Date of Award

5-2019

Degree Type

Honors College Thesis

Department

Criminal Justice

First Advisor

Joshua Hill, Ph.D.

Advisor Department

Criminal Justice

Abstract

Risk assessments in the sports security domain are generally accepted as objective reports with a small margin of subjective information included. The researcher interviewed 10 risk professionals in the sports security industry to evaluate and compare the handling of objective information such as statistical data and historical reports to expert judgment. Interviews were examined using a grounded theory methodology with the Atlas T.I. software program to create overarching themes and a theory of the roles of objective and subjective information within security discourse. Findings pointed to a heavy reliance on expert opinion in comparison to data reports. A moderate amount of subjectivity is beneficial for decision-making because the evaluator can draw conclusions that either support or reject previous notions based on their own judgements (Park, Peacey, Munafo, 2014). Using an acceptable amount of subjectivity allows the evaluator to consider the information provided by other evaluators and weigh the quality of that information to formulate their own conclusions based on both the knowledge provided and their own ideas (Park, Peacey, Munafo, 2014). The risk assessment process takes into account a larger degree of subjectivity than what is deemed ideal by Park, Peacey, and Munafo (2014). By doing so, sports evaluators are more likely to generate false hypotheses and misappropriate risks and mitigation tactics.

Included in

Criminology Commons

Share

COinS