New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Research Methods in criminal justice

by: miami305

Research Methods in criminal justice CCJ 4700

Marketplace > Florida International University > Criminal Justice > CCJ 4700 > Research Methods in criminal justice
GPA 3.72
View Full Document for 0 Karma

View Full Document


Unlock These Notes for FREE

Enter your email below and we will instantly email you these Notes for Research Methods in Criminal Justice

(Limited time offer)

Unlock Notes

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Unlock FREE Class Notes

Enter your email below to receive Research Methods in Criminal Justice notes

Everyone needs better class notes. Enter your email and we will send you notes for this class for free.

Unlock FREE notes

About this Document

These notes cover chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6
Research Methods in Criminal Justice
Dr. Meldrum
Study Guide
Criminal Justice




Popular in Research Methods in Criminal Justice

Popular in Criminal Justice

This 13 page Study Guide was uploaded by miami305 on Tuesday January 12, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to CCJ 4700 at Florida International University taught by Dr. Meldrum in Winter 2015. Since its upload, it has received 79 views. For similar materials see Research Methods in Criminal Justice in Criminal Justice at Florida International University.

Similar to CCJ 4700 at FIU

Popular in Criminal Justice


Reviews for Research Methods in criminal justice


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 01/12/16
CCJ  4700     •   “more  children  using  marijuana”  CNN  title   •   1.  how  were  “children”  defined?   •   2.  More?   •   3.  Time  frame?  One  year.     •   4.  Data  collection?  Ages  of  12  to  17.  Marijuana  increased  of  9%  from   2008  to  2009.  In  2008,  6.7%  of  12-­‐17  children  used  marijuana.  In  2009   7.4%  did.  It  was  an  increase  in  marijuana  use,  but  it  wasn’t  a  dramatic   change   •   5.  Recruitment?   •   NSDUH:  national  survey  of  drug  use  health.  It’s  a  survey   •   ACASI:  survey  you  do  online.     CHAPTER  1&2,  SCIENTIFIC  INQUIRY  AND  THEORY  IN  SOCIAL  SCIENCE   RESEARCH   •   Experiential  reality:  the  things  we  know  from  direct  experience.     •   Agreement  reality:  the  things  we  consider  to  be  real  because  we  have   been  told  so,  and  everyone  seems  to  believe  they  are.     •   Empirical  research:  research  based  on  experience  or  observations.   •   Scientists  have  to  meet  criteria  before  agreeing  on  something  they   haven’t  experienced.  An  assertion  must  have  logical  and  empirical   support,  it  must  make  sense  and  agree  with  observations.     •   Epistemology:  the  science  of  knowing   •   Methodology:  the  science  of  finding  out.   •   Personal  inquiry  (day  to  day)  :   •   Tradition:  things  that  everyone  knows,  but  that  sometimes  can  be   inaccurate  (e.g,  the  earth  is  flat)  (e.g.  crimes  are  committed  only  by   people  in  lower  classes)   •   Authority:  we  tend  to  believe  to  things  told  by  us  by  individuals  who   are  in  position  for  power  ,  even  if  they’re  not  expert  in  the  subject.     •   The  believing  in  both  of  them  can  lead  to  mistakes  and  assumptions.     ERRORS  WE  MAKE  IN  EVERYDAY  REASONING   1.  Inaccurate  observations:  we’re  sloppy  observers  of  everyday  life.  We   don’t  pay  attention  to  some  details.  We  tend  to  generalize.     2.  Overgeneralization:  form  opinion  based  on  anecdotal  evidence,   evidence  accumulated  basing  on  our  personal  data,  rather  that  on   specific  data.     •   Scientific  lifeguard:  have  lot  of  observations  to  base  our  conclusion  on.   Replication:  repeating  a  study  with  different  people  and  se tting  to  see   if  we  get  the  same  results.     3.  Selective  observations:  we  focus  on  specific  events  in  the  past  and  we   ignore  other  event.  