Is Criminological Theory Facing Its Problems?

A Thematic Content Analysis*

(Does Facing Our Problems Mean

a New Face for Criminology?)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a survey item which asked members of ASC to identify the two or three biggest problems facing the discipline of criminology. Recent literature in the discipline is examined to assess the extent to which these problems are actually being addressed. The results of these content analyses are then explored and discussed within the context of historical critiques of theory and the discipline and in relation to the need for a new “meta-theory” in the discipline. Last, Integral Theory is offered as a new model for addressing the problems and for moving the discipline forward.

Introduction

Throughout the history of criminology, a recurrent question has been “what is wrong with criminological theory?” The persistent (and necessary, we would add) raising of this question has led to a rather wide range of literature critically analyzing the state of theory, that spans the various developmental periods for the discipline. A review of this literature identified three predominant and persistent critical themes: criminological theories are not scientific enough; theory in criminology is too narrow and too empirical; and, criminology is too tied to criminal justice.

The study to be reported here examines these themes as they relate to current perceptions about the state of criminological theory and also within the context of the recent publication trends in the discipline.

Literature Review

An overview of each of the dominant critical themes is presented below.

Criminology Needs to be More Scientific

For at least the last 30 years, the dominant interpretation of the main problem with criminological theory (and the discipline more generally) is that we have been unable and/or unwilling to fully and consistently apply the methods of science and formal theory construction (see for example Gibbs, 1972, 1985, 1987; Tittle, 1985; McCord, 1989, 1990, 1992; Leavitt, 1999). This inability/unwillingness has resulted in a dearth of adequate data and subsequently has manifested as a failure to develop functional and valid criminological theories.

Gibbs (1987) concluded that “…criminological theories will remain defective until criminologists adopt formal theory construction” (p. 821), meaning using the standard logic and methods of science. Expressing the same sentiment, Gottfredson (1989) called for “…increased attention to some fundamental tenets of scientific theory building” (p. 1), and McCord (1989) noted that we have “…paid too little attention to the requirements of legitimacy for theories not cast in the mold of logical positivism” (p. 139). Echoing Tittle’s (1985) earlier concern over a continued lack of science in our theory development, Braithwaite (1990) observed that “criminology as a science has failed to put us in a position to say sensible empirically informed (emphasis added) things ….” (p. 163).

As further evidence of this position, we can look at the series Advances in Criminological Theory, which is offered as cutting edge observations about the state of theory and thinking in criminology. Volumes Three (McCord, 1992), Facts, Frameworks, and Forecasts, and Four (Adler & Laufer, 1993), New Directions in Criminological Theory, read like odes to empiricism, with the fundamental theme being, “if we could just be more empirical and practice better science/measurement, we would have better theories.”

Leavitt (1999), despite his observation that the discipline has made “considerable progress toward scientific status” since 1950, still despairs of our inability to develop “…high-powered, closely reasoned, carefully stated, and empirically buttressed theories…” (p. 390). Concurring with Gibbs (1972, 1985), Leavitt characterizes much of the theoretical work done since the 1950s as “discursive,” referring to the work as “…flabby arguments filled with provocative but fuzzy ideas” (p.390). Leavitt’s solution to this sad state of affairs certainly is not for criminology to become more artistic.

In summary, this position advocates that for criminology to “do better” and “be better” is synonymous with being more scientific (in the most traditional sense of the concept). Gottfredson (1989) characterizes the position quite well, quoting Mark Twain, who said that “he liked the scientific method so much that he wished scientists would use it more often” (p. 2).

Criminology Is Too Narrow and Too Empirical

Above, it was established that there is a long-standing concern in criminology over the discipline not being “scientific” enough and an accompanying advocacy for moving toward a more empirical orientation. There are some, however, who have argue just the opposite, that criminology and criminal justice have become mired in very narrow and incomplete views of the world and approaches to addressing the problem of crime in our society (see for example Pepinsky & Quinney, 1991; Martin, 1993, 2000; Williams, 1999; Gibbs, Giever & Pober, 2000). This myopic vision of the world is often attributed, at least in large part, to an over-reliance on scientific methodology, as it has been traditionally defined.

Williams (1984), using Mills (1959) as a model, identifies the “lack of criminological imagination” as one of the three factors that have been instrumental in narrowing the discipline. He further observes that this lack of imagination “…can be largely traced to the increasing ‘empirical scientism’ of the social sciences” (p. 96).This heavy reliance on narrow empiricism creates a “tautological position,” in which knowledge comes to be equated primarily (if not exclusively) with that which is measured. Williams (p. 97) laments that we in criminology “…have followed the ‘hard’ sciences into an alley where we are more concerned with measurement itself” than with the substance of that being measured. He warns against the danger of allowing the methodological tools to overshadow their own purpose.

Nils Christie (1997) attributes the “triviality of our findings” to “over socialization to expectations created by science” (p. 13). Williams (1999) offers a similar observation when he characterizes many in the social sciences as “treetop fliers.” These are theorists/researchers who skim over the top of their subject but never touch down to explore what lies beneath. Williams’s characterization highlights what seems to be a pervasive confusion over what constitutes the acquisition of more complete knowledge. Referring to the “treetop fliers,” their position is that complete knowledge is equated with being able to fly over all of the trees. There are, however, two fundamental problems with the “treetop flying” conceptualization of complete knowledge: 1) actually being able to find all of the trees; and, 2) assuming that one vantage point (i.e., traditional science) on these trees provides sufficient and complete information (e.g., how can one see or understand the root structure by a fly-over?).

Williams (1984) says that it is the first problem, the inability to find all of the data, that ironically “…brings about the reification of scientism” (p.97). The failure of empiricism to provide all of the data (i.e., more complete understanding) is not, as it should be, interpreted as a limitation of the methods. Rather, a vicious cycle is put into motion. Scientism harbors and promotes the belief that, when we cannot adequately measure something, one of three things must be occurring. Either more specificity is needed (i.e., the phenomenon needs to be broken down into smaller parts), or the measuring instruments have failed, both of which push for heightened emphasis on the scientific enterprise (Williams, 1984). Or, third, it is determined that things which cannot be (empirically) measured must not actually be real (Wilber, 1980). Rather than raising questions about the limitations of our vision and approaches to gathering information, all three interpretations serve to more firmly entrench the narrow empirical mind-set. It is hard to topple a belief structure that so effectively explains away its own failures.

