American Criminology Research Articles

CRIMINOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: PERIOD AND COHORT EFFECTS IN SCHOLARSHIP

Period and cohort effects are explored in regard to criminological knowledge. Hypotheses are inspired by biographies and by research in the sociology of knowledge, based on Karl Mannheim's essay on generations, Maurice Halbwachs' partly conflicting arguments about the presentist orientation of collective memory and newer ideas about the institutional context of knowledge production. The data set results from content analysis of 1, 390 articles in leading American sociology, criminology, and law and society journals from 1951 to 1993, supplemented by information on the authors' “academic age.” Results show that cohort membership has some effect and periods have considerable impact on topic, type of theory examined and data used by criminologists. These effects are interpreted against the background of post‐World War II history: dominant ideological currents of different eras, historic events, changing academic institutions, and the ebb and flow of influential schools. Multivariate analyses indicate that period effects are largely but not fully explained by shifts in research funding and by the emergence of specialized fields with their own institutions.

Still Excluded? An Update on the Status of African American Scholars in the Discipline of Criminology and Criminal Justice

This article reexamines the exclusion of African Americans in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice. Young and Sulton raised this issue in their important article that focused on the role of African American scholars in various aspects of the field. The article revisits several areas investigated in the original article, including the integration of African American scholarship in assorted scholarly outlets, race of editorial board members of the major criminal justice journals, race of grant recipients, use of African American criminologists as experts for media stories, and as consultants in the policymaking process. In addition, the authors’ analysis examines criminology and criminal justice programs at historically Black colleges and universities. The results from these analyses show moderate progress within the past decade. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that in the next decade, much more needs to be accomplished in many of the areas examined to facilitate the integration of African Americans in criminology and criminal justice and to ensure that gains that have been made are not lost.

Institutional Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993

Neoinstitutional theses are examined for the constitution of criminological knowledge during the transformation of penal regimes and the accompanying emergence of a specialized field of criminology. Effects of this reorganization, historical period, and research funding on scholarly journal publications are examined. Results are based on a content analysis of 1,612 articles published in leading journals between 1951 and 1993. Multivariate analyses support neoinstitutional ideas, as topical and theoretical foci are associated with themes suggested by the policy sector. The replication of the policy sector in academic organization tightens this association. Further, articles based on political funding are more likely to engage new preoccupations of the political sector. Theoretical conclusions drawn in the articles under study, however, are independent of institutional factors.

Katharine Bement Davis (1860-1935)

Katharine Bement Davis is a significant figure in American criminology, homosexuality studies, penology, and several social movements, including women's suffrage, African Americans' civil rights, and the social settlement. Although Davis was a widely recognized criminologist for almost three decades, her life and career are acknowledged rarely in the annals of the profession. To address this serious omission in the history of criminology, I introduce her biography, analyze her theory and practice, and locate her in a historical context of powerful women who changed American life and politics.

The presence of African American scholarship in early American criminology texts (1918–1960)*

This paper reviews the results of a citation analysis conducted to determine the extent of references to African American scholarship in American criminology texts published between 1918 and 1960. The analysis showed that African American graduates from the University of Chicago's “Chicago School”, including Charles Johnson, E. Franklin Frazier, Monroe Work, and Earl R. Moses, were cited most often. They were usually cited in discussions of either race or culture areas and crime. African American scholars' discussions of the effects of social, economic, and political conditions such as slavery, segregation, racism and oppression on crime and criminality, especially among African Americans, were generally not cited. These findings suggest that while claims that African American scholarship cannot be found in mainstream publications might be somewhat overstated as they relate to early American criminology texts, the most important themes found in the writings of African Americans were excluded.

