Search results

A significant number of criminal and deviant acts are investigated by nonpolice actors. These include private investigators who charge fees for their services, professional services firms such as firms of accountants who also charge fees, in-house investigators employed by private organisations and in-house investigators of public sector organisations who are not sworn police officers. Some of these investigators, such as private investigators, have been exposed in unethical activities such as illegal surveillance and blagging to name some. In this respect, this study aims to uncover the ethical orientations of investigators using cluster analysis.

This study is based upon an online survey of private investigators predominantly in the UK, i.e. investigators beyond the public police. An innovate statistical inferential analysis was used to investigate the sample which resulted in the development of three ethical orientations of such investigators.

Based upon a survey response from 331 of these types of investigators this study illustrates the extent they engage in unethical activities, showing a very small minority of largely private investigators who engage in such activities.

A unique feature of this study is the use of an innovative statistical approach using an unsupervised machine learning model, namely, TwoStep cluster analysis, to successfully group and classify respondents based on their ethical orientation. The model derived three types of ethical orientation: ethical, inbetweeners and risk takers.

In this study, STEM resources reviewed in Goodreads were investigated to determine their authorship, linguistic characteristics and impact. The analysis reveals gender disparity favoring titles with male authors.

This paper applies theoretical concepts of knowledge commons to understand how individuals leverage the affordances of the Goodreads platform to share their perceptions of STEM-related books.

The analysis reveals gender disparity favoring titles with male authors. Female-authored STEM publications represent popular science nonfiction and juvenile genres. Analysis of the scholarly impact of the reviewed titles revealed that Google Scholar provides broader and more diverse coverage than Web of Science. Linguistic analysis of the reviews revealed the relatively low aesthetic disposition of reviewers with an emphasis on embodied experiences that emerged from the reading.

This study contributes to the understanding of the impact of popular STEM resources as well as the influence of the language of user-generated reviews on production, consumption and discoverability of STEM titles.