Criminology and Criminal Justice as Scientific Disciplines

This essay explores the concepts of criminology and criminal justice as sciences. In particular, this research considers the specific developments that support a scientific status of research in these fields and the role of theory in criminology and criminal justice research. Through a careful consideration of what has been written about criminology and the development of theory in criminology overall, it should be possible to provide a more age or understanding of why theory in this area has not substantially been developed in recent decades. Further, through an examination of what has been written about theory in the context of the criminology and criminal justice the specific problems that exist with respect to developing theory in these areas will be elucidated.

In order to begin this investigation, in his first helpful to consider the specific attributes that have been assigned to criminology and criminal justice to codify them as scientific disciplines. Critically reviewing what has been written about the development of research and criminal justice, Petersilia and Wilson (1995) make the observation that while salient data on criminal behavior has been collected in recent years the overall number of programs that have been developed to conduct research in criminology and criminal justice is quite small overall. According to these authors, "There are already in place a number of federal research programs concerned with crime and criminal justice. Any reasonable observer, however, would find that collection of programs to be far smaller and more fragmented than is appropriate for developing necessary knowledge for the issue that is now rated as the principal concern of the American public" (p. 467).

In an effort to understand why there are so few programs that effectively undertake research in the areas of criminology and criminal justice Petersilia and Wilson go on to argue that there are a number of inherent issues involved in the development of a criminology and criminal justice which make it difficult for organizations to justify the costs of undertaking research in these areas. These issues include:

Policy driven by ideology - In this context, Petersilia and Wilson argued that "the policies intended to address crime and criminal justice are so strongly driven by fundamental ideological convictions that neither side wants to confront empirical reality because that might undermine their deeply held beliefs" (p. 468).

Distortion by the investigator - Petersilia and Wilson maintained that researcher bias in the context of criminological research is often quite strong. For this reason, there are considerable reliability problems when it comes to the overall integrity of the data presented. As noted by these authors, "There are two sources of unreliability: one the bias imposed by the investigator and the other the contradictory nature of findings in different settings" (p. 469).

Skepticism that research will be useful in fighting crime - Petersilia and Wilson argued that in the 1950s and 60s considerable faith was placed in the ability of social science to effectively identify and resolve social problems. "Such optimism has faded, particularly with respect to crime. Not only is crime believed to be rather intractable given current social conditions, but many believe that practitioners, not researchers, have the best answers for solving the crime problem" (p. 470).

Perspectives of the legal profession on criminal justice - Petersilia and Wilson note that the present time opinions handed down from the legal profession have the most pertinent impact on the evolution of criminal justice and criminology. Unfortunately, "In the legal profession generally, there is no comparable tradition for empirical research" (p. 471). This current situation significantly limits the amount of research that is undertaken in these areas.

Arguably, the research provided by Petersilia and Wilson demonstrates considerable problems with respect to the overall development of research in the areas of criminology and criminal justice. Based on the information provided by these authors, it becomes evident that there are a myriad of problems which serve to undermine the development of research in these particular areas. Despite the fact that criminology and criminal justice have been codified as scientific disciplines, capable of producing reliable empirical data for practical application, the overall opinion that has been developed with respect to these areas is that research produced will not provide a salient basis for significant improvements with respect to crime and/or criminal behavior.

Criminology and Criminal Justice as Scientific Disciplines

Given the notable disdain that has developed with respect to research in the areas of criminology and criminal justice, it is pertinent to consider the specific reasons as to why social scientists claim that these disciplines can be codified as scientific in nature. Henry and Lanier (1998) provide a comprehensive examination of both the definition and discipline of criminology. According to these authors, "At its simplest, criminology can be defined as the systematic study of the nature, extent, cause, and control of law-breaking behavior. Criminology is an applied social science in which criminologists work to establish knowledge about crime and its control based on empirical research. This research forms the basis for understanding, explanation, prediction, prevention, and criminal justice policy" (p. 2). Henry and Lanier go on to report that the history of criminology traces its roots back to the early twentieth century in the United States. Since this time, the justification of criminology at a scientific discipline has been heavily questioned by critics.

In an attempt to provide a solid basis for the formulation of criminology as a scientific discipline, Henry and Lanier further argue that while the subject matter covered in the context of criminal justice research is quite elastic overall there are certain features of criminology and that remained a constant part of the discipline. These include: "the definition and nature of crime as harm-causing behavior"; "different types of criminal activity, ranging from individual, spontaneous offending to collective, organized criminal enterprises"; "profiles of typical offenders and victims, including organizational and corporate law violators"; "statistical analysis of the extent, incidence, patterning, and cost of crimes, including estimates of the 'dark figure' of hidden or unreported crime, based on surveys of victims and self-report studies of offenders"; and "analysis of crime causation" (p. 3). In addition Henry and Lanier maintain that criminology is a scientific discipline because it follows the rules of the scientific method. "What distinguishes science from nonscience is the insistence on testable hypotheses, whose support or refutation through empirical research forms the basis of what is accepted among scientific criminologists as valid knowledge" (p. 3).

Brodeur (1999) in his examination of criminology is a scientific discipline makes the following observations about criminology's claim as a scientific discipline:

There are two main ways for science to become applied. Its theoretical findings may be translated into new technology, as is frequently the case with chemistry or computer science. Research findings may also be used as input for the process of decision making and for the development of public policy. Although it is not impossible for criminological findings to eventually generate technology (e.g., in the field of situational crime prevention), criminology has so far exerted its influence mostly as a determinant of policy making in criminal justice (p. 134).

Brodeur goes on to argue that while criminology as a scientific discipline has weakened in recent years, in the past research undertaken in this particular area has served as the basis for policymaking in the area of criminal justice. The willingness of scientists to apply what has been learned through research to the development of policy reflects the overall applicability of research findings garnered in the study of criminology and criminal justice.

In an attempt shoe and locate the specific areas in which criminology and criminal justice research have served as a boon to policymaking, Laub (2004) considers the history of criminological research in the United States identifying five critical turning points which demonstrate the overall efficacy of criminological research toward the positive development of policy. According to Laub, the first turning point in the history of criminology research occurred with the work presented by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The work of Shaw and McKay is seen as essential to the evolution of policy and criminal justice because it forced professionals to look at crime and criminal behavior as a multidimensional process with a wide range of antecedents. The policy ramifications of the work undertaken by Shaw and McKay include the development of community programs to prevent the development of criminal behavior.

Laub argues that the second turning point in criminology research occurred with the development of differential association theory by Edwin Sutherland. As noted by Laub, Sutherland's theory served as the basis for the expansion of criminal justice research and policy, fostering the development of the research methodologies for criminal justice research. The third a turning point identified by Laub focuses on Travis Hirschi's work on the cause of delinquency. Hirschi's research is important because it established a new method for scientific inquiry into context of criminal justice research. According to Laub, "Hirschi developed his theory of delinquency and then tested his own theory as well as other popular theories of delinquency using empirical data derived from self reports from adolescents about their attitudes and behavior" (p. 14). This "testing" method of research became a cornerstone of methodology and criminal justice research during the 1960s.

The fourth turning point identified by Laub is the publication of the Delinquency in a Birth Cohort in 1972. Laub notes that from a methodological standpoint, these cohorts had notable ramifications for research in criminology. Laub contends that in addition to the fact that the study "resurrected interest in longitudinal studies of crime" it also had "clear policy implications" (p. 14). The fifth and final turning point for criminal justice research as identified by Laub can be seen in the work of James Q. Wilson. As noted by Laub, "Wilson has argued that criminology should abandon its fundamental mission-understanding crime-to focus more on policy analysis, specifically the prediction and management of dangerous offenders in order to reduce crime and disorder" (p. 15). Laub argues that the push toward policy through research and criminology establishes the pertinence of data collected in this area for the development and evolution of social policy.