Micro-Macro Criminology

ABSTRACT In this paper, author incorporates his new conceptual scheme developed in an earlier book titled God as Shadow of Man as a means of bridging between micro- and macro-criminology. The key concept is mythogene, which is an ahistorical structure of longing and experience. He utilizes this concept to explain recruiting process of individual into crime. Then mythology, which is sum total of all mythogenes in a given group, is utilized to understand formation of criminal groups. Finally, ethos, which is conglomeration of mythologies, is utilized to explain, inter alia, genesis of criminal societies such as Third Reich of Germany. Conceptual clarification CRIMINAL AND DEVIANT behavior involve a relationship between certain forms of human behavior contrary to given norms. Hence, criminal and deviant behavior are dualistic and associational. This relationship is focal concern of criminologists and is not a unidimensional phenomenon as in psychology, which mostly studies behavior of human individual, or sociology, which focuses on human aggregates, or law, which deals in legal norms. Due to perception that a relationship is central subject of criminology, Walter Reckless studied association between behavior and rules as early as 1961 (Reckless 1961). However, his ideas, grouped under headline Containment Theory, were largely ignored by criminological establishment. Yet, in 1969 Travis Hirschi published his bonding theory (Hirschi 1969), which is based largely on Reckless's theory and received almost universal acclaim from American criminologists. The gist of Hirschi's theory is that lack of bonds of an individua l to other individuals, to his membership groups, or to restraining norms, sometimes lead to delinquency. Hirschi, however, did not deal with contents of bonds, nor with individual's motivation to entertain them. This was carried out in pioneering work of Claude Levi-Strauss, whose epoch-making studies in Amazon River Basin of Brazil revealed that myths link nature and culture (Levi-Strauss 1964). Following in giant footsteps of Strauss, I have demonstrated in a recent trilogy that myths may also serve as bonds between subject and object, human and non-human, and individual and group (Shoham 2000a, 2000b, 2000c). Of course, one recognizes that much research and theory concerning these topics has occurred since time of Reckless and Straus (See Agnew 1985; Cernkovich and Giordano 1987:299-300; Laub and Sampson 1988; Wells and Rankin 1988; Voorhis et al. 1988). However, having been a student of both Reckless and Levi-Strauss, I shall try presently to base myself on t he work of these two pioneers and provide a new framework for criminological theory. The first claim is that myths provide motivational contents of normative bonds of individuals to groups. However, I distinguish between mythogenes, motivational structures of experience and longings of individual human beings, and myths, which are, according to Freud (1961:141-2), the distorted vestiges of wish-fulfillment fantasies of whole nations... age-long dreams of young humanity. Freud actually raised his intrapsychic interpretation of dreams to group level and claimed that myth is an expression of tribe's social characters, nation's or aggregate's wishes and visions. Surely, myth of Flood was not dreamful wish fulfillment, but a projection of actual experiences with disastrous inundation by rivers, especially in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Myths are, therefore, also a projection of experiences and spectacular events borne by a group before written history. Hence, mythogenes are projected by individuals, whereas myths are projected by groups. Still, mythogenes are building blocks of myths; mythology is collective body of myths in a given aggregate. …

W.E.B. Du Bois

Over the past several decades, numerous scholars have shown the relevance of the work of W.E.B. Du Bois to several academic disciplines including sociology (Rudwick, 1974), philosophy (Holmes, 1970), anthropology (Harrison, 1992), economics (Boston, 1991), and others. One discipline, however, that has only recently begun to take notice of Du Bois's scholarship is that of American criminology. Over the past several years, African American criminologists have placed Du Bois's works among the classics of American criminology (see Gabbidon, 1996, 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Hawkins, 1995; Taylor Greene & Gabbidon, 2000; Young & Taylor Greene, 1995). This article aims to build on the previous literature in three ways. First, we examine what may have spurred Du Bois's interest in crime and caused him to repeatedly return to the subject throughout his career. Second, we review some of his early crime-related works and then place them in the context of other American criminologists writing during his era. And finally, we consider whether Du Bois's writings speak to the problem of African American criminality here at the beginning of the 21st century.

The Criminological Enterprise in Europe and the United States: A Contextual Exploration

‘European criminology’ obviously means more than simply the collaborative efforts (on drugs, restorative justice, youth gangs) between researchers and scholars from Europe. In this essay, the author compares and contrasts American criminology with criminology in Europe (as it exists in individual countries), without aiming for the essence of ‘European criminology’. She points to differences between the US and Europe with regard to the ‘criminological enterprise’ (such as history, scale, degree of institutionalisation, accessibility, diversity in theory and method, the critical and self-reflexive stance, and focal research questions), and to the differences in ‘doing science’, ‘doing justice’, and ‘doing crime’. American criminology is a powerful influence in Europe, although there may be a tendency to overestimate the importance of American criminology, because of the dominance of English-language publications. American criminology has made many positive contributions to the field of the study of law, crime and social control, and it continues to do so. However, if one defines the essence of American criminology as being policy-oriented, methodologically-driven, and lacking theoretical lustre, diversity, and critical edge, then the fear of ‘Americanisation’ of European criminology is well-placed. It is not the criminological enterprise of the US per se, but rather the notion of ‘Americanisation’ which is really at issue here.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Consumption Control in the United States

