NCJ Number
92330
Date Published
1983
Length
20 pages
Annotation
Although reserach methodology is a factor affecting the validity of comparative criminology, comparative criminology is primarily undermined by the fact that social behavior itself is not easily susceptible to the Humean regularities sought by criminologists.
Abstract
There are three distinct comparative methods in American criminology on which hinges the ability of criminologists to make adequate cross-cultural generalizations about deviant behavior. Each method has its particular view about how to juxtapose the cases within its scope. The primary aim of the 'method of agreement' is to identify a commonality among as many empirical cases of crime as possible; however, no study based on this method can afford to ask difficult questions about cultural variation in the definition of crime or about subjective perceptions of the seriousness of crime. The 'method of difference' focuses on the inexplicable cases encountered in the 'method of agreement;' however, no matter how successful the studies are that use the 'method of difference,' the resultant explanation of deviant cases not only does not aid the theories that use the 'method of agreement' but is irrelevant to them. 'Methodological relativism' is a research approach that attempts to take into account cultural diversity. For relativism, the major obstacle to the construction of cross-cultural generalizations is the impossibility of precise equivalence of action and meaning in different cultures. The defect of all the methods of comparative criminology arise from the inevitable divergences in human behavior and perceptions across cultures. Crime in different cultures can be compared only if the definition and meaning of criminal behavior in these cultures are the same. Six notes and 49 references are provided.