In short, from this perspective, the main obstacles to the development of valid criminological theory (and more effective crime policy) are the facts that criminology is characterized by an “overweening emphasis on quantitative, statistical analysis and the strong tendency toward disciplinary reductionism” (Williams, 1999, p. 75).

Criminology is Too Tied to the CJS

The third theme relating to the problems with criminology is that it has become too closely associated with criminal justice. This factor also can be related to the issue of narrowness. Some believe that this partnership has had a limiting impact on the discipline, diverting attention and energy away from other appropriate and necessary subject matter.

In 1978, Donald Cressey published an article in which he assessed predictions that he had made, ten years prior, about the future of criminology. He stated that what he had not foreseen was that “…criminology would become more and more concerned with increasing the efficiency of a punitive legal apparatus and less and less concerned with trying to discover the processes generating the criminals to be punished and the laws and personnel doing the punishing” (p. 174). Cressey expressed dismay that criminology appeared to be favoring policy making over attempts to explain crime and law making, and he rather unceremoniously characterized the typical criminologist at the time as a “…technical assistant to politicians bent on repressing crime, rather than a scientist seeking valid propositions…” (p. 177).

In “The Demise of the Criminological Imagination,” Williams (1984) picked up on this same theme, identifying three main factors that were adversely affecting the discipline. The over reliance on empiricism, was discussed above, but also listed was the rise of the academic discipline of criminal justice. Williams attributes this rise to infusions of large sums of money (i.e., the Law Enforcement Assistance Act) to colleges and universities to address the crime problem, which resulted from increasing concerns over crime during the 1960s. These funds were used to develop departments of criminal justice. The primary focus of these departments became changing the crime control system to make it more efficient and effective, which was somewhat counter to the more basic theoretical interests that had typified criminology to this point. At the risk of sounding crass, to put it succinctly, it appears that criminology followed the money. As a result, “…the new discipline of criminal justice…‘usurped’ the topic of crime from criminology” (Williams, 1984, p. 100).

This commingling of traditional criminology with the new and more applied discipline of criminal justice created fissures and fractures within the discipline. To some, it now seemed that criminology was struggling to be all things to all people, leading to the observation that the discipline no longer knew its own limits (Nelken, 1994).[1] This state of affairs has prompted the characterization of criminology as “a fragmented field of inquiry” (Ericson & Carriere, 1994, p. 89). Furthermore, it is claimed that the response to this fragmentation has been that most criminologists have, for better or worse, identified with criminal justice (Ericson & Carriere, 1994; Nelken, 1994).

Adding support to this portrayal, Radzinowicz (1994) criticizes approaches to teaching criminology in the U.S., which he says “… is in danger of becoming isolated and confined to Schools of Criminal Justice” (p.100). Radzinowicz expresses concern over this situation because he believes that the more we concentrate on training justice personnel, the more we put our academic standards at risk of serious compromise.

It is apparent that some in the discipline are still concerned about the state of affairs that alarmed Cressey 25 years ago, when he observed that “the tragedy is in the tendency for modern criminologists to drop the search for causes and to join the politicians….these criminologists (which he numbered in the “hundreds”) seem satisfied with a technological criminology whose main concern is for showing policy makers how to repress criminals and criminal justice workers more efficiently” (1978, p. 179). It is true that there have been reactions (e.g., radical/analytical theories, feminist theory, peacemaking) within the discipline against a concentration on crime control. However, while these perspectives have gained some attention, they have not altered the status . (Of course, these postmodernist reactions have generated their own problems for the discipline, which may be why they ultimately were not the solution.)

Summary: Where Are We Now?

Clearly, there is a long history of discontent with the nature and state of the discipline of criminology and with its theories. There also is indication that the discontent has not dissipated in more recent years. However, there are questions about the nature and extent of the dissatisfaction that does exist. In an attempt to address these questions a survey of (North American) Criminologists was undertaken. The results of this survey are reported below, and then are discussed within the context of the historical concerns described above.

Methods and Procedures

Procedures

As part of a survey assessing the general state of theory in criminology (see Appendix A.), 750 members (20%) were randomly selected from the total number (n=3,652) of members listed in the directory of the American Society of Criminology (ASC). Surveys were mailed to these individuals in the spring of 2002.[2] The surveys were accompanied by a cover letter introducing the researchers, explaining the purpose of the study, and providing general information about survey completion. Approximately three weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up survey was mailed to those who had not responded. The final sample consisted of 241 respondents (a 33% response rate), which included academics, students, and practitioners.

Analysis and Results

Characteristics of the Respondents

The respondents to the survey were primarily academics with advanced degrees. The highest levels of education attained were: Ph.D. - 72.2% ( n = 174); Masters - 22.8% (n = 55); and, Bachelors - 2.9% (n = 7). The majority of the respondents are relatively new Ph.D.s, with 53.4% (n = 121) having earned their degree in the last ten years and another 21% (n = 63) in the past five years. The degrees earned were nearly evenly split between Criminology/ Criminal Justice (41.9%, n = 101) and Sociology (40.7%, n = 98). The remaining 17.4% (n = 42) of the respondents had degrees in Psychology, Political Science, or other discipline.

The bulk of the respondents (87%, n = 209) are affiliated with academic institutions, while only 13% (n = 31) reported affiliation with other agencies/institutions. The vast majority of respondents (93.7%, n = 196) are individuals who are teaching at or attending a graduate degree granting institution. Among these respondents, 94% (n = 186) indicated that their specific programs (i.e., Criminology/Sociology) offer graduate degrees. Forty-two percent (n = 79) are affiliated with programs whose highest degree is a Masters, and 58% (n = 107) state that their departments (or programs) grant Ph.D.s.

