Researchers in criminology have at different times used either qualitative or quantitative methods in order to conduct studies into crime. Both methods are underlined by different epistemologies that characterise the difference in their uses by researchers. Qualitative methods often are based interpretivism, that is that there is a recognition of not one truth but many, as what results mean is based upon some sort of interpretation of it. In this sense, we often observe the use of qualitative methods in criminology where research conducted by criminologists tend to focus on crime and reality as socially constructed. Quantitative methods, on the other hand, is underlined by positivism in that researchers seek to measure through data whether …show more content…
This is achieved through quantitative methods, making them a primary means for research within the discipline of criminology, as we criminological researchers often tend to make links between causes (independent variable) and crime (dependent variable). In this sense, causality often becomes the basis for the development of research within crime, as researchers look to explore whether there is an association, whether there is time order and whether association is not a result of some third variable that is unobserved. These form the criteria for most research that underpins such studies of crime in that it allows for the development of theoretical approaches by finding some way of understanding why crime comes about. Through looking at examples of where quantitative methods have been used or might be used it can be argued that as a research method it often is seen as the preferred choice over qualitative methods which are only used in certain circumstances where quantitative methods may not be fit to collect such data that is required. Theories such as differential association have made use of experimental methods to support their arguments in regards to why individuals commit crime. Albert Bandura’s “Bobo” experiment serves as a notable example for how quantitative methods have been used to establish causality, in this case between differential association and the individual in order to suggest that it is through interactions with others that criminal behaviour is learned. Where researchers look to explore patterns and trends in crime not just in terms of causes but also offences they use longitudinal and time-series methods of research in order to connect theory and data to establish some sort of truth.
The study of criminology involves many different theories in which people attempt to explain reasoning behind criminal behavior. Although there are many different theories the focus of this paper is the comparison and contrasting sides of The Differential Association Theory (DAT) of Edwin Sutherland and the Neoclassicism Rational Choice Theory. The Differential Theory falls under Social Process Theories which focuses on sociological perspective of crime. The Rational Choice Theory falls under Neoclassicism which believes that criminal behavior is ultimately a choice.
Jock Young’s book “The Criminological Imagination” very clearly spells out the author’s feeling that orthodox criminology has lost its way and has been swallowed up into obscurification through bogus, post-modern positivism. Young postulates, the cost of this phenomena is the loss of critical thinking and objectivity in the field of criminology. Young contends criminology can be rescued from obscurity if returning to its orthodox beginnings by reducing the impact of neo-liberalism with critical imagination, and not simply succumbing to empirical data to try to explain everything. Young contends, doing so seems to simply cloud the view, thus giving rise to a host of incomplete and overly politicized theories.
The three eras that have characterized the field of criminology over the past 100 years are the “Golden Age of Research,” the “Golden Age of Theory,” and an unnamed era that was “’characterized by extensive theory testing of the dominant theories, using largely empirical methods’” (28). The “Golden Age of Research” era spanned from 1900 to 1930 according to John H. Laub. This era is identified as focusing heavily on the collection of data surrounding crime and the criminal. This data was assessed without “any particular ideational framework” (28). The second era, the “Golden Age of Theory,” spanned from 1930 to 1960, also according to Laub. This era is also rather self-explanatory, it is described by the development of theories; however, Laub
The field of criminology has produced multiple theories, each that shaped the perception of how crimes occur in a neighborhood and by viewing these various impressions this can help explain why crimes occur. However, four criminological theories have developed the different perspectives of researchers and outlooks of the field. These approaches have enhanced society by allowing it to analyze crime by establishing an empirical foundation that way to assess which approach is most useful and regulate the difference between a good theory and a bad theory. Every method experiences level of criticisms from either researchers or public policies, however, the focus is only based on four principles that way there can be an assessment to decide which approach is viewed as right or wrong. In order, to determine which approach can be considered a good theory versus a bad theory there needs to be essential elements that give support for each theory. There needs to be criticism, however, with enough empirical evidence that can determine which
During the 1970’s to the early 1990’s there had emerged two new approaches to the study of crime and deviance. The discipline of criminology had expanded further introducing right and left realism, both believe in different areas and came together in order to try and get a better understanding on crime and prevention. There were many theorists that had influenced the realism approaches such as; Jock Young (Left Wing) and James Wilson (Right Wing).