E.g.  Racial/ethnic  prejudices.  Limited  interaction   with  people.  E.g.  parents  and  their  view  of  their  kids  compared  to  how   they  see  their  kids.   •    Scientific  lifeguard:  making  non-­‐selective  observations  and  not   ignoring  some  of  them   4.  Illogical  reasoning:  the  belief  that  an  observation  is  an  exception  to   the  rule.  The  gambler’s  fallacy:  I’ve  lost  9  times  in  a  row,  I’ll  win  next   time.  False,  every  time  is  the  exact  same  odds.  E.g.  Resetting  effect:   thieves  believe  if  they’ve  just  be  caught  in  something,  they  wont  be   caught  next  time.  False,  the  odds  of  being  caught  are  always  the  same.     •   Scientific  lifeguard:  use  of  theories  to  guide  researches.     5.  Ideology  and  politics:  this  can  bias  our  understanding  of  things.  We   might  have  certain  believes  in  religion/politics  etc.  that  can  make  it   difficult  to  be  objective  in  everyday  life.     •   Scientific  lifeguard:  peer  review  helps  to  minimize  biases .       2   FOUNDATIONS  OF  RESEARCH  AND  INQUIRY   •   Scientific  inquiry  is  logic-­‐empirical:     -­‐   3  foundations:  the  systematic  use  of  logic  (theory);  observation  (data   collection);  and  data  analysis.   •   Scientific  inquiry  wants  to  find  probabilistic  patterns  of  regularity,  not   deterministic  patterns.     •   Not  every  observation  fit  the  pattern  for  the  pattern  to  be  valid.  The   key  thing  is  saying:  more  likely  to,  NOT  WILL.  If  99  people  fit,  the   pattern  can  be  taken  seriously.  Not  everyone  has  to  fit   •   There  is  a  focus  on  aggregates  (groups  of  people)  rather  than  on   individuals.   DIFFERENT  PUPOSES  OF  RESEARCH   •   Exploration:  the  need  to  study  of  evaluate  new  policies,  laws  of   phenomena.     -­‐   Do  gay  couples  have  lower  divorce  rates?     •   Description:  simple  counting  and  documenting.     •   Explanation:  theory  testing,  every  time  you  want  to  explain  an   outcome  you  have  causes  (generating  the  outcome).   -­‐   Why  do  some  people  commit  more  crime  than  others?     •   Evaluation:  evaluating  the  effective  of  polices,  programs  etc.     •   Is  the  DARE  program  effective?     •   Prediction:  using  what  we  know  about  the  past  to  predict  something   about  the  future.     DIFFERING  AVENUES  FOR  INQUIRY   •   ideographic  vs  nomothetic  approaches.   •   Ideographic:  developing  a  complete  understanding  of  the  reasons  why   a  particular  event  happened.  Understanding  for  a  unique  case  or   event.     -­‐   E.g.  seeking  to  understand  why  a  specific  person  committed  suicide.     •   Nomothetic:  explaining  a  class  of  events  rather  than  a  single  event.     •   E.g.  explaining  50  mass  shooting.     •   Inductive  vs  deductive  reasoning   3   •   Inductive:  theory  building,  moving  from  a  set  of  observations  to  reach   a  conclusion  about  patterns  in  the  observation.     •   Deductive:  theory  testing,  moving  from  an  expect  pattern  to  making   observations  to  confirm  or  not  the  expected  pattern.     •   Quantitative  vs  qualitative  data   •   Quantitative:  observations  are  numerical,  easy  to  statistically  analyze.   Empirical  data  that  is  numerical.   •   Qualitative:  descriptive  narration  of  something.  Non -­‐numerical.     THE  PLACE  OF  THEORY  IN  RESEARCH   •   A  paradigm  is  a  fundamental  model  that  organizes  our  view  of  some   social  phenomena.   •   Spiritualism  vs  naturalism.   •   Spiritualistic  explanation,  of  why  people  committed  the  crime,  it  was   the  devil.  For  ages  they  believed  the  spiritualistic  explanations.     •   Naturalism,  there  are  naturalistic  explanations  for  why  people  commit   crimes   •   People  are  inherently  good  vs  people  are  inherently  bad.     •   A  theory  is  a  logical  interrelated  set  of  propositions  (hypothesis)  about   empirical  reality.     •   Theoretical  constructs:  the  factors  that  the  theory  emphasizes.  The   concepts  that  a  theory  directs  our  attention  to.     •   For  a  theory  to  be  useful  it  has  to  be  falsifiable:  we  have  to  be  able  to   put  the  theory  to  the  test  and  collect  data.  We  have  to  test  it  and  see   if  the  claims  are  valid  or  not.     •   A  hypothesis  is  a  statement  that  anticipates  the  relationship  between   theoretical  constructs.  We  test  hypothesis  to  determine  the  validity  of   a  theory.  Hypothesis  are  sets  of  “if”  and  “then”  statements.     •   When  we  collect  data  to  test  a  hypothesis,  we  do  a   hypothesis  testing:   •   The  research  hypothesis  is  an  affirmative  statement  of  an  expected   relationship  between  variables.  (H1)   •   The  null  hypothesis  is  a  statement  referring  to  a  result  that  would  run   counter  to  the  anticipated  relationship  between  variables  (H0).     4   MEASURING  THEORETICAL  CONSTRUCTS   •   Variable:  the  eye  color.  Anything  we  can  measure  that  takes  on   distinct  characteristics  or  properties.  Hair  color,  age,  height,  money   someone  makes.     •   Criminological  examples  of  variables:  criminal  (how  much  someone  is   a  criminal),  self  control,  depression,  neighborhood.     •   Attribute,  the  different  characteristics.   •   When  the  purpose  of  research  is  description,  we  are  largely  just   talking  about  the  distribution  of  attributes  on  one  or  more  variables.     •   The  US  census     •   When  the  purpose  of  research  is  explanation,  we  see  if  there  is  a   relationship  between  the  attributes  for  two  different  variables.     •   Frequency  of  attending  class  and  grades     DIFFERENT  TYPES  OF  VARIABLES   •   Independent  variable  (IV):  something  we  believes  explains  the   occurrence  of  something  else.     •   the  attributes  for  an  IV  are  believed  to  cause  the  attributes  for   another  variable.     •   Dependent  variable  (DV):  the  thing  that  we  are  trying  to  explain.   Attendance  and  grades:  grades  are  the  DV,  and  attendance  the  IV.     •   Explain  wining  football  games?  If  they  trained  in  the  rain  more  often,   that  would  be  a  dependent  variable.  Body  weight?  Calories,  height,   genetics       •   There  are  different  ways  of  thinking  about  the  relation  between   independent  variable  and  dependent  variable:   •   IV  à  DV   •   Cause  à  effect   •   X  à  Y   •   Y=  f(X)the  DV  is  a  result  of  the  functioning  on  the  IV.   5   •   Examples  of  DV/IV  relationships     •   Class  attendance  à+à  good  grades  (if  you  attend  class  more  often,  you   attend  higher  grades.  More  brings  to  something  more)   •   Self  control  à  -­‐  à  delinquency  (less  delinquency)   •   Effective  parenting  à  -­‐  à    alcohol  abuse  (more  parenting  brings  to  less   alcohol  use)   •   Smoking  à  +  à  lung  cancer.     •   Mediating  variable:  why  an  IV  has  a  influence  on  a  DV.   •   Mediating:  comes  between.     •   Self  control  à  +  à  class  attendance  à  +  à  grades.  Class  attendance:   variable.  Why  does  self  control  have  better  grades?  Because  they’re   more  likely  to  attend  class,  and  as  a  consequence  to  have  better  grades.   Mediated  by  the  class  attendance.     •   HIV  status  à  +  à  AIDS  status  à  +  à  early  death.  HIV  itself  doesn’t   cause  death,  but  the  fact  that  if  we  have  HIV  we  get  AIDS  does.  AIDS   mediates.     •   Moderating  variable:  a  variable  that  alters  or  modify  how  an  IV   influences  a  DV.  It  doesn’t  come  in  between,  it  changes  it.  When  taking   drugs,  if  we  drink  alcohol  we  are  more  likely  to  be  drowsy.  Alcohol   changes  the  way  drugs  act  on  us.     •   Experiencing  discrimination,  committing  delinquency  is  moderated  by   social  support  form  parents.  Two  people,  one  of  them  has  a  lot  of   parents  support  and  the  other  lives  with  his  family  but  he  doesn’t  have  a   good  relationship  with  his  parents.  The  first  person  is  least  likely  to   commit  delinquency  because  he  has  an  open  relationship  with  his   parents,  they  can  moderate  and  change  the  way  he  think s.       ILLUSTRATING  THEORETICAL  RELATIONSHIP   Fig.1.     6   INTERACTION  OF  THEORY,  RESEARCH,  AND  CJ  POLICIES  AND  PRGRAMS   •   Many  CJ  policies  and  programs  have  theoretical  foundations:     CHAPTER  5     •   A  concept  is  a  mental  image  that  summarizes  a  set  of  similar   observations,  feelings  or  ideas.  We  can  think  of  an  ide a,  but  until   we  decide  to  make  choices  of  how  we  want  to  explain  this   concept,  is  a  mental  image.  The  concept  of  love:  we  can’t  see  it,   but  we  can  think  of  it.  The  concept  of  machiavelism  and  of  self-­‐ control.     •   Conceptualization:  the  process  of  specifying  what  is  meant  by  a   term  by  transforming  mental  images  into  something  definable.   Defining  what  love  is.  Specify  what  is  meant  by  the  term  love.     •   Conceptual  definition:  the  working  definition  of  a  concept.  This  is   part  of  the  process  of  conceptualization.     •   Concepts  can  be  unidimensional  (only  one  aspect)  or   multidimensional  (having  multiple  aspects).   •   An  operation  is  the  procedure  for  measuring  the  concepts;  the   identification  of  a  value  of  a  variable.   •   Operationalization:  the  process  of  specifying  the  operations   (measures)  that  will  indicate  the  value  of  a  variable.  The  can   measure  love  with  a  survey  about  how  warm  they  are  with  their   loved  ones.  Ex,  love,  machiavelism  (manipulate  others  for  personal   game),  self-­‐control.   •   Operational  definition:  the  specific  wording  or  procedure  used  to   measure  a  concept.  This  is  part  of  the  process  of   operationalization.     •   Indicator:  the  question  or  other  operation  used  to  indicate  the   value  of  cases  on  a  variable.     7   •   Measurement  choices:     •   Use  of  available  data:  URC  data,  local  police  records,  census  data   etc.     •   Constructing  survey  questions:  encompass  public  opinion  polls.   Placing  people  in  the  scenario  and  they  see  how  they  would  react.     •   Making  direct  observations:  in  laboratory  environments  of  other   settings  physically  observing  someone’s  behavior.     •   Collect  unobtrusive  measures:  physical  trace  evidence;  archives;   simple  observations;  contrived  observation.     •   Exhaustiveness:  the  measurement  of  a  variable  must  include  all   possible  attributes.  We  must  be  able  to  classify  every  observation.   Ex,  survey  on  someone’s  occupation:  we  could  leave  a  blan k  space   and  let  them  write  it  down.  Then  someone  would  have  to  read   them  all  and  classify  them.  Or  they  could  provide  25  categories.   The  only  problem  is  if  the  survey  maker  doesn’t  provide  enough   categories  and  people  get  confused,  and  they  would  check  a  wrong   one  or  decide  not  to  respond.     •   Exclusiveness:  each  attribute  for  a  variable  should  be  mutually   exclusive  from  every  other  attribute.  Ex:  what’s  your  college  GPA?   The  options  provided  have  to  mutually  exclusive.  Ex:  0   –  1.00.  1.01-­‐   2.00.  2.01—3.00.  2.50-­‐3.50.  this  is  wrong  because  we  have  two   categories  that  overlap  each  other.  It  is  not  accurate.   •   4  different  levels  of  measurement:     •   1,  nominal.  Attributes  for  a  variable  have  no  inherent  hierarchy  or   order.  Ex,  gender,  race,  panther  ID,  crime  type.  The  a ttributes  can’t   be  ranked  as  more  or  less  than  something.  