Problems Facing Criminology

As part of the survey, respondents were asked, via an open ended question (see item 11.), to “identify the two or three biggest problems/shortcomings that you think exist relevant to the current state of theory in criminology.” A thematic content analysis was conducted on the responses (n=180) to this item. Four raters reviewed the responses, developed their own themes, and classified all the responses. While a rather wide range of problems were identified, four dominant themes clearly surfaced (100% concordance). All four raters identified “lack of theoretical integration” and “too disconnected from or irrelevant to policy/practice” as the two most prevalent problems identified and “not scientific enough” and “too narrow/empirical” as the two next most frequent. There were some slight discrepancies about the relative positions of numbers one and two and numbers three and four. Based on composite ratings, the individual problems rank as follows: a lack of theoretical integration (identified by 31% of all respondents); theory is too disconnected from or irrelevant to policy/practice (25%); theory/the discipline is not “scientific enough” (21%); and finally, criminological theories are too narrow in their focus/too empirical (17%).

These problem themes were used as the basis for two related analyses, which are reported here: 1) The four problem themes are examined in relation to the three problem areas that have been traditionally identified in the literature. 2) The four problem themes are examined within the context of the publication trends in the discipline over the past five years.

The second analytical component was carried out by conducting a content analysis in which the main problem themes were used to classify articles, published in the top three journals, over the past five years. This analysis was conducted to assess the extent to which to the published work in the discipline is addressing the dominant problems facing the discipline. The top journals were identified by having the survey respondents rank their “top three journals (with one being the highest) for getting information about criminological theory” (see Appendix A., item 8.). The following strategy was used to determine the “top three” journals: each #1 ranking was worth 3 points, each #2 ranking was worth 2 points, and each #3 ranking was worth 1 point. A sum was then calculated for each journal. The three journals with the highest cumulative totals were Criminology (589), Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (187), and Justice Quarterly (171).

Survey Problem Themes in Relation to the Literature

Three of the four problem themes from the survey relate directly to the predominant and persistent critical themes from the literature. These relationships are explored below.

Lack of theoretical integration

The one survey theme that does not fit closely with those from the literature is “a lack of theoretical integration.” Starting in the mid 1980s, a fair amount has been written about theory integration in the criminology literature (see for example, Elliott, 1985; Farnworth, 1989; Hirschi, 1989; Liska, Krohn , & Messner, 1989; Einstadter & Henry, 1995; Akers, 1997; Barak, 1998; Lanier & Henry, 1998). However, the lack of integration has not, over the years, been presented as one of the predominating and consistent problems for the discipline. Consequently, we will not delve into the issues relating to this disciplinary shortcoming here, but refer the reader to the discussion in Martin et al. (2003) for a more detail.

Theory is too disconnected from or irrelevant to policy/practice

The identification of a disconnection from or irrelevancy to policy/practice as a central problem is somewhat the antithesis of the predominant historical criticism that “criminology is too tied to the CJS.” However, this discrepancy does highlight core area of concern and raises a very fundamental issue for the discipline, “what are we?” (or, what should we be?) The answer to this question, it would seem, should lie somewhere in the various descriptions of the discipline that have been offered, over the years.

The position advocating a clear and necessary distinction between and separation of criminology and criminal justice was outlined above. The crux of that position is that the focus of criminology should be the empirical search for the causes of criminal behavior, and this scientific enterprise should not be co-opted by concerns with crime control issues.

There have, however, been others who have described the discipline more broadly, specifically identifying an inherent relationship with criminal justice. Sutherland (1924), in the first edition of his seminal work Criminology, defined the then fledgling discipline as “…the body of knowledge regarding the social problem of crime. It includes information regarding the nature and extent of crime, and the policies used in dealing with crime and criminals” (p.11). Many years later, Blumstein (1993) said that criminology consists of “three principal constructs” that must be addressed in detail: crimes; influences; and, the instruments of the CJS. Most recently, Garland and Sparks (2002) noted that, in the broadest sense, criminology “consists of our organized ways of thinking and talking about crime, criminals, and crime control” (p. 192).

In his commentary, “Whither the Craft of Criminology,” Albert Reiss (1993) offered the following observation. “If I am permitted to doubt, I am skeptical that much can be done to reshape the course of theory and research in criminology precisely because of organizational and professional investments and constraints” (p. 512). In regard to the question posed above, “what are we?,” Reiss’ observation can be interpreted in several different ways. One end of the continuum is to acknowledge that criminology is best defined and most legitimate as an aspect of criminal justice. From this perspective, what criminologists should be doing is “…evaluating, monitoring, and collecting information about crime and criminal operations,” rather than “pretending” that they can answer more fundamental questions (Tannenbaum, 1992). At the other end of the spectrum would be the position of “Uh! Oh! Criminology is up the proverbial creek!” This view would be shared by those who see criminology as a more purely academic discipline, as a more pure social science with the primary mission of addressing questions about the causes of behavior, and as a discipline that should not be engaged in the highly politicized business of crime control. Lying somewhere in between these more extreme (i.e., narrow) views is the recognition and acknowledgement that some relationship between criminology and criminal justice is natural, appropriate, and necessary. (Although, some debate obviously may exist about the most legitimate form for that relationship.)

Nelken (1994) notes that part of what legitimizes criminology as a discipline is its promise to help solve the “social problem of crime.” Gibbs (1987) identified four major criminological questions, one of which is “what are the possible means of controlling criminality?” (p. 823). Similar to Nelken, he also acknowledges that, for a scientific enterprise to garner continued support, it must benefit someone other than scientists; it would seem to be obvious that much of criminology’s support stems from its attention to crime control. A more integral position such as this also would likely characterize criminology’s relationship with criminal justice as one of praxis. In other words, it is possible to see the relationship as being something other than and potentially more positive than “criminology as the handmaiden of the CJS, there only to do its bidding.” It may be that the association with the CJS is the vehicle through which criminology can fulfill its responsibility to engage in “right action.” It may be through such an interrelationship that criminology and criminal justice can become more integral.

On the most basic level and looking at the situation honestly and frankly, the issue of whether there should be a connection would seem to be moot at this point; there is. The real issue then becomes the nature and form that the relationship takes, which still has much to do with the underlying nature of criminology as a discipline. The CJS has an existence separate from criminology. The question for criminology is what form should it take to establish a separate but related existence with criminal justice. (It would seem to be counterproductive and even invalid to try to define criminology simply by denying its connections with criminal justice.)

