Search results

This edited volume presents the diversity of comparative criminology research in Asia, and the complex theoretical and methodological issues involved in conducting comparative research. With contributors both from the West and the East exploring these questions, the Editors have created a balanced resource, as well as set an agenda for future research. The increasing pace of globalization means that researchers should be armed with an understanding of how criminal justice systems work across the world. In the past, comparative research largely compared Western countries to each other, or involved researchers from a Western perspective examining an Asian country, with models and theories developed in the West considered to have universal applications. This work aims to correct that gap, by providing a critical examination of comparative research, presenting quantitative and qualitative research data, and asking new questions that challenge prevailing research norms and provide an agenda for future research. This work will be of interest for researchers across the field of Criminology, particularly those with an interest in International and Comparative Research, research on or about Asia, and related disciplines such as Sociology, Demography, and Social Policy.--

AbstractThis study addresses the current controversy involving radical criminology. It is argued that much of the polemic related to radical criminology is directed at a "straw man." a monolithic conception of the perspective that fails to consider important philosophical, theoretical, practical, and nominal dfferences among those who write radical criminology (i.e.p "radical criminologists"). Furthermore, although radical criminologists share many philosophical, theoretical, and practical assumptions, it is emphasized that they hold to these shared assumptions with dffering degrees of sensitivity, sophistication, andsubtlety a point often ignored by critics and enthusiasts alike. Consequently, this study explicates not only some of the shared assumptions of radical criminologists, but also some of the dfferences.

Reflections are offered on the current state of criminology, focusing on reasons why the discipline has achieved so little progress in understanding & controlling crime. A brief history of criminology, beginning with its origins in Cesare Lombroso's (1912) Darwinian theory, is given, arguing that all "advances" in criminological theory in the last century -- eg, James Q. Wilson's & Richard Herrnstein's sociobiological approach (1985) -- have not gone much beyond Lombroso's theory. Reasons for the crisis in criminology include: lack of adequate data & funding, the "publish/perish" syndrome in academia, the overuse of quantitative methods, & a general theoretical poverty. Various solutions to the crisis in criminology are discussed, & it is concluded that criminology has failed mainly because the philosophical issues that it addresses do not lend themselves to the scientific method. W. Howard

Presents an outline of major perspectives and traditions that are found in criminology. This book includes such topics as Anomie theory; Classical criminology; Critical criminology; Labeling theory; Positivism; Post-modernism; and, Subcultural theory. It is suitable for those in the field of criminology

Across the medical and social sciences, new discussions about replication have led to transformations in research practice. Sociologists, however, have been largely absent from these discussions. The goals of this review are to introduce sociologists to these developments, synthesize insights from science studies about replication in general, and detail the specific issues regarding replication that occur in sociology. The first half of the article argues that a sociologically sophisticated understanding of replication must address both the ways that replication rules and conventions evolved within an epistemic culture and how those cultures are shaped by specific research challenges. The second half outlines the four main dimensions of replicability in quantitative sociology—verifiability, robustness, repeatability, and generalizability—and discusses the specific ambiguities of interpretation that can arise in each. We conclude by advocating some commonsense changes to promote replication while acknowledging the epistemic diversity of our field.