Abstract
Criminology as an independent profession established itself just over a half century ago. An analysis of oral histories collected with seventeen leading scholars in criminology reveal how the profession has worked to establish institutional legitimacy over that time. Extending a thesis of boundary drawing (Gieryn, 1999) the present effort first briefly traces the field’s emancipation from its former intellectual home in sociology. Second, third, and fourth criminology has established a border with economics, public health, and biology while permitting “home disciplines” to continue to inform its formation. Fifth and sixth,it has distinguished itself internally from both Justice Studies and Law and Society. The field has worked to establish separation through crafting an interdisciplinary framing of its approach to the subject of crime that is influenced by but not dependent upon its more established peers. Criminology has made unique contributions to the development of methods and policy. While the emergent field has established a measure of separation from more established academic enterprises, several respondents expressed a lack of paradigmatic markers of theoretical and methodological consensus that carry potential professional costs if left unaddressed. Lessons can be drawn from the frustrations and promise of establishing multidisciplinary, policy-centric fields.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
With two professional organizing bodies of its own (American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Science) criminology is an independent profession of its own. However, the question of its scholarly identity is another matter.
Institutional Research Board requirements prohibit the disclosure of the identity of those who opted to decline participation and the reasons, if any, cited in justifying those decisions.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. (2010). Chaos of disciplines. University of Chicago Press.
ACJS Journal Documentary. (2020). Editorial Excellence: How ACJS journals have influenced the evolution ACJS and the CJ discipline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dztw2Zj40rM Accessed January 6, 2021.
Akers, R. L. (1992). Linking sociology and its specialties: The case of criminology. Social Forces, 71(1), 1–16.
Alexievich, S. (2016). Secondhand time: The last of the soviets. Random House.
Bennett, J. (1981). Oral history and delinquency: The rhetoric of criminology. University of Chicago Press.
Bosworth, M., & Hoyle, C. (Eds.). (2012). What is criminology? Oxford University: Press.
Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2000. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(1), 6–34.
Cooper, J. A., & Walsh, A. (2008). Criminologists’ opinions about causes and theories of crime and delinquency: A follow-up. The Criminologist, 33, 23–26.
Dooley, B. D. (2011). Whither criminology?: On the state of criminology's paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri—St. Louis.
Dooley, B. D. (2012). Oral history criminology project: Speaking to the question of our history. The Criminologist, 37(3), 14–15.
Dooley, B. D. (2016). The emergence of contemporary criminology. Crime, Law and Social Change, 66(4), 339–357.
Dooley, B. D. (2017). Conjectures, refutations, and (elusive) resolution: An exercise in the sociology of knowledge within criminology. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 5(1), 104–131.
Dooley, B. D. (2018). Whither criminology? The search for a paradigm over the last half century. The American Sociologist, 49(2), 258–279.
Dooley, B. D. (2019). Undisciplined: Tracing criminology’s divergence from sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 89(1), 94–122.
Dooley, B. D., & Goodison, S. E. (2020). Falsification by atrophy: The process of rejecting theory in US criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 60(1), 24–44.
Dooley, B. D., & Rydberg, J. (2014). Irreconcilable differences? Examining divergences in the orientations of criminology and criminal justice scholarship, 1951–2008. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(1), 84–105.
Ellis, L., & Hoffman, H. (1990). Views of contemporary criminologists on causes and theories of crime. In L. Ellis & H. Hoffman (Eds.), Crime in biological, social, and moral contexts. Praeger.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.
Hull, D. L. (2010). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Laub, J. H. (1983). Criminology in the making: An oral history. Northeastern University Press.
Laub, J. H. (2006). Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler report: Searching for the soul of criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44(2), 235–257.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.
Oberschall, A. (1972). The institutionalization of American Sociology. In A. Oberschall (Ed.), The establishment of empirical sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
Osgood, D. W. (1998). Interdisciplinary integration: Building criminology by stealing from our friends. The Criminologist, 23--1, 3, 4, 41.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. US Government Printing Office.
Ritzer, G. (1975). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rocque, M., & Posick, C. (2017). Paradigm shift or normal science? The future of (biosocial) criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 21(3), 288–303.
Rowe, D. C., & Wayne Osgood, D. (1984). Heredity and sociological theories of delinquency: A reconsideration. American Sociological Review, 49(4), 526–540.
Savelsberg, J. J., & Flood, S. (2011). American criminology meets Collins: Global theory of intellectual change and a policy-oriented field. Sociological Forum, 26(1), 21–44.
Savelsberg, J. J., King, R. D., & Cleveland, L. J. (2002). Politicized scholarship? Science on crime and the state. Social Problems, 49(3), 327–348.
Savelsberg, J. J., & Sampson, R. M. (2002). Mutual engagement: Criminology and sociology? Crime. Law & Social Change, 37(2), 99–105.
Shaw, C. R. (1930). The jack-roller: A delinquent boy’s own story. Albert Sarfer.
Shaw, C. R. (1931). The natural history of a delinquent career. University of Chicago Press.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). J. B. Lippincott.
Terkel, S. (1970). Hard times: An oral history of the great depression. Pantheon.
Terkel, S. (1984). The good war: An oral history of world war II. The New Press.
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. (1996). LEAA/OJP (law enforcement assistance administration/Office of Justice Programs) retrospective. Washington.
Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American criminologists’ explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24--1(14), 26–27.
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Thornberry, T. P. (1978). Evaluating criminology. Elsevier.
Zimring, F. E. (2008). Criminology and its discontents: The American Society of Criminology 2007 Sutherland address. Criminology, 46(2), 255–266.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dooley, B.D. Establishing a Profession through Boundary Drawing: Defining Criminology’s Autonomy Vis-À-Vis Six Competing Disciplines. Am J Crim Just 47, 900–923 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09611-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09611-2