Of course, if we accept that there is an inevitable and necessary relationship, it also would behoove us to keep in mind that we, in criminology, are actually involved in a high stakes game. It is the intricate relationship that we do have with the CJS that ups the stakes when we think about the functions and potential impact of criminological theories. “Virtually every policy or action taken regarding crime is based on some underlying theory or theories of crime. It is essential, therefore, to comprehend and evaluate the major theories of criminology, not only for the academic or research criminologist, but also for the educated citizen and the legal or criminal justice professional” (Akers, 1997, p.2). Also, Braithwaite (1990) observes that, “…policy failure is a failure of explanation; we cannot solve it by retreating from the need to explain” (p. 163). By the same token, we cannot side-step our responsibilities for helping to generate and implement just and fair policies and practices by hiding behind the narrow mantle of being an objective/empirical science.

As a science, criminology seeks to explain the etiology (origins) of crime and criminal behavior and the extent/distribution and nature of crime in society. It therefore, by definition, addresses a wide range of questions and/or problems relating to the causes of criminal behavior, the development of criminal law, methods of crime control, and the functioning of the criminal justice system. This is a rather broad and complex mission, which certainly puts criminology in a somewhat unique position relative to many of the other so called social sciences. It seems to us that rather than shrinking from this challenge and responsibility, we should embrace it and strive to develop new models that can accommodate the complexity. Given the responses that were obtained on the survey, it appears that we are not alone in this assessment.

Criminology is not scientific enough/Criminology is too narrow and too empirical

The final two identified problems will be discussed together because they represent two ends of the spectrum of criticism and concern in the discipline. The specific expressions of both of these areas of concern were somewhat diverse, but some basic themes did emerge. For “not scientific enough,” the crux of the disquiet seemed to relate to insufficient empirical tests/research and measurement/specification/data set problems. The “too narrow” complaint most often targeted things like an over-reliance on quantitative methods and data and/or a bias against qualitative methods.

Both of these areas of complaint have a substantial history in the discipline. Both were described, in some detail, above, and it seems unnecessary to cover the same ground again. The fact that two such diametrically opposed critical observations long have been and continue to be expressed harkens back to the question raised at the beginning of this section, “what should we be?” The persistence of this question and the consistent failure to arrive at a satisfactory answer clearly indicates that criminology as a discipline is still struggling to find its true identity; it is still developing and evolving. This fundamental issue is revisited in the discussion section.

Survey Problem Themes: Are They Being Addressed in the Literature?

A content analysis of the content/focus of articles published in the top three rated journals for getting information about criminological theory was conducted using the four problem themes (see Table 1.). This analysis was conducted to provide an assessment of the degree to which the published works are addressing the most critical issues facing the discipline of criminology (as defined by the respondents to the survey). As indicated above, the top three rated journals were: Criminology; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency; and, Justice Quarterly. The analysis was carried out on the articles (n=354) in all of the issues of each journal, for the past five years (1998-2002). Two raters independently rated the articles on whether or not they addressed, as a focus, each of the four problem themes. Concordance levels for three of the four themes averaged over 80%. For the fourth theme “not scientific enough,” the concordance level was just under 70%. In all cases of discordance, a third rater reviewed the article in question and

Table 1. The Extent to Which the Main Journals are Addressing the Major Problems

“N” and

“%”of articles addressing issues

Problems facing the discipline

Criminology

(N = 138)

JRCD

(N = 81)

JQ

(N = 135)

TOTAL

N = 354

Lack of Theoretical Integration

N = 5

3.6%

N = 3

3.7%

N = 4

2.9%

N = 12

3.4%

Lack of Connection between Theory and Policy

N = 5

3.6%

N = 2

2.5%

N = 1

.7%

N = 8

2.3%

Lack of Empirical Specification

N = 75

54%

N = 33

40.7%

N = 38

28.1%

N = 146

41.2%

The Discipline of Criminology is too narrowly focused

N = 6

4.3%

N = 10

12.3%

N = 9

6.7%

N = 25

7.1%

provided the determining rating. The number of articles examined for each of the three journals is as follows: Criminology (n = 138); Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (n = 81); and Justice Quarterly (n = 135).

From the analysis, it is clear that generally there is a sharp divergence between what the literature and the survey respondents identified as problems and apparent attempts to address them in the top rated journals. The only exception is Lack of Empirical Specification (Not Scientific Enough), which did receive a fair amount of attention in Criminology and JRCD. It is noteworthy that the two most often identified problems (Lack of Integration and Disconnection Between Theory and Policy) were the focus of only 12 and 8 articles respectively, or 5.6% of all of the articles. While these results do not provide a definitive measure, they do offer some food for thought about the extent to which we trying to address the problems within the discipline. Some broader and deeper implications of this analysis and that reported above are explored below.

Discussion and Conclusions

From the literature and from the results of the current survey, it would seem to be legitimate to conclude that there is some enduring, palpable, and relatively widespread discontent with the state of criminology and criminological theory. This discontent, however, wears many faces; the indictments take many, often inconsistent, forms. Some claim that the problems in criminology stem almost exclusively from a lack of attention to and application of the principles of science (and a fair amount of attention is being devoted to this in the current published works). Others assert that the problem is an over reliance on traditional science (i.e., “empirical scientism”), which has elevated the method above the subject matter and the questions. There are those who believe that the rise of criminal justice has greatly contributed to the demise of criminology. But, in contrast, others argue that it is this relationship that serves to legitimize criminology as a science, and the relationship must therefore be deepened and cultivated.

Just as they vary in type, the condemnations in the literature vary dramatically in their intensity. For some, “the present state of criminology is one of abject failure…” (Braithwaite, 1990, p. 163). Others see the discipline as fragmented and in a state of disarray. Still others couch their criticisms more in terms of a discipline that is somewhat misguided or going through a mild (and not to be unexpected) crisis in identity. The pervasiveness and varied forms of discontent, led Blumstein (1993) to conclude that criminology is “…an extremely sparse subspace of knowledge” in a “broad subspace of desired understanding” (p.475).

Somewhere buried under all of the criticisms, indictments and counter-indictments, teeth gnashing, hand wringing, pontificating, and exaggerations of death lies the discipline in its most current (inchoate) incarnation. Such an amorphous state of affairs invites a host of questions, one of the most fundamental of which is “what should criminology be(come)?” Or, as Pavarini (1994) puts it, is what we have been doing still useful (i.e., business as usual, only more), or do we need a “different image of criminology?” (p. 46).

