What sets the chicago school of criminology apart from previous theoretical frameworks?

journal article

Social Forces

Vol. 75, No. 4 (Jun., 1997)

, pp. 1149-1182 (34 pages)

Published By: Oxford University Press

https://doi.org/10.2307/2580667

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2580667

This is a preview. Log in to get access

Abstract

This essay argues that sociology's major current problems are intellectual. It traces these problems to the exhaustion of the current "variables paradigm" and considers the Chicago School's "contextualist paradigm" as an alternative. Examples of new methodologies founded on contextual thinking are considered.

Journal Information

Social Forces is a journal of social research highlighting sociological inquiry but also exploring realms shared with social psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. The journal's intended academic readers include sociologists, social psychologists, criminologists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, and students of urban studies, race/ethnic relations, and religious studies.

Publisher Information

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Social Forces
Request Permissions

Introduction

As used in this presentation, the traditional Chicago School of Criminology refers to work conducted by faculty and students at the University of Chicago that utilized a macro-sociological theory called “social disorganization” to understand why crime and delinquency rates are higher in some neighborhoods than others. Hundreds of books and articles have focused upon the history of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago and the major role it played during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in shaping the general theoretical and analytic foundation of a then-fledgling discipline. In addition, the department’s influence still can be detected easily in much contemporary criminological research. This work actually subsumed a wide variety of conceptual and methodological orientations, and references to a single “Chicago School” of thought overly simplify the rich intellectual diversity of the department at that time. However, the insights generated in the area of urban sociology played an especially critical role in the development of American criminology.

The Chicago School of Criminology is identified with neighborhood studies of crime and delinquency that focus particularly on the spatial patterns of such behavior, especially as reflected in maps of their spatial distributions. However, such a characterization is at best a caricature of the rich insights that were fostered by the intellectual context of the University of Chicago that shaped the orientation of these early criminologists.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.

How to Subscribe

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.

Theoretical Criminology & Victimology | Paula Liesegang Maria

UNIT 4: THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

1INTRODUCTION

· University of Chicago → First department of sociology in 1892 and it was one of the

dominant forces in American sociological thought.

• Group of scholars associated with the department → Referred to as the "Chicago

School" of sociology and criminology.

· Recurrent theme of the school → Human behavior is developed and changed by the

social and physical environment of the person rather than by genetic structure.

• David Matza → It was assumed people are complex creatures who are capable

of great diversity in their lifestyles.

• Chicago School scholars considered the community to be a major influence on

human behavior.

o They believed a city is a natural human environment, "a microcosm of the

human universe”.

· Methods by which the Chicago School studied the individual and the city were in

themselves contributions to sociology and criminology → They began to study

individuals in their social environment & Examined people in the aggregate and as

individuals.

• The life history → Method of reaching deeply into factors and events shaping the

lives of individuals.

• The ecological study technique allowed them to transcend individuality gain a

sense of the characteristics of large groups of people.

• Combining the information from individual cases with population statistics →

The Chicago School constructed a framework that has been the basis for most of

our criminological theories ever since.

2THEHERITAGEOFTHESCHOOL

2.1THESOCIAL HERITAGE

· Workers in social sciences → Dealt with the development of big cities,

industrialization, mass immigration, etc.

· Members of the Chicago School o→ Looked to the city of Chicago as a source of

questions and answers → Many scholars believed the city was responsable for most

problems of society.

What distinguishes the Chicago School from other bio social theories of crime?

What was the focus of the Chicago School of criminology?

What were the most important contributions of the Chicago School to the study of crime?

What does the Chicago School of criminology note from its research?