There’s  no  more  or  less.     •   2,  ordinal:  attributes  can  be  logically  ranks  –  there  can  be  ‘more’  or   ‘less’  of  something.    Ex,  education,  support  for  the  death  penalty.     •   3,  interval:  attributes  can  be  ranked  AND  the  distance/difference   betwee  attributes  is  assumed  to  be  equal.  Ex,  IQ  score,   8   temperature.  Comparing  someone  who  has  an  IQ  of  90  and  one  of   100,  is  the  same  thing  as  comparing  someone  who  has  an  IQ  of  100   and  one  with  110.     •   4,  ratio:  attributes  can  be  ranked  AND  the  distance  between   attributes  is  equal  AND  there  is  a  true  zero  value  starting  point.  Ex,   income,  age.  They  can  all  start  with  0.     •   Reliability:  when  a  measure  yields  consistent  scores  or   observations  on  different  occasions  or  in  differ ent  ways   •   Reliability  can  be  assessed  when  something  is  measured:   repeatedly     •   ways  to  assess  reliability:   •   1,  test-­‐retest  reliability:  measuring  something  at  multiple  points  in   time  to  see  if  you  get  the  same  result.  Ex,  asking  college  students   to  report  their  GPA.  You  always  get  the  same  answers  over  and   over  again.     •   2,  interrater  reliability:  having  multiple  people  record  the  same   measurements.  Ex,  to  the  extent  that  multiple  raters  provide  the   same  score,  this  suggests  reliability.     •   3,  internal  consistency:  using  multiple  indicators  to  measure  a   single  concept.  is  there  a  consistent  pattern  in  responses?  Ex.   Strong  internal  consistency:  when  the  answers  are  all  ‘strongly   agree’  or  ‘agree’.  Weak  internal  consistency:  when  the  answers  are   all  different  ‘strongly  disagree’  ‘disagree’  ‘agree’  ‘strongly  agree’.   •   4,  split-­‐half  reliability:  splitting  items  intended  to  measure  a  single   concept  into  two  samples  to  see  if  the  average  scores  across  the   two  samples  ae  similar.  Used  in  exploratory  research.  ex,  we  have   16  items.  we  can  split  them  into  8  (1-­‐8)  and  8  (9-­‐16).     •   5,  false  measures  reliability:  inserting  items  into  questionnaires   concerning  behavior  that  is  non-­‐existent,  suggesting  the  reliability   of  other  items  on  a  survey  could  be  in  jeopardy.  If  people  say   9   they’ve  done  something  it  doesn’t  exist,  then  we  realize  that  their   other  responses  may  not  be  reliable.     •   Assessing  measurement  validity:   •   Measurement  validity:  when  a  measure  measures  what  it  is   presumed  to  measure.  Ex,  in  the  BMI  (body  mass  index)  a  valid  way   to  measure  someone’s  overall  health  risk?     •   1,  face  validity:  does  the  measure  seem  to  be  a  reasonable  w ay,  on   its  face,  to  measure  a  concept?     •   2,  criterion-­‐related  validity:  comparing  a  measure  to  some  external   source  (criteria).  Ex,  the  SAT  and  GPA.   •   3,  construct  validity:  when  a  particular  variable  is  related  to  other   theoretical  variable  as  expected.  Is  like  testing  a  theory.     •   4,  content  validity:  the  extent  to  which  a  variable  encompasses  the   concept  you  are  trying  to  measure.     •   5,  multiple  measure  validity:  comparing  an  individual  measure  to   alternative  sources  of  the  same  concept.  Ex,  compare   observational  rater  scores  of  child  aggression  to  maternal  reports   of  child  aggression.     •   Composite  measures  in  research:   •   Composite  measure:  using  multiple  indicators  to  measure  a  single   concept.     •   1,  typology:  combine  together  the  data  from  two  or  more  variables   to  create  a  set  of  types  for  comparison.   •   2,  index:  averaging  together  scores  on  different  items  to  create  an   overall  single  score.   •   3,  variety  index:  specific  to  measuring  delinquency/crime,  is  the   sum  total  of  the  number  of  different  acts  someone  reports.       