Our response to this fundamental question is that “more of what got us here” is not the solution; we are in dire need of a different image. A good illustration of this is the results from the journal content analysis that were reported above. If we look at the work currently being published, what we find is generally more-and-more of the same, and the problem that dominates our attention is “how can we be better at doing this.” It seems to us to be an unwise and stagnating (one of the other problems that has surfaced in the literature and that also came up on the survey) to, by default or by design, run head-long down the same road that apparently has not taken us to where we need or want to be. Doing more of what we have always done is not necessarily progress. Rather, such a strategy amounts to confusing expanding surface or span with increased depth of knowledge/understanding. In simple terms, it is the mis-equating of knowing more (and often incrementally so) with knowing better or more fully, with a deeper understanding. This relates back to our discussion of “treetop fliers,” in the section on criminology being too empirical/narrow. One of our central points there bears repeating, that it is the inability to find all of the data, that ironically “…brings about the reification of scientism” (Williams, 1984, p.97). The failure of empiricism to provide all of the data is not interpreted as a limitation of the methods. Instead a non-efficacious cycle of “scientism” is put into motion, which, rather than raising questions about the limitations of our vision and approaches for gathering information, serves to more firmly entrench the narrow empirical mind-set. If this is the case, then our attempts to improve empirical specification may actually amount to looking harder in the wrong place, or probably more accurately to not looking in all of the necessary places.

As a caveat to the above points, we also would raise the old adage about “not throwing the baby out with the bath.” In other words, the concern over maintaining scientific rigor is legitimate and essential. Our issue with this is that generally, when the “not scientific enough” criticism is leveled, it is based in shallow (as opposed to a deep) science (this issue is discussed further below).

Three of the four main problems identified on the survey are receiving almost no attention in the our current efforts. This could be indicative of several things: 1) They are not really problems and therefore require no attention. 2) They are perceived as problems by some, but not for those who publish in the main journals and/or not by those who decide what gets published therein. 3) They are problems, but we are at a loss as to how to address them with our current disciplinary vision. Coupling the current survey results with the literature would seem to support that these problems are real. Given that, it seems likely that the current state of affairs is the result of some mixture 2. and 3., and we would argue that number 2. is actually the result of our current dominant world view. Consequently, we believe that the problems that have and continue to plague criminology can only be addressed by adopting a new and radically different model or vision.

We Need a New Model: A New Face for Criminology

Much of the world today is clearly different from the world that spawned the development of modernity and now even postmodernism. There is an old saying that “time waits for no one;” criminological theory and criminal justice policy are certainly not exceptions to the rule. From the various calls in the literature for change in the discipline and from the problems identified on the current survey, it is apparent that many criminologists recognize this reality. In light of the unavoidable, natural process of evolution/development/change, the real issue becomes what type of vision will we adopt for the future (and the present).

We agree with Garland and Sparks (2000) that “the disinvention of criminology” is not appropriate, necessary, or functional, but we also agree with their contention that “defending the disciplinary identity of criminology against incursions from ‘elsewhere’ is now as unfeasible as it is undesirable” (p. 190). Criminology has to recognize the need to “constantly reconstitute itself.” For criminology to continue to be viable, we will have to think beyond the current boundaries of the discipline (Braithwaite, cited in Garland & Sparks, 2000). Extending these lines of thought, what is being proposed here is not dis-invention, but rather, a sort of re-invention, at the next level of development if you will. Wilber (1995) describes the developmental process as being one of both inclusion and transcendence. It is not a matter of abandoning the knowledge and injunctions that have so far developed. It is a matter of including these within a new and qualitatively different vision of the world.

In Imagining Criminology, Frank Williams (1999) puts forth the proposition that what is needed in criminology is a new, or at least refocused, exemplar. Williams contends that we have for too long relied on oversimplified views of reality and restricted methods for gathering data. His general solution to the problems that have been generated by our restricted and outmoded exemplar is the adoption of a new “metatheory” or orienting perspective. This metatheory, he says, must reflect: 1) an appreciation of real-world complexity; 2) an interdisciplinary approach; 3) “the encouragement of nonlinear, nonproximate conceptions of causality;” and, 4) an understanding of and appreciation for the role of subjectivity in individual behavior (p. 185). We strongly agree that these things are essential and contend that Ken Wilber’s (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000) Integral Theory provides an excellent model for accommodating such factors, and for addressing the more specific problems that have been discussed above.

Integral Vision and The All Quadrant – All Level (AQAL) Model

It is beyond the scope of this work to provide an in-depth picture of Wilber’s theory, but for discussion purposes, a brief description is provided (for more detailed descriptions of Integral Theory and the applications of it as a model in criminology/criminal justice see Martin et al., 2003; Martin, 2000; Gibbs et al., 2000.)

Wilber (1995, 1997, 1998, 2000) characterizes the universe as being hierarchically arranged into four intrinsic quadrants. These quadrants represent distinct but closely related domains of knowledge, experience, and values (see Figure 1.). The quadrants can be arranged into two vertical and two horizontal hemispheres. The Left hemisphere represents interior phenomena, and the Right represents exterior phenomena. The Upper hemisphere represents the individual, and the Lower represents group or socio-cultural factors.

Right hand quadrants represent exterior or objective realities. They are what things, people, behavior look like from the outside. They are how the world is represented or seen "...in objectifying, empirical, scientific type of investigation" (Wilber, 1998, p. 72). The Right side is studied empirically, in behavioral/positivistic/monological terms and is described in “it” or object language. The “inhabitants” of these quadrants possess “simple location;” they exist in identifiable, measurable/quantifiable space and time. Left hand quadrants represent interior or subjective realities. They are what things/people "...look like from the interior, as part of directly lived awareness and experience" (Wilber, 1998, p. 72). These domains are not "directly" observable or accessible from the outside; they cannot be directly measured or quantified in an empirical sense. The “inhabitants” of the Left side quadrants do not have simple location; they are located not in the physical world but in mental, emotional and cognitive spaces (“spaces of intention, not simply spaces of extension”) (Wilber, 1998, p. 72). Consequently, unlike the Right hemisphere which can be “seen,” the Left has to be “interpreted.” This difference results from the fact that surfaces are observable; they are there for anyone to see. But, “depth must be interpreted.” The Right asks, “What does it do?” The Left asks, “What does it mean?” These fundamentally different questions relate directly to the unique methods/injunctions of the quadrants.

