Merging Ideas from Multiple Criminal Theories

Q. If criminological theories each have their own strengths and limitations, why might a more integrated approach to explaining criminality be advantageous?

Introduction :

The process of merging ideas from two or more criminal theories into a single theoretical statement, usually to provide a more full and accurate account of the crime or deviant conduct, is known as theoretical integration. Propositional integration, progressive integration, side-by-side integration, universal integration, and conceptual integration are all methods for combining theorems. While some researchers believe that combining hypotheses is a realistic strategy to produce better explanations for crime or deviant conduct, others argue that in order to improve, hypotheses must compete with one another.

Integrated Theories :

Although there were prior theories that combined notions from several disciplines, aggregation levels, and component theories (Cloward and Ohlin's differential opportunity theory, 1960), The development of Elliott, Ageton, and Canter's integral theories in the year 1979 acted as a spur for discussion and debate on theory development, with the authors hoping to blend concepts and theories into a more suitable illustrative scheme. Ten years later, a collection of writings by some of the most influential figures in the development of the criminal theory was released (Messner, Krohn and Liska, 1989).

Theoretical integration can also integrate theories from other fields of study. Multidisciplinary integration, like the integration between levels, has been uncommon. This is mostly due to academics' lack of familiarity with theories and research conducted in fields other than their own. As a result, the vast majority of mergers only involve theories from the criminal and social traditions. As developmental theorists strive to integrate ideas from biology and psychology with social theory to understand criminal conduct along the life path, interdisciplinary integration is becoming increasingly common. (Farrington, 1992, 2005) relates the beginning, persistence, and attractiveness of all sorts of antisocial behaviour from childhood through maturity to a core trait called antisocial propensity in his Theory of Antisocial Perceptual Ability (ICAP). Through interactions with an individual's social and physical environment, antisocial behaviour is displayed. According to Farrington, antisocial behaviour is determined not just by social variables such as parents, classmates, and societal influences, but also by the individual's cognitive talents or inadequacies in a variety of areas, such as impulsivity/hyperactivity, emotionality, intelligence, and awareness.

Theoretical and conceptual theories are the two most common types of comprehensive theories. Both types can be applied to ideas at the same level of aggregation (partial or macro-micro-integration) or separate levels of aggregation (partial or macro-micro-integration) (total and partial integration). Although integration between levels is uncommon, it is frequently regarded as a crucial next step in the development of crime and deviance theories. The resulting theory aims to account for both the individual qualities or processes related to crime and delinquency as well as the characteristics of the broader social context in which the individual is an integral part by merging theories at the micro and macro levels. Integrated theories at all levels can improve ecological validity by more closely approaching the social processes that contribute to such behaviour, depending on the complexity of the component theories. Furthermore, developments in statistical methods, such as multilevel modelling, have made it possible to identify increasingly sophisticated models based on integrated theories at all levels.

"Integration is based on an assessment of the convergence of causal reasoning in distinct theoretical approaches (Thomas Bernard, 1989)," "The purpose of theory integration is to find the similarities of two or more ideas to build a stronger synthesis than any independent theory," (Akers and Sellers, 2009).

Both of the preceding definitions set a lower limit on what can be termed a theoretical integral. Theoretical integration, on the other hand, is defined by (Thornberry, 1989) as "the act of merging two or more sets of logically linked ideas into a larger set of propositions in order to provide a more complete account of a phenomenon. Thornberry's notion has crucial implications for what constitutes a theoretical integration and the repercussions of component ideas if integration is effective.

Much of the research on theory blending has concentrated on discovering better explanations for crime and criminal behaviour, with little regard for which definitions the new theory may be called comprehensive. Instead, subcategories of theoretical integration, such as hypothetical integration, end-to-end integration, and bottom-up integration, are used to define theorems that combine components of component theorems. It is obvious that treating all subtypes of the elements of combination theorems as integral theories necessitates a more expansive definition of theoretical integration than Thornberry's.

