CLJ 597c – Approaches to Theory Testing in Criminology Professor: Derek Kreager Class Location: 406 Oswald Office: 904 Oswald Class Hours: M 1:25-4:25 Office Hours: T 1:00-2:00 or by appointment Email: [email protected] Phone: 867-0217 COURSE OVERVIEW What makes a scientific study interesting and/or important? How do advances in study design, measurement, methodological sophistication, and sampling contribute to our understanding of crime and delinquency? In this course, we will critically examine the innovative strategies that researchers take to test theory and push the field forward. With prominent and recent scholarly examples, we will discuss the feasibility and relevance of the various approaches and their applicability to graduate research. The goals of the course will be to (1) understand the current empirical status of influential criminological theories, (2) evaluate the relative contributions of theory-testing studies, and (3) connect theory-testing approaches to one’s own research agenda and current projects. REQUIRED READINGS Kubrin, Charis, Thomas Stucky, and Marvin Krohn. 2009. Researching Theories of Crime and Deviance. New York, NY: Oxford Press. Articles available on-line, via e-mail, or photocopied and placed in Oswald 211. GRADING There are five evaluation areas in this course: Research Paper 50% Research Paper Presentation 10% Seminar Leadership 20% Seminar Participation 10% Mock Journal Reviews 10% Total 100% Final grades are based upon the following scale: A = 93-100; A- = 90-92.9; B+ = 87-89.9; B = 83-86.9; B- = 80-83.9; C+ = 75-79.9; C = 70-74.9; D = 60-69.9; and F = 59.9 and below. Research Paper: You will be required to complete a seminar paper related to one of the areas covered in the course. The paper should be approximately 15-20 pages, double-spaced. You are encouraged, but not required, to include data analyses and results in your paper. At the least, you should identify a data source and method appropriate for your research question. A one-page abstract is due on March 2nd, and the final paper is due on April 20th. In addition, you will provide a 10-15 minute presentation of your paper on the final class period, April 27th. Seminar Leadership: You each will sign up to lead three class discussions during the semester. The seminar leaders will play a large role in guiding and facilitating each week’s discussion. Each leader should develop at least five questions related to the week’s readings and the overarching topic. These questions will be distributed to the class at least one day prior to the class meeting. I will be available the week prior to the class period to develop an outline of topics and to answer any questions prior to the seminar.Seminar Participation: The success of the class will depend on lively discussions and the sharing of ideas, so we all should come to the seminar having completed the readings and ready to contribute our thoughts. Along with the questions provided by the seminar leaders, everyone should come to class prepared to discuss the (1) feasibility, (2) general interest and social importance, and (3) scientific relevance of the week’s block of readings. Mock Journal Reviews: A central goal of this course will be evaluating the relative contributions of various research approaches and empirical studies. An important aspect of an academic career is to evaluate the contributions of submitted manuscripts as part of the blind journal review process. To help socialize you to this role, I will provide an array of my prior reviews and ask you to be blind reviewers for your classmates’ papers. I will then perform the duties of the editor to consolidate the recommendations and provide my own summary report. COURSE SCHEDULE 1/12 Introduction and Overview o Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1968. Chapter Two: The Logic of Scientific Inference. Pp. 15-56 in Constructing Social Theories. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1/19 The Gold Standard – Experimental Designs o Kling, Jeffrey, Jens Ludwig, and Lawrence Katz. 2005. “Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth: Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(1):87-130. o Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108(5):937-75. o Nagin, Daniel and Greg Pogarsky. 2003. “An Experimental Test of Deterrence: Cheating, Self-Serving Bias, and Impulsivity.” Criminology 41(1):168-184. o Duncan, Greg J., Johanne Boisjoly, Michael Kremer, Dan M. Levy, and Jacque Eccles. 2005. “Peer Effects in Drug Use and Sex among College Students.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33(3):375-385. o Sherman, Lawrence and Heather Strang. 2004. “Verdicts or Inventions? Interpreting Results from Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology.” American Behavioral Scientist 47(5):575-607. 1/26 My Theory is Better than Yours – Crucial Tests in Criminology o Lyons, Christopher. 2007. “Community (Dis)Organization and Racially Motivated Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 113(3):815-63. o Lafree, Gary and Andromachi Tseloni . 2006. “Democracy and Crime: A Multilevel Analysis of Homicide Trends in Forty-Four Countries, 1950-2000.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605(1):25-49. o Kreager, Derek. 2007. “Unnecessary Roughness? School Sports, Peer Networks, and Male Adolescent Violence.” American Sociological Review 72(5):705-724. o Wright, Bradley, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, and Phil Silva. 1999. “Low Self-Control, Social Bonds, and Crime: Social Causation, Social Selection, or Both?” Criminology 37(3):479-514. o Alarid, Leanne, Velmer Burton, and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “Gender and Crime among Felony Offenders: Assessing the Generality of Social Control and Differential Association Theories.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(2):171-199. 2/2 Testing Invariance – Conditional Effects and Subpopulation Analyses o Steffensmeier, Darrell and Dana Haynie. 2000. “Gender, Structural Disadvantage, and Urban Crime: Do Macrosocial Variables Also Explain Female Offending Rates?” Criminology 38(2):403-438.o Krivo, Lauren J. and Ruth D. Peterson. 2000. “The Structural Context of Homicide: Accounting for Racial Differences in Process.” American Sociological Review 65(44):547-559. o