In Module 4, we considered the second in our three-part series on research design. Specifically, the focus was on the quasi-experimental design, in which some comparison is made without the benefit of random assignment or full experimental control. Also, as with the prior week, this module's assigned readings provided a bit of historical context for the debate between scholars who assert that experimental evidence is the "gold standard," and those that maintain that experimental evidence is overrated.

In this week's discussion, pick any topic of your choice involving crime within criminology/criminal justice, and explain (a) why it is difficult or impossible to study using a classical experiment, and (b) why that topic can and should still be studied using non-experimental alternative designs. What are the most important considerations? How would you approach this task if you were in charge of the study?