Are General Theories of Crime Useful? (From Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Crime and Criminology, Fifth Edition, P 80-97, 1998, Richard C. Monk, ed. -- See NCJ-183062)

• NCJ Number: 183067
• Author(s): Charles R. Tittle; Michael J. Lynch; W. Bryon Groves
• Editor(s): Richard C. Monk
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 18 pages
• Sale Source: Dushkin/McGraw Hill Publishing Group, Inc
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Research (Theoretical)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A criminologist links the advancement of science with general theory building and insists that criminology will remain stagnant if it continues to neglect general theory, while two professors argue that building general theories is not productive and instead believe that it is better to develop specific grounded theories and to engage in careful comparative criminology.

Abstract

For several years within the social sciences, including criminology but especially in sociology, students and professors have debated over what is more important, theory or research methods. Others have argued over what is better theory, micro-structural or macro-structural theory; that is, whether criminologists should attempt to explain and study only small slices of reality, such as child molestation or burglary, or whether they should develop comprehensive theories. The criminologist links scientific advancement with the development of a comprehensive or general theory of criminology. He believes that a good general theory of crime is necessary, even though formulating such a theory may be difficult. He notes organizational constraints that have worked against the development of a general theory. The professors reject this argument, asserting that no theory can explain all types of crime and that a general theory would force different kinds of crime into one false mold.