The term methodology refers to the way in which we approach problems and try to find answers and in social science, it applies to how research is conducted, our assumptions, interest and purposes shape which methodology we choose (Steven, 2016:3).Qualitative research is understanding people from their own perspectives, their viewpoint and experiencing reality as they experience it. Qualitative research has many approaches or methods of collecting data and one of them is an interview which I have chosen to explain further based on it as a method of collecting data. The interview is the most common method of data gathering used in qualitative research and it is used in deferent ways by every main theoretical and methodological approach.
...ifferent crime patterns and thought processes of criminals. The reasons can only come from these theories and will help the justice systems become more prepared to react towards different crimes. However, with adding some enhancements, projects and experiments these two theories have the potential to change the criminology realm forever.
In order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal behavior theories, the word theory needs to be defined. “A theory is an explanation. It tells why or how things are related to each other. A theory of crime explains why or how a certain thing or certain things are related to criminal behavior.” (Bohn and Vogel)
Criminology is the study of crime and criminals. In criminology, crime data is gathered in many different ways. All of these ways are part of the National Incident-Based Reporting system, which is a program that collects data on each respond crime incident (CITATION). There are Primary Sources of collecting crime data, and Secondary Sources of collecting crime data. Under the Primary Sources of collecting crime data are the National Crime Victimization Survey, Self Report Surveys, and the Uniform Crime Reports. These reporting surveys and official records gather information for Criminologists about all types of crimes. Some examples of these are homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, arson, burglary, and larceny. Criminologists use these also to measure the nature and extent of the crime, along with behavior and personalities of the offenders. Secondary Sources of collecting crime data are Experimental Research, Observational and Interview Research, Data Mining, Crime Mapping, Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review, and Cohort Research. These gathering techniques gather informatio...
Criminology is the study of crime and criminals; a branch of sociology. More accurately, it is the study of crime as a social trend, and its overall origins, its many manifestations and its impact upon society as a whole. That makes it more a form of sociology than a law enforcement tool. But the trends it studies have a huge impact on the way the police do their jobs, the way society treats its criminals, and the way a given community goes about maintaining law and order. The writer will describe and give examples of the three perspectives of viewing crimes. The perspectives that will be highlighted are the consensus view, the conflict view or the interactionist view. Each perspective maintain its own interpretation of what constitutes criminal activities and what causes people to engage in criminal behaviors (Siegel, p.12).
When we look at crime statistics there are two ways of collecting data; these are quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research methods look at crime on a macro scale while qualitative research methods look at crime on a micro scale. Macro will look at the nation as a whole while micro will look at the individual. Selecting what method to use will depend on the criminologist’s theoretical perspective. Positivists prefer using quantitative data to look at crime.
Criminology has evolved over history into becoming a discipline all its own, along the way it grew and developed from a multiple sources of disciplines to become an integration of various theories. Reasons that seek to explain crime and deviant behaviors has mirrored the time in which research was being conducted and as time continues to change it is to be expected more theories will arise to incorporate past theories to become ever more inclusive. It is important to understand this development from the formulation of theories, the evolution of, the determining factors in testing, particular process such as social learning that are upheld as strong empirically sound theories in order for scholars to continue to advance further studies. But it is unlikely crime will ever be solved completely, for in some instances it is a necessary evil, yet it can be hoped that with the knowledge obtained thus far and that to be discovered crime and deviance might be reduced, prevented and controlled in the future to come.
However, the causal relationships may not work the way the theories propose – they can be multi-causal, bi-conditional or opposite to that proposed. And this has emerged as a problem in criminology.
The study of criminology involves three different phases. Criminals and crime have been around for as long as societies have existed; the systematic stu...
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near