CPTED theory, research and practice are frequently held to be relatively recent developments in the field of American criminology, generated largely by the works of Oscar Newman (1972) and C. Ray Jeffery (1971). This view of CPTED and its development in the United States falls short of providing an adequate understanding of the vital part that it has played, and can play, in the advancement of crime prevention theory and public policy. CPTED is actually broader than as it is currently understood in the discipline of criminology. This is demonstrated through an examination of the ‘era of consumption'’ (that is, the time period roughly from the early 1800s to early 1900s where the disease later referred to as tuberculosis was widespread in the US); during this time period, efforts to control the spread of illness were achieved through CPTED strategies which preceded the academic writings of those considered to be the founders of CPTED. Our main goal is to increase the understanding of and appreciation for the vital role that CPTED has played in the history of crime prevention in the United States. Finally, implications are discussed for the prevention of tuberculosis today, as well as HIV infection and AIDS.

Criminological scholarship and race: A rejoinder from Professors Ross and Edwards

This article is a response to the concerns of an anonymous reviewer who took issue with findings presented in an earlier article entitled “Publishing Among African American Criminologists: A Devaluing Experience?” Despite the reviewer's criticism of the methods and findings, the facts remain—based on the evidence—that the scholarship of African American Criminologists is largely neglected and that opportunities to publish (in most mainstream criminal justice journals) is not equal. Simply stated, when it comes to publishing, the playing field is not level. While some readers might regard these findings as a matter of perception—in this stance, perception is reality.

Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs

This article assesses the quality of 12 American doctoral programs by counting the number of publications of their Ph.D. graduates in a large number of criminology and criminal justice journals, and in 20 more “academic” journals. While half of the Ph.D. graduates had no publications, the 4 percent who were the most productive (the “stars”) accounted for one third of all journal articles. Publication rates up to graduation predicted publication rates after graduation. The University of Maryland, Michigan State University, the University of California at Irvine, Florida State University, and Sam Houston State University had the most productive Ph.D. graduates in academic journals. There was a significant correlation between the productivity of a program's Ph.D. graduates and the productivity of its faculty members. The academic publication rate was influenced most by prevalence (the percentage of Ph.D.s with at least one publication), rather than by the percentage of “stars” or the frequency of publications.

Recent changes in the most-cited scholars in criminology A comparison of textbooks and journals

This article reports the fifty-nine most-cited scholars in twenty-two introductory criminology textbooks published from 1994–98. Comparisons over time of the citation patterns in criminology textbooks and in leading American criminology journals show considerable changes among the most-cited scholars. These changes are attributed to trends in the coverage of various research specializations in criminology. Volatility in the lists of the most-cited scholars over time justifies further studies of citation patterns in criminology and criminal justice.

Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 1995

The main aim of this research was to identify the most-cited scholars in twenty journals: five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. Results obtained in 1995 were compared with those obtained in 1990 and with those obtained from analyzing nine journals in 1986–90 and 1991–95. The most-cited scholars in all four lists were Travis Hirschi, Michael R. Gottfredson, David P. Farrington, Delbert S. Elliott, and Francis T. Cullen. The expansion from nine to twenty journals benefited international scholars such as John Braithwaite and Ronald V. G. Clarke, and scholars in less mainstream areas such as Richard J. Gelles. Lawrence W. Sherman was the most-cited scholar in these twenty journals in 1995, compared with Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990.

“Down home” criminology: The place of indigenous theories of crime

Comparative criminology continues to develop at an accelerated pace. Today, cross-national empirical studies of crime are quite common and comparative theories of crime, such as the Durkheimian-modernization theory, Marxian World Systems/Dependency theory, and ecological opportunity theory have been formulated. There also have been several cross-national analyses of American theories of crime, yet very little attention has been given to theoretical developments unique to the historical, cultural, and social structural characteristics of lesser known societies. The central thesis of this article is that criminology can benefit from the theories and concepts formulated outside the United States. The purpose of this article was to examine theoretical developments and concepts indigenous to various societies and to compare them with theories prevalent in American criminology. The benefits of integrating non-American theories and concepts with dominant American theories of crime are discussed.