Integrating the horizontal with vertical dimensions, the Upper Right (UR) is the exterior-individual quadrant, which corresponds to observable behavior and other physical aspects. The Lower right (LR) is the exterior-collective or the social quadrant, which relates basically to our social systems. The Left-Side quadrants represent the interior domains, so the Lower Left (LL) is the interior-social or cultural quadrant. It represents the internalized aspects of culture, such as norms, traditions, etc. The Upper Left (UL) is the interior-individual or intentional; it represents the interior processes of mind and spirit.

In summary, the four quadrants taken together represent the intentional and behavioral (interior and exterior individual) and the cultural and social (interior and exterior collective) aspects of all existence. It is especially important to note that each quadrant has “correlates” with all of the other three (Wilber, 1998). All phenomena have corresponding components in all quadrants, and each quadrant represents separable but mutually influential aspects of a phenomenon. The Integral bottom line is that, to fully understand any human phenomenon or to develop a depth comprehension, knowledge from all quadrants must be considered. To reduce any of these elements into only one or

two quadrants is inappropriate. It shows an incomplete picture. The part of the picture that is shown may be accurate, as far as it goes, but it is only a partially true accounting.

From his extensive review of literature across many disciplines, in addition to the intrinsic quadrants, Wilber (1995, 1996) has identified a pervasive acknowledgment that there are levels of being/existence that reflect ever increasing levels of consciousness (see Figure 2.). In other words, within each of the four quadrants, there also exist
Figure 1 - The Four Quadrants

Interior Exterior

Social or communal

Left Hand Right Hand

Source: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by Ken Wilber, © 1995. Reprinted by arrangement with Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston.

levels/waves/stages of existence. Movement up through these levels is what we

recognize as development and/or evolution. The levels or stages can be used to map both the evolution of the human species and societies and also individual development. Generally, movement up the spectrum or stages is characterized by decreasing narcissism and egocentrism and by increasing awareness, and also by increasing complexity (i.e., depth) and decreasing span. Higher stages/levels include but transcend

the previous ones; each wave of development goes beyond its predecessor, but it still “includes or embraces” that predecessor as part of its makeup (Wilber, 2000). Also, the lower level is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for movement to the higher level. Wilber uses the metaphor of climbing up the rungs of a ladder. Higher rungs can only be reached by first climbing on those below them. With each rung you go up, you can see more and your perspective on what was seen at lower rungs changes; your perspective broadens and becomes more inclusive, but also different (Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 2001).

To develop a complete understanding, we not only need information from all quadrants, but also need to address issues relating to the levels of existence. In other words, we must grasp both the span and depth of the phenomenon which we endeavor to describe and explain.

An Integral Look at Criminology’s Problems

For illustration purposes, the major problems with criminology that we have discussed will be explored within the Integral framework. Let us first look at the opposing concerns of “too empirical” and “not empirical enough.” As contradictory as it may sound, Integral Theory can address both of these concerns. In terms of the first,

Figure 2. Four Quadrants and Eight Levels in Humans

Wilber (1998) acknowledges that science constitutes an important domain of knowledge;

it is an important part of how we view the world. Science itself is not the problem. It is not even a problem that science is reductionistic/atomistic. “The real problem is that all higher modes of knowing have been brutally collapsed into monological and empirical science…it is the reduction of all knowledge to monological modes that constitutes the disaster of modernity” (p. 38). In other words, Wilber, like Williams (1984, 1999) recognizes that our over reliance on the traditional scientific injunctions has dramatically restricted our view of the world. What this means for criminology, in Integral terms, is that our main explanatory variables and the vast bulk of our research has focused exclusively, or at least primarily, on the UR and LR quadrants (e.g., the inordinate attention that has been given to the correlates of crime, most recently as reflected in multivariate analytic models). Two factors are likely central to this collapsing of the Left into the Right: 1) The over-reliance on and presumptive superiority of the traditional methods of narrow science; 2) It is easier to apply such exterior focused injunctions and to examine Right side variables than their Left side correspondents. The problem is that theories which are constructed around such a constricted set of variables and with such narrow and limited injunctions are incomplete and partial reflections of reality, and they in turn generate ill-formed and ill-focused policies. To escape from this pathological course requires a recognition that all domains of knowledge are valuable and necessary, which is the point of the All Quadrant orientation.

In regards to the second complaint, as just indicated, Wilber readily acknowledges the legitimate and important role of science as part of understanding. However, he also notes that not all science is equal. Put differently, Integral Theory is “scientific,” but not in the “shallow” sense that currently predominates in criminology and the other social sciences. Integral Theory is based in “deep science,” which refers, not to specific methods, but to a general approach or process for gathering and validating information, that applies to all quadrants. Wilber (1997, 1998, 1999) identifies three necessary steps (or strands of valid knowledge) that constitute deep science and that produce what he refers to as “integral knowledge:” 1) “instrumental injunction” (i.e., the experiment), data generation, “if you want to know this, do this;” 2) “intuitive apprehension,” illumination, experience; and, 3) “communal confirmation (or rejection),” comparing the data with others in the community, “consensual validation or rejection by a community of the adequate.” If we were to acknowledge that any data gathering process that fully includes these three elements is scientific, then the concern over not being scientific enough takes on a whole new meaning and direction. The focus shifts from not being scientific in the correct (narrow) way, to does the approach adopted address/include the three valid strands of knowledge. Such a shift would provide legitimate expression and acknowledgement of a much broader and deeper range of knowledge, without sacrificing the value of systematic and rigorous data collection.

