A research question clearly identifies the question that a researcher will attempt to answer. Developing a research question is the most essential part of any research project. The whole point of the project is to answer this research question, and it guides every step along the way.
Developing a good research question takes time. Your question will change and become more precise as you explore the relevant research that has already been done before.
Click on each drop-down box for more info.
Too broad: Does sports activity reduce crime?
More focused: Does involvement in competitive league sports reduce police contact among young males in Canada?
If you are having trouble coming up with ideas, you might want to look at some of the following sources for inspiration.
Use this box to search hundreds of full-text dictionaries, encyclopedias, and more related to Criminology and Law. This is just one part of the full Credo Reference database.
Use the KPU Library's search tool called Summon to look for different types of sources in the library's collection, all at once. Summon is the default search box on the Library's homepage.
Criminological Highlights is a great source for research question ideas.
Click on this drop-down box to see an example summary from Criminological Highlights.
Imposing solitary confinement on prisoners increases the likelihood that they will be reincarcerated after serving their sentences.
It is well established that prisoners who have mental health challenges are more likely than other prisoners to serve time in solitary confinement. It is also well established that solitary confinement itself has harmful effects on those placed in those units (Criminological Highlights, 20(3)5, 20(4)#3, 19(6)#4). This paper examines a related question: Are prisoners who spend time in solitary confinement more likely than others to be reincarcerated? [emphasis added]
One of the challenges in determining the likelihood of reincarceration is that those who serve time in solitary confinement (regardless of what sanitized name is used for it – structured intervention, segregation, restricted housing, etc.) may be more likely to be held until the end of their sentence rather than being released on some form of conditional release (e.g., parole). The effect of not getting conditional release is, of course, that they are not receiving the same degree of supervision and surveillance as those released on some form of parole prior to the end of their sentences. Hence those who experience solitary confinement may be less likely to be reincarcerated simply because the level of surveillance they receive soon after they are released is less than that experienced by prisoners released on some form of parole.
This paper examines the impact of solitary confinement in Pennsylvania prisons on re-imprisonment controlling not only for various standard individual characteristics (e.g., age, race, mental illness, initial offence, “risk” scores, time in prison, misconduct in prison), but also controlling for the nature of the prisoner’s release back into the community (receiving parole supervision or not). For prisoners who were charged with prison misconduct, two groups were created: those who experienced solitary confinement and those who did not. For those who were never charged with prison misconduct, two separate groups were also created: those who spent time in administrative segregation (e.g., because of threats to themselves or threats they made to others) and those who were never placed in solitary confinement. These groups were then each divided into those who were released on parole (and therefore were being monitored in the community) and those who were released without criminal justice supervision.
The confounding effects of parole were evident in the findings. As expected, those who experienced either form of segregation were less likely to be released on parole. But also those being supervised on parole (whether or not they had experienced solitary confinement) were more likely to be re-imprisoned.
The results of the effects of solitary confinement were straightforward and consistent across groups (those in administrative or disciplinary segregation and those who were released on parole or not). Prisoners who experienced either form of solitary confinement (administrative or disciplinary) were more likely to be re-incarcerated and were likely to be reincarcerated sooner those who had not spent time in solitary confinement. Simply put, time in solitary confinement led to increased likelihood of reincarceration. But in addition, “the risks of re-imprisonment are especially high for those held in isolation for longer periods of time – greater than 90 days” (p. 9). Furthermore, the effects of solitary confinement on the “administrative” sample were stronger than the effects of solitary confinement on those with misconduct charges.
Conclusion: The results are consistent with other research showing the criminogenic impacts of solitary confinement. Though some correctional systems (e.g., Canada’s) might claim that its renamed solitary confinement system is not being used for punishment, the data suggest that both the prisoner, and society more generally, are being punished by solitary confinement. Prisoners who experience solitary confinement are more likely to be returned to prison than those who are not placed in solitary confinement. And society more generally suffers from the effects of solitary confinement because it increases the likelihood of various forms of misconduct in the community.
Reference: Anderson, Claudia N., J. Ben-Menachem, S. Donahue, J.T. Simes & B. Western (2025). Solitary Confinement, Parole, and Criminalization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 98. [KPU Library link to full-text of this article.]
