Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Criminology and Criminal Justice Education > Criminology as an Academic Discipline

Criminology as an Academic Discipline




Criminology as an academic discipline has developed from scattered nineteenth-century intellectual projects into a large, institutionally established field of scientific inquiry with dedicated departments, doctoral programs, professional associations, and peer-reviewed journals. As a subject central to Criminology Education, criminology’s disciplinary identity has been shaped by ongoing debates about its relationship to sociology, its methodological standards, its practical obligations to criminal justice policy, and its place within the broader university. Housed within the larger domain of Criminology, the discipline occupies an unusual position in American higher education — simultaneously claiming scientific rigor, practical relevance, and critical social commentary in ways that generate productive but unresolved tensions about what the field is, whom it serves, and how its knowledge should be produced and evaluated.

Introduction

Few academic disciplines have experienced as rapid an institutional expansion as criminology and criminal justice in the United States. In 1960, the field barely existed as an independent academic enterprise; most scholars who studied crime did so within sociology departments, and the handful of programs specifically dedicated to criminal justice were oriented toward professional training for police and correctional officers rather than scientific research. By the early twenty-first century, the landscape had transformed dramatically. Hundreds of universities offered undergraduate degrees in criminology or criminal justice, dozens of doctoral programs produced new researchers annually, and the field’s flagship professional organization — the American Society of Criminology — counted thousands of members from multiple countries (Savelsberg & Sampson, 2002).

This institutional growth has not been without controversy. Sociologists have periodically questioned whether criminology constitutes a truly independent discipline or remains a subfield of sociology that has achieved administrative autonomy without commensurate intellectual justification. Criminologