Search results

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the variability in burglary geocoding positional accuracy between United States Census Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)-based street geocoding and results produced using reference data made publicly available by Google.

This research compares the Euclidian distance between ground-truthed burglaries and results produced using two different geocoding reference data sets: TIGER-based street geocoding and publicly available data within Google Earth. T-tests and z-tests are used to discern whether positional errors are statistically significant.

Both within suburban and urban jurisdictions, Google outperformed street geocoding in terms of positional accuracy. Positional errors on average were 1/4th as large for Google in a suburban setting and 1/5th as large in an urban setting compared to street geocoding.

Police departments that are relying on street geocoding techniques may achieve improved spatial precision by using Google’s reference data if they contain parcel-level information. Moreover, relying on less precise spatial referencing methods may place burglaries in locations where the events do not actually occur or cluster.

This is the first analysis of law enforcement data to examine the positional accuracy of geocoded offense data using Google Earth compared to the commonly used street geocoding method of interpolation.

In his book on Animal Chemistry Liebig wrote as follows:—

Previous research has highlighted the importance of engaging people with lived experience (PWLE) in the knowledge creation process. However, diverse approaches to engagement exist. In addition, tensions remain in community-engaged research (CER), including how to address structural inequalities in research settings. This study aims to consider how CER interacts with citizenship within and beyond the research context.

This study discusses the authors’ experiences as a majority-PWLE of psychosis research team in Canada, including successes and challenges the authors experienced building their team and navigating research institutions. This study also reflects on the authors’ pathways through citizenship, prior to and during the research process. This study discusses divergent models of CER and their applicability to the cyclical process of citizenship and community participation.

Relationships between academic and peer researchers developed organically over time. However, this study was limited by structural barriers such as pay inequality and access to funding. The authors recognize that there are barriers to full citizenship and acknowledge their resources and privilege of being well supported within their communities. Team members built on a foundation of citizenship to access participation in research. This led to opportunities to engage in community spaces, and for PWLE to participate in research as partners and leaders. This study also found that citizenship is a way of giving back, by building a sense of social responsibility.

Academic and peer researchers can reflect on the authors’ experiences to build more inclusive research teams and communities by using a citizenship approach to research participation.