There also is the incongruity between the literature and the survey concerning the connection between criminology and criminal justice. Integral Theory, with its AQAL approach, has no problem meshing the scientific/academic with the practical/political, and in fact, it insists upon it. As we all are often painfully aware, much of our existence is tied up with what we have come to call “politics,” both the Big-P and little-p versions. This realization has not been lost on Wilber as he has developed his Integral Theory. In a 1995(a) interview, “Bodhisattvas are Going to Have to Become Politicians,” Wilber stated that his thinking has inevitably led him to a political theory. The point he is making is that what we call politics is an integral part of our existence and we can not wish it away, and should not try to do so. Our theories must be able to fully accommodate the political aspects. The values and mores that dwell in collective interior have direct correspondents in the social systems of the collective exterior. Also, right action is a central element of Integral Theory. Consequently, Integral Theory would advocate criminology embracing its ties to criminal justice, because they are part and parcel of the same things. By so embracing and accepting the natural links, we would hopefully move ourselves into a better position from which to inform and influence policy (i.e., to become politically enlightened). Of course, to do so, requires that we remain attentive to the point raised above. The relationship must rise above the Flatland orientation that now dominates. It is not sufficient, appropriate, or even ethical to merely focus on UR behaviors to inform LR policy and practice. Wilber (1995a) said that “bodhisattvas would have to become politicians.” From our perspective, politicians and criminologists, also will need to become bodhisattvas. Bohdisattva is Sanskrit for “open-hearted one.” Policies and practices designed to deal with human issues that focus only on exterior elements have no hope of being successful. Like the Tin Man they are empty; they ring hollow; they have no heart. The only way to bring heart into the process is to include the Left with the Right. I can watch what you do (UR) and the system (LR) can prescribe a set sanction for your act. However, I cannot see what is in your “heart.” I will not know why you committed the act, nor will I know what the prescribed sanction means to you, solely through injunctions focused on the exterior (i.e, the empirical). To find out the rest, I must ask you (i.e., the interpretive).

The other major problem discussed is “lack of theory integration.” Again, a lengthy treatise on theory integration is beyond the scope here (see Martin et al., 2003 for a detailed discussion). Suffice it to say that, despite the many calls for and debates about the best approach to theory integration, and a few mildly successful attempts not withstanding, little progress has actually been made in this area. Also, from the analysis of the journal articles, it does not appear to be a major blip on the current radar. The question becomes, if this is a major need within the discipline, why is more not being done to address it. The answer is that none of the approaches to integration thus far offered have been up to the task. We propose that the reason that they have not been so is that integration is not integral, and what is actually needed is an integral approach. Webster’s Concise Dictionary (Landau, 1997) defines integrate as 1. To make or form into a whole; unify. 2. To combine (parts) into a whole., and integral as 1. Constituting a completed whole. 2. Constituting an essential part of a whole. These definitions may appear to be synonymous, and for most practical purposes, it may be perfectly okay to treat them as such. However, when one is talking about combining theories to enhance understanding, the difference is essential. If our methods have been narrow and restrictive, then they will have produced a restricted and limited range of data and information. Given its restricted nature, such data can generate only partial truths and these truths will lack depth. In other words, we can combine these shallow, parts into a whole, but such a whole can still be only a partial truth. Combining such limited theories/truths may increase span, to some extent, but depth of understanding will likely not be strongly enhanced. In short, we need a model that first helps us to identify all of the parts, and then provides a framework for putting all of the parts together, so that we can then have a “completed whole.”

Conclusion

We believe that Garland and Sparks (2000) actually sum up nicely the need for an Integral Model, with their description of criminology.

Criminology is not just a creature of the academy. It is located in other social and institutional settings…It is located in (i) the world of the academy—of social science and scholarly discourse, (ii) the world of government—of crime control and criminal justice, and (iii) the world of culture—including mass mediated popular culture and political discourse” (p. 192). “…if we look beyond the immediate data of crime and punishment to the processes that underpin them—to routines of social life and social control, the circulation of goods and persons, the organization of families and households, the spatial ecology of cities, the character of work and labour markets, the power of state authorities—it becomes apparent that criminology’s subject matter is centrally implicated in the major transformations of our time. [emphasis added] (p. 189)

If this is an accurate description of the discipline, and we believe that it is, it becomes eminently clear that continuing to do “business as usual” cannot begin to do justice to the criminological enterprise, nor for that matter can it really do justice. Criminology and criminal justice, first-and-foremost, are human endeavors; they are carried out by people, are about people, are for people, and have huge impacts on people. People are individuals unto themselves, but individuals also join together to form groups. These groups, in turn combine to form yet larger groups, etc. Such a holarchical [3] arrangement creates a complex span and depth of existence. It is essential that our model be sufficiently complex and encompassing, both in terms of span and depth, to accommodate the diverse array of factors, structures, and processes that interweave to (i.e., holons, holarchy, see endnote 3.) form the fiber of what we have come to call criminology, and a model that can place this complex array of variables and concepts within the larger physical, social, and spiritual worlds that coalesce to form the Kosmos. The days of reductionism and isolation have past. It is time for an all-embracing vision of the world. In his discussion of the shift in physics toward metaphysics and theology, Pepinsky (1991) attributes this exodus, not to individuals burning out and dropping out of science, but rather he says it was “…to rise above paradigmatic debate to address issues of paradigm choice” (p. 302). To recognize such choice, requires transcendent thinking.

One final note. We need to ask ourselves two questions. First, how did we (i.e., criminology) end up as Blumstein (1993) describes, “…an extremely sparse subspace of knowledge” in a “broad subspace of desired understanding?” (p.475). Second, what do we have to do broaden and especially deepen our subspace of knowledge? We have been visiting and revisiting the same basic concerns for years, some for almost 50 and all for at least the past 20. What have we got to lose by stepping outside the box?

References

Adler, F., & Laufer, W.S.(Eds.). (1993). New directions in criminological theory:

Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Akers, R. L. (1997). Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2^nd ed.). Los

Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Barak, G. (1998). Integrating criminologies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blumstein, A. (1993). A macro research agenda in criminology. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 474-490.

Braithwaite, J. (1990).The state of criminology: Theoretical decay or renaissance. In

W.S. Laufer & F. Adler (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory, Vol. Two (pp. 155-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Christie, N. (1997). Four blocks against insight: Notes on the over socialization

of criminologists. Theoretical Criminology, 1(1), 13-23.

Cressey, D.R. (1978). Criminological theory, social science, and the repression of crime.

Criminology, 16(2), 178-189.

