Race Matters: Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Use of Theory in Examining the Influence of Race on the Criminal Justice System Response to Sexual Assault

Background and Purpose: Prior research has documented the high rates of sexual assault (SA) case attrition in the criminal justice system (CJS), and examined the extent to which specific characteristics of the victim, suspect, and assault predict case progression. Race is frequently included as a potential predictor of case progression, though findings regarding its influence are mixed. Sometimes the race of the victim or suspect is found to significantly predict SA case outcomes with White victims or suspects benefitting from their racial identity, whereas in other studies, victims or suspects of Color are found to receive preferential treatment. Some research documents the importance of the racial dyad, or combination of the victim and suspect race, to be critically important, as opposed to the race of the victim or suspect alone. Still, other research finds that race is insignificant in predicting SA case outcomes. Race is a social construct. Therefore, the extent to which researchers use theory to guide their investigation of the influence of race, and how researchers choose to conceptualize, operationalize, and code race, may help explain the disparate findings across studies. The purpose of this review is to examine prior research on the influence of race on the CJS response to SA to assess the use of theory, and conceptualization and operationalization of race, so as to shed light on the mixed findings. Methods: We conducted a keyword search in select online databases. The initial search identified 196 unique potential articles. Only articles describing an original empirical study, published in a peer-reviewed journal through 2016, that used quantitative methods to examine factors that predict some aspect of the CJS response, with actual data on the CJS response, and that included race as an independent variable, were eligible for inclusion. Database searches, combined with the author’s knowledge of the available literature, and reference checking, yielded a final sample of 38 articles that met all inclusion criteria. Each article was coded for its sample, outcome of interest, race measures, race data source, use of theory, race findings, and the extent to which the race findings were discussed. Results: Studies varied in how they conceptualized and coded race, as well as their use of theory in guiding their investigation of race. Such differences were linked to the extent to which race was a focal variable, germane to the articulated research question(s). Differences in how race was operationalized and coded provide insight into disparate findings. However, some findings are not disparate at all, as different studies are interested in different aspects of the CJS response and it is quite possible that individuals with different racial identities are treated more or less preferentially across different points in the CJS. Conclusions and Implications: The findings call attention to the importance of being deliberate when deciding how to include race as a variable in research, as well as the importance of fully grounding new findings in their broader context. How we define constructs of interest impact how we define problems, and thus potential solutions.