CHAPTER  6   10   THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  CRIMINAL  BEHAVIOR     DELIQUENCY  VS  CRIME  VS  STATUS  OFFENSES   •   Delinquency:  acts  defined  as  violations  of  law  by  individuals  under  the   age  of  18  years  old.     •   Crime:  acts  defined  as  violations  of  law  by  individuals  who  are  at  least   18  years  old   •   Status  offense:  underage  drinking.  Acts  defined  as  violations  of  law   because  of  the  status  of  individuals  committing  the  act.  When  you’re   not  18  and  you  run  away  from  home.     •   Criminal  offense:  individual  act  that  can  result  in  a  charge  for  a  crime   having  been  committed   •   Criminal  incident:  one  or  more  offenses  committed  within  the  same   place  and/or  time.     PURPOSES  OF  MEASURING  CRIME   •   Monitoring:  tracking  trends  across  time  and  space.     •   Agency  accountability:  stand  and/or  federal  funding  is  often  tied  to   reporting  requirements.  You  have  to  demonstrate  its  effectiveness   when  you  want  to  start  using  a  new  program.   •   Research:  establishing  cause  and  effect  relationships:  what  predicts   delinquency/crime?     MEASURING  CRIMINAL  BEHAVIOUR       •   1,  official  police  records.     •   A.  crime  known  to  the  police:   •   we  consider  the  data  can  be  reliable  if  a  crime  is  reported  or   discovered  by  the  police.  Homicide  data  is  reliable.     •   Poor  data  resource  is  a  crime  often  goes  undetected  by  the  police     •   Officers  sometimes  have  discretion  in  deciding  to  arrest  someone  or   not.   •   Dark  figure  of  crime:  when  crimes  are  not  reported  to  the  police.  DUI.   30%  of  the  population  is  not  being  arrested  for  drinking  and  driving.       11   •   B,  FBI  Uniform  Crime  Report  (UCR)     •   Started  in  1930  and  includes  a  limited  number  of  crime  types.     •   Provides  a  summary-­‐based  measure  of  criminal  behavior:  no  information   is  presented  on  individual  offenders.  (on  groups  on  people)   •   Produced  on  a  semi-­‐annual  basis.     •   States  vary  on  definition  of  UCR,  which  is  many  crimes  are  not  reported   to  them.     •   Part  1  offenses  (  index  crimes):  reported  to  the  police,  arrest  doesn’t   have  to  be  included  in  calculation  of  crime  rates.  Violent  rate:  murder,   sexual  battery  (rape),  robbery,  aggravated  assault.  Property:  burglary,   larceny  (theft),     •   Part  2  offenses:  less  serious  offenses  like  vandalism,  DUI.  If  there  is  no   arrest,  then  the  offense  is  not  included  in  the  published  UCR  statistics.       DATA  QUALITY  ISSUES  WITH  THE  UCR   •   THE  HIERARCHY  RULE:   •   Only  the  most  serious  offense  in  a  given  incident  is  recorded.     •   Not  all  police  agencies  report  data  to  the  FBI.  95%  of  agencies  report   to  them.   •   Procedures  for  data  collection  and  reporting  vary  across  jurisdictions   (lack  of  consistency)     •   Changes  in  crime  rates  may  reflect  changes  in  reporting  pr actices,  not   actual  change  sin  crime.  Changes  in  reporting  the  crime  doesn’t  have   to  be  a  change  in  behavior.  There  was  a  change  in  the  definition  of   sexual  assault,  not  because  of  a  change  of  behavior.     •   Clerical  errors,  staff  turnover,  database  limitation s.       12   WAYS  TO  MEASURE  CRIME:  1.  OFFICIAL  POLICE  RECORDS     •   C.  FBI  Supplement  homicide  Report  (SHR)   •   Started  in  1961,  detailed  information  for  individual  and  specific  crime  of   homicide.     •   Victim  info,  offender  info,  weapon  used,  relationship  between  victim  and   offender,  time  and  location.  Stranger  homicide/homicide  between   people  who  knew  each  other.       13  


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

0 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.