Einstadter, W., & Henry, H.(1995). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying

assumptions. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Elliott, D.S. (1985). The assumption that theories can be combined with increasing

explanatory power. In R.F. Meier (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology (pp. 123-149). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ericson, R., & Carriere, K. (1994).The fragmentation of criminology. In D. Nelken (Ed.),

The futures of criminology (pp. 89-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Farnworth, M. (1989). Theory integration versus model building. In S.F. Messner, M.D.

Krohn, & A.E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 93-100). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Garland, D., & Sparks, R. (2000). Criminology, social theory and the challenge of our

times. The British Journal of Criminology, 40, 189-204.

Gibbs, J.J., Giever, D., & Pober, K.A. (2000). Criminology and The Eye of the Spirit: An

introduction and application of the thoughts of Ken Wilber. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,16(1), 99-127.

Gibbs, J.P. (1972). Sociological theory construction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

(1985). The methodology of theory construction in criminology. In R.F. Meier (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology (pp. 23-50). Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.

(1987). The state of criminological theory. Criminology, 25(4), 821-840.

Gottfredson, D.M. (1989). Criminological theories: The truth as told by Mark Twain. In

W.S. Laufer & F. Adler (Eds.), Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 1 ( pp. 1-16). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hirschi, T. (1989). Exploring alternatives to integrated theory. In In S.F. Messner, M.D.

Krohn, & A.E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 37-49). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Leavitt, G. (1999). Criminological theory as an art form: Implications for criminaljustice

policy. Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 389-399.

Lanier, M.M., & Henry, S. (1998). Essential criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Liska, A.E., Krohn, M.D., & Messner, S.F. (1989). Strategies and requisites for

theoretical integration in the study of crime and deviance. In S.F. Messner, M.D.

Krohn, & A.E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 1-20). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Martin, R. (1993). Transpersonal psychology and criminological theory: Rethinking the

paradigm. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 11-30.

(2000). Anomie, spirituality, and crime. Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice, 16(1), 75-94.

Martin, R., Martin, J., Dodson, K., & Castle, T. (under review). The state of criminological theory: Current perceptions. Journal of theoretical Criminology.

McCord, J. (1989). Theory, pseudotheory, and metatheory. In W.S. Laufer & F. Adler

(Eds.), Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 1 ( pp. 127-145). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

(1990). One perspective on the state of criminology. In W.S. Laufer & F.

Adler (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory, Vol. Two (pp. 167-174). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

McCord, J. (Ed.). (1992). Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: Advances in criminological

theory, Vol. 3. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers

Mills, C.W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nelken, D. (1994). reflexive criminology? In D. Nelken (Ed.), The futures of criminology

(pp. 7-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pavarini, M. (1994). Is criminology worth saving? In D. Nelken (Ed.), The futures of

criminology(pp. 43-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pepinsky, H.E. (1991). Peacemaking in criminology and criminal justice. In H.E.

Pepinsky & R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking (pp.299-327). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Radzonowicz, L. (1994). Reflections on the state of criminology. The British Journal of

Criminology, 34(2), 99-104.

Reiss, A.J., Jr. (1993). Whither the craft of criminology? Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency, 30(4), 505-512.\

Sutherland, E.H. (1924). Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.

Tannenbaum, A.N. (1992). The crisis in criminology. Telos, Issue 92, p. 51. [On-line].

Available:http://ehostrgw6.epenet.com/get_xml.asp?booleanTerm=The+crisis+in +criminoloogy&fuzzyT

Tittle, C.R. (1985). The assumption that general theories are not possible. In R.F. Meier

(Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing.

Wilber, K. (1980). Eye to eye: Science and transpersonal psychology. In R.N. Walsh &

F. Vaughan (Eds.), Beyond ego transpersonal dimensions in psychology (pp.216-220). Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.

(1995a). Bodhisattvas are going to have to become politicians (interview transcript) [On-line]. Available: http://www.worldofkenwilber.com..

(1995b). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala.

(1997). The eye of the spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.

(1998). The marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion.

New York: Random House.

(2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics,

science, and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

Williams, F. P., III. (1984). The demise of the criminological imagination: A critique of

recent criminology. Justice Quarterly, 1(1), 91-106.

(1999). Imagining criminology: An alternative paradigm. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 24. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Appendix A.

The State of Criminological Theory Survey (SCTS)

This survey asks about your general perceptions concerning the current state of theory in criminology and about the sources from which you get information pertaining to theory. It also asks for some basic information relating to your academic background and current position.

Please answer the following questions by placing an “X” on the appropriate line or by writing your answer in the space provided.

1) What is your highest degree earned?

____ bachelors

____ masters

____ Ph.D.

____ other ___________________

2) In what discipline is your highest degree? _________________

3) In what year were you awarded your highest degree? __________

4) What is your current position?

_____ faculty and/or administrator in higher education

_____ student

_____ other _____________________

5) Does your department have a

Masters Program ____ yes ____ no

Ph.D. Program ____ yes ____ no

6) In what discipline is your department? __________________

7) With what type of institution are you affiliated?

_____ community college

_____ four year, bachelors degree only

_____ bachelors and masters degrees

_____ Ph.D. granting

Please continue on the back of this sheet.

8) Please rank your top three journals (with one being the highest) for getting information about criminological theory.

___ Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice ___ Criminology ___ Prison Journal

___ Justice Quarterly ___ Criminal Justice and Behavior ___ Journal of Crime & Delinquency

___ Journal of Theoretical Criminology ___ Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency

___ Criminal Justice Review ___ other_____________ ___other____________

9) Please rank the following general theoretical perspectives on how much variance you believe the perspective can account for in explaining criminal behavior. Rank only your top three, with one representing the perspective that accounts for the most variance.

___ social learning ___ rational choice ___ social control ___ feminist theory

___ peacemaking ___ social disorganization/ strain ___ conflict theory ___ self control

___ radical conflict/critical ___ cognitive theory ___ biological theory ___ labeling

other(s) ___ _____________ ___ _____________

10) Using a 100 point scale, please grade the current body of criminological theory on the

following:

a) overall completeness grade ______

b) effectiveness/validity in explaining

criminal behavior grade ______

c) success in helping to generate/develop/inform

effective policies for dealing with crime grade ______

11) In the space below, please identify the two or three biggest problems/shortcomings that you think exist relevant to the current state of theory in criminology.

Thank you for your participation.