CJ 8106 / 406  Criminological Theories Fall 2010

Approaching the Second In-Class Exam

Course Home

We have read the following since the first in-class exam:                                                   

	Level of aggregation of concepts and processes:
Wikstrom                      Hirschi                                     Gottfredson & Hirschi Laub & Sampson Rafter Garland	Person x Environment interaction Individual Bonds Individuals (person x environment interaction?) Individuals over time (person x environment interaction?) Biological International differences

Working with individual theories

Strongly suggest you try and draw or write for yourself the conceptual model for each work (except Rafter), outlining how it looks. Be sure you can understand all key concepts, and all key hypotheses. Use the weekly questions to be sure you are picking up key terms.

I will not ask you to commit these to memory, but you want to be sure you understand for each model:

• what is the outcome of interest? (what is inside the scope of the theory? what is outside?

• how is the outcome operationalized? what are the indicators from what data sources and what are the scientific properties of those different indicators?

• what is the level of aggregation for that theory?

• what assumptions does the theory make about human nature?

• what in the model is truly exogenous? (predictors not caused by anything prior)

• what are the processes whereby the exogenous predictors connect to the outcome(s)? be able to describe. Be sure you know if you are talking about direct effects, indirect (mediating) effects, or moderating effects.

• what is the evidence presented as supporting the theory?

• what is the quality of the evidence presented, using standard social scientific benchmarks of quality?

• how strongly is the theory supported by the evidence?

• how closely do the data indicators match the associated concepts?

• how parsimonious is the theory?

• in your view is it falsifiable?

• what is the theory's main take-away lesson for policy? for practice?

• does the theory build solidly on and incorporate insights from pre-existing research?

• OVERALL: how strong is the argument? why?

• OVERALL: how strong is the evidence? why?

For more thoughts on these matters refer to an orienting memo. CLICK HERE I have distributed this in prior iterations of this course, but did not do so this time. If this memo just confuses you, ignore it.

Connections between works

Questions you already have seen

Since the first exam, I have been including multivolume (really multiweek) questions.

They are brought together below after modifying them so they just consider post-exam readings. Additions to questions are in italics.

1. Compare and contrast Wikstrom's definition of propensity and G&H's idea of low self control. In what ways are they the same? In what ways are they different?
2. Contrast how Wikstrom and Hirschi conceptualize how the environment outside the person affects the chances that the person commits crime. In what ways are the concepts used different from one another? Are there any important similarities? Which view do you think best captures how the environment outside the person contributes to the likelihood of crime acts occurring and why?
3. SAT focuses on specific crime acts. Is it possible to develop a biocriminological theory that focuses on specific crime acts?What are the difficulties in doing this?
4. What points of overlap do you see between biocriminology and the GTOC?
5. Between biocriminology and life course criminology?

Some new questions to consider

Think about ways you can compare and contrast pairs or triads of books to get at broader questions. I encourage you to think up some of your questions which link together different books.

1. Of the different theories read in the last half of the semester, which one provides the most guidance for preventing crime? Be sure to say at what level the prevention program would operate at, what it would do as specifically as you can, and how the program elements link to theory.

2. Describe as specifically as you can which developments discussed by Garland in Culture of Control a) make the biocriminological theories described by Rafter of great interest to the public and policy makers and b) how those developments make it difficult for the public and policymakers to appreciate the emerging biosociality theme in current theory and research.

Probable structure of the exam

My guess at this point is that there will be a "big" multibook question spanning 2 or 3 (maybe) 4 books, then one or two much smaller questions.

Study session for those interested and how it would work

I plan to be here this Friday the 10th. I am happy to hold a study session for those interested. I would prefer a late in the afternoon time, but am open to any time after noon.

The class will NOT map out answers to multivolume questions. It WILL answer clarifying questions you have about specific theories. In addition, I will prepare some additional cross-theory themes for us to discuss in the session.

I will hold the review session as long as there is at least one taker.

You will be polled in class on Monday upcoming to see if you are interested in / have the time to attend. This is not to force you to commit to anything, but rather just to get a head count so I can try and get an appropriate study space.