African American criminologists, 1970-1996: an annotated bibliography

Preface Dual Realities and Structural Challenges of African American Criminologists by Lee E. Ross and Harvey L. McMurray Published Abstracts Selected References Appendix: Doctoral Dissertations of African American Criminologists (1970-1996) Author and Subject Index

Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991–1995*

This article assesses the quality of 299 faculty in 20 American doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice by counting the number of citations of their work in six major American criminology and criminal justice journals published between 1991 and 1995. The University of Maryland, the University of Cincinnati, Rutgers University, and SUNY-Albany were the institutions with most citations. The individual faculty members most often cited were Francis T. Cullen (University of Cincinnati), Raymond Paternoster, Lawrence W. Sherman and Douglas A. Smith (all University of Maryland). The majority of the most-cited scholars in these six journals, however, were not members of criminology or criminal justice departments.

Perceived Risk of Crime in the Czech Republic

The authors examine models of the perceived increased risk of crime in the Czech Republic derived from both American criminology and research on the perception of risk. The sample is 740 households in the 1994 Czech Republic, with 577 husband and wife respondents, 146 single female household heads, and 17 single male household heads. Measures include criminal victimization, personal characteristics associated with exposure and vulnerability to crime, trust in government, economic stress, as well as perceived increased risk of crime since the postcommunist transformation. A victimology model of the perceived increased risk of crime based on exposure and vulnerability to crime is confirmed for the Czech Republic. Trust in government is also an independent and complementary contribution to explaining perceived increased risk of crime. The discussion includes an interpretation of the findings and their relevance to cross-national comparisons of perceived risk of crime.

Changes in the most-cited scholars in major american criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–1990 and 1991–1995

The most-cited scholars in three major American criminology journals (Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency) and three major American criminal justice journals (Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Criminal Justice and Behavior) were determined for 1991–1995, and results were compared with those obtained for 1986 –1990. The most-cited scholars in the three criminology journals in 1991–1995 were Travis Hirschi, David P. Farrington, Michael R. Gottfredson, Delbert S. Elliott, and Robert J. Sampson. The most-cited scholars in the three criminal justice journals in 1991–1995 were Francis T. Cullen, John L. Hagan, Travis Hirschi, Lawrence W. Sherman, and James Q. Wilson. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars in 1991–1995 were primarily theoretical or on longitudinal/criminal career research.

Taboo until today? The coverage of biological arguments in criminology textbooks, 1961 to 1970 and 1987 to 1996

In American criminology throughout most of the twentieth century, biological arguments that link biochemistry, genetics, and/or neurophysiology to crime have been viewed as taboo: unthinkable and unmentionable. Despite this reputation, biological perspectives have resurged in the last two decades, reshaping theory and research in criminology. This article examines the changes in the taboo image of biological arguments in fifty-five introductory criminology textbooks: twenty published from 1961 to 1970 and thirty-five appearing from 1987 to 1996. The data show that the taboo surrounding biocriminology appears to be diminishing in textbooks: Newer texts devote more coverage to biological perspectives and are more likely to claim that there is at least some empirical evidence supporting these arguments. Furthermore, criminology textbooks that embrace interdisciplinary orientations are less likely to depict biological arguments as taboo than books that endorse sociological, and especially critical sociological, orientations.

Publishing among African American criminologists: A devaluing experience?

Requirements for promotion and tenure historically have involved three distinct areas: teaching, service, and research. African American criminologists who have entered academia are expected to conduct research and to publish, although many of their contributions in criminal justice policy and theory development are neglected. A cursory glance through most mainstream criminal justice journals reveals a conspicuous absence of publications by minority scholars. Some studies have demonstrated an awareness of this situation, but most have failed to explore it in sufficient detail. The present study was designed: (1) to provide a demographic profile of African American criminologists in higher education, (2) to address practices of inclusion and exclusion, (3) to examine the publication experiences of African American criminologists, and (4) to examine preferences for teaching and research among African American criminologists. Results indicate that African American criminologists (1) are currently employed at predominantly research institutions (despite a general failure to publish while in graduate school); (2) are mostly undecided about whether they are treated fairly by journal editors; (3) are less likely to publish in mainstream criminal justice/criminology journals; and (4) display an equal preference for both teaching and research. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of social isolation, alienation, and exclusionary practices in higher education.