conversation with a black colleague, for whom these issues are a lot more personal. I am grateful to him for helping me see this. Another example of why diverse voices are so important. /end