While the specific turning point identified by Laub do indeed provide an interval understanding of how research in criminal justice and criminology have impacted the development of policy aimed at the reduction or eradication of crime and criminal behavior, the reality is that the research that has been produced, even in the context of these turning points, does not clearly elucidate the overall efficacy of research conducted in these disciplines to produce salient data for effective social policy formation. Bennet (2004) and his examination of research in the field of criminology argues that research that has been produced in this area while serving as the basis to develop social policy has not had a substantial impact on the overall reduction of crime and/or criminal behavior. For this reason, Bennet argues that the research that has been produced with respect to criminology and criminal justice has done more to facilitate the development of sociological inquiry than to ensure proper policy development.

When placed in this context, the overall challenges of utilizing the data produced in criminology and criminal justice research becomes more evident. Although researchers undertaking investigations into criminology and criminal justice have been able to develop and establish particular methods that have been widely adapted and utilized in the context of sociological research, the specific data that has been acquired through research in criminology and criminal justice has not provided a solid basis for the development of social policies that effectively reduce or eradicate criminal activity. What this effectively suggests is that research and criminology and criminal justice only serves as the impetus for scholarly analysis of criminal behavior. Therefore, with no real ability to provide empirical data which leads to efficient social policy development research in the areas of criminology and criminal justice has been effectively abandoned in recent years. Given the overall importance that has been assigned to producing research with applicable results it is not surprising to find that this course of evolution has occurred in the context of these particular areas of research.

Current Problems with Criminological Research

Although the above information provides a clear understanding of how problems with criminology and criminal justice as scientific disciplines have evolved, researchers examining the particular context of methodologies utilized in criminology and criminal justice research have been able to identify more specific challenges she research in these specific disciplines. Jupp (1993) in his examination of research in the discipline of criminology notes that there are two specific issues that must be addressed when it comes to undertaking research. The first issue in criminal justice research is the focus of analysis for the investigation. According to this author, even when the researcher selects an appropriate unit of analysis for an investigation in this focus carries with it considerable ramifications for the outcomes of research: "Whatever the level or unit of analysis chosen there are implications for the type of data which should be collected, for how it can and should be collected, and for the extent to which we can validly jump from data collected at one level (say, from individuals) to the making of assertions about another level (say, collectivities of individuals)" (p. 5-6).

The second critical methodological issue identified by Jupp is "the degree of credence which should be placed upon explanations founded upon determinism and causal thinking, irrespective of the unit of analysis employed" (p. 6). As noted by Jupp, a specific theoretical orientation utilized by the researcher will ultimately have an impact on the methodology that is utilized for investigation. While this is typically the case in most sociological research, the reality is that significant consensus on the particular series that have been utilized to codify research in criminal justice have not been widely agreed upon by scholars. What this effectively suggests is that the development and proliferation of theory in criminal justice has created a glut of potential theoretical standpoints that could be assumed by the researcher. While many of the developed paradigms may work well in theory, there is little evidence to support that these paradigms work well in practice. Further, the specific paradigm chosen as the basis for investigation will ultimately impact to be results that are obtained from a particular investigation. Thus, while two research studies may investigate the same topic utilizing the same unit of analysis, the theoretical orientation that drives methodology development will ultimately impact the results that are obtained.

To further illustrate the manner in which theoretical orientation can impact the overall development of a research in criminal justice and criminology, Jupp goes on to argue that the challenges of ascribing theory to practicality can be seen in the context of the wide range of issues that criminologists have attempted to study through research. Identifying the rudimentary basis for investigation in criminology research, Jupp notes four specific areas that have been of paramount concern for researchers undertaking investigation in criminal justice. These four areas include: biological differences, psychological differences, socialization differences, and learning differences. While each of these particular areas provides significant and important insight into the development of delinquency and criminal behavior Jupp does note that, "The above theories come from different disciplinary bases and differ from each other in significant ways" (p. 10). Hence, he specific theoretical orientation and that is chosen by the researcher will ultimately have an impact on the particular outcomes that are produced in a given study.