Why would an integrated strategy to criminality be beneficial?

Many recent advances in criminological theory might be regarded as attempts to bring ideas from several component theories together into a single coherent theory. These attempts are aimed at providing a more comprehensive and satisfactory explanation of the offence or aberrant behaviour. Despite the fact that this appears to be a noble goal, researchers argue over the virtues of theoretical integration. Some argue that hypotheses should compete with one another. The competition's results will determine which theoretical perspectives will be pursued and which will be abandoned. Others are concerned about integral theories' failure to hold to component theories' many and frequently contradicting assumptions. Despite these issues, the development of theories that integrate concepts and recommendations from other theories continues the search for a more adequate explanation of criminal conduct. According to (Agnew, 2011), the process occurs gradually but inexorably since many theories have failed to provide sufficient explanations for the crime. He claims that each of these hypotheses has something to offer and that scientists must find a method to bring these concepts together.

End-to-end integrated theories define a theory's statements by sequencing other theoretical premises. As a result, end-to-end integration entails a chronological arrangement of causal variables, with the first set of variables influencing the next, leading to the desired outcome. This implies that the more distant causes of crime and deviance are believed to happen earlier, while the nearer reasons are supposed to happen later, mediating the aforementioned relationship. The thesis of (Elliott et al., 1979), which states that stress causes traditional relationships with society to break, which leads to association with deviant peer groups and thus deviance, is the best illustration of this form of integration.

Conceptual integration, as opposed to hypothetical integration, aims to group ideas based on conceptual similarities between component theories. This is accomplished by defining concepts in several theories that may appear to be distinct based on the words or terms used to explain them, but which have the same theoretical meaning or operationalization (Meisner et al., 1989).

Criticism :

According to (Hershey, 1989), science advances best when theories compete with one another. We test many theoretical explanations empirically and keep the ones that are most well-supported while rejecting the ones that are unsuccessful. While this technique appears to be a logical way to develop hypotheses, it has some drawbacks. Examining "critical evidence" is the best technique to compare different explanations for criminal behaviour. These are situations in which one theory predicts one outcome and another theory predicts the opposite. Unfortunately, there aren't many examples of critical tests like this. The comparative efficiency of the various ideas is difficult to assess due to a lack of key evidence. As a result, even beliefs that do not hold up when tested empirically are perpetuated. According to (Bernard and Snipes, 1996), this leads to a plethora of theories that obstruct rather than help scientific advancement.

Pearson and Weiner (1985) also point out that "systematic integration frameworks" are rarely used to describe consolidation attempts. When there is no such framework, the process can simply choose concepts from many theories without verifying that they create a logically cohesive whole (Gibbons, 1994). Discover additional insights on Cocaine trafficking in Mexico by navigating to our other resources hub.

Proposal integration aims to bring together ideas based on the predictions about crime and deviance that each component theory provides, despite the fact that these predictions might be obtained using a variety of concepts and assumptions. According to how the theoretical assumptions of the components are related to each other, this sort of integration can be divided into one of three subtypes: ascending or deductive integration, parallel or parallel/horizontal integration, and universal or sequential integration.

Conclusion :

As some theories are better adapted to describing specific sorts of crimes or crimes committed by specific sorts of offenders than others, the integration technique can be effective. Classical lineage theory, for example, can better explain crime perpetrated by the poor than by the wealthy, and hence can benefit from integration with a theory explaining crime perpetrated by the wealthy. As a result, combining multiple ideas into a single framework to more effectively describe a variety of behaviours can be beneficial.

References :

Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology. New York: New York University Press. Akers, R. L. (1999).Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996).Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 301–348.

Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press

Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 73–91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Hirschi, T. (1989). Exploring alternatives to integrated theory. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp. 37–49). Albany, NY: SUNY Press

Pearson, F. S., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an integration of criminological theories. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 116–150.

Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.