Criminology - Acceptance Within Academe (From Radical Criminology, P 233-244, 1980, by James A Inciardi - See NCJ-70047)

• NCJ Number: 70058
• Author(s): W V Pelfrey
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 12 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-NI-AX-0050
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In 1978 a study was undertaken to determine whether criminology is indeed in the throes of a paradigm revolution.

Abstract

The study aimed to discover whether the prevailing consensus that has characterized the prior 30 years of sociological and criminological theory has been shattered. A questionnaire was developed by a panel of experts that, using the term 'new criminology' to encompass conflict-radical-critical-Marxist criminology, addressed the general ideological stance of the respondent concerning traditional criminology versus the new criminology. Statements, followed by a Likert scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree, concerned the power, potential, validity, and ability of the new perspective to replace the old or traditional criminology. The questionnaires were sent to a sample of 761 persons out of 2,284 persons from academic organizations within the crime-related disciplines, with a 50 percent response (384 persons). Of all respondents, 18 percent indicated unfamiliarity with the new criminology, so that the remaining 82 percent of 384 persons formed the bulk of the data for the analysis. Responses confirmed that the 'early stages of continuing crisis' have indeed progressed to a paradigm revolution. Over 57 percent indicated that 'new criminology' is a viable alternative to traditional criminology. The respondents were inclined toward the new criminology as a perspective with definite potential and one which is seen to be capable of transposing traditional criminology. Yet if proponents of new criminology are to convince those who are undecided, the research of the future must be methodologically more closely related to the perspectives and the theoretical propositions must be more tightly formulated so as to provide an arena for testing through research. Results indicate that the largest percentage of the respondents prefer the label 'conflict' terminology, which is the most traditional of the nontraditional perspectives. Finally, while traditional criminology may be quite threatened by the new criminology, both perspectives could probably benefit from a compromise that would allow each to contribute to the other. Twenty-one references are provided. For related documents, see NCJ 70048-57 and 70059-62.