Modern Developments

Despite the fact that some scholars vehemently defend criminology as a viable scientific discipline, the reality is that in the last four decades the number of theories that have been produced for investigation have waned considerably. Henry and Lanier (1998) and their investigation of the development of theory in criminology and provide a clear and definitive history of the development of theory in this discipline up until 1969 when Hirschi promoted his control theory. Although Henry and Lanier noted that subsequent theories have been developed an advanced in the field of criminology, considerable fragmentation occurred with respect to the overall theories that were developed after 1969.

In addition to the fact that theories of criminology has become fragmented in recent years, Henry and Lanier also note that considerable criticism has been raised with respect to the development and application of historical theories of criminology. In particular, these authors observe that:

For example, feminist critics argued that an overemphasis on boys, men, and class had obscured important differences in gender and gender socialization. This produced an excessive control over young women through their sexuality and an excessive liberation of males to violence, materialism, and domineering competitiveness, resulting in women being 90 percent less seriously criminal than men. Anarchists challenged the value of all forms of power hierarchy, whether in corporations, government, or socialism, believing instead that decentralized democratic collectives practicing nonviolent peacemaking approaches to conflict resolution were the only way to transcend our self-destructive cycle of crime and violence (p. 9).

The criticism that has been raised in this context has only further served to reduce the overall potency of theory that has been developed in the context of past studies involving criminology and criminal justice.

Synthesis of the Data

Synthesizing all of the research that has been presented in this investigation, it becomes evident that while there is considerable evidence to suggest that criminology is indeed a scientific discipline, establishing this reality in terms of the methodologies and outcomes produced from specific investigations proves to be a challenging task. The historical development and evolution of theory in criminology has focused on the development of research methods that would allow the collection of data that could be analyzed and interpreted to create affordable social policy to reduce or eliminate crime and/or criminal behavior. Despite significant efforts to develop research methodologies that effectively achieve these goals the reality is that transforming data collected through research conducted in criminal justice to positive social policy that produces salient results remains an elusive task. At the present time, and the empirical data that has been collected from research conducted in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice simply has not produced viable social policy which effectively reduces criminal behavior.

Utilizing the specific information provided in this investigation, one could clearly make the argument that the inability of past research in criminology and cannot justice to produce salient social policy has led to the overall stagnation of theory development in these disciplines. As noted by Petersilia and Wilson (1995) overall interest and support for criminology research has decreased significantly from the 1980s onward. The inability of social scientists to effectively reduce empirical results that have applicability to larger social problems has promulgated a high level of disinterest in research in these disciplines. As the overall amount of research in the context of criminology and criminal justice continues to decline the willingness and ability of researchers to actively undertaking investigation in these areas declined as well. With fewer investigations being undertaken, the evolution of theory in this discipline has effectively slowed to a trickle. This situation will not change until renewed interest in criminology and criminal justice research is developed.

Conclusions

When looking at the current state of research and theory as they have evolved in the disciplines of criminology and criminal justice, it is evident that the failure of empirical research to produce salient data for the development and institution of relevant social policy has served as the impetus for recent declines in these fields. Until pertinent methodologies can be developed that effectively produce quantitative data which can be used for the reduction or eradication of criminal behavior professionals working in these fields will continue to face considerable resistance and criticism for their efforts. Despite the fact researchers undertaking investigations in criminology and criminal justice have worked to formalize methods and establish quantitative protocols for investigation he and results of these efforts still receive considerable criticism from scientific researchers attempting to apply what has been learned through this research into practice. Unfortunately, it seems feasible to argue that at this juncture researchers undertaking investigations into criminology and criminal justice will have little impact on securing the scientific status of these disciplines until empirical research produced can effectively impact social outcomes in a positive manner.

References

Bennet, R.R. (2004). Comparative criminology and criminal justice research: The state of our knowledge. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 1-21.

Brodeur, J. (1999). Disenchanted criminology. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 131-136.

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

Jupp, V. (1993). Methods of Criminological Research, London: Routledge.

Laub, J.H. (2004). The life course of criminology in the United States. Criminology, 42(1), 1-26.

Petersilia, J., & Wilson, J.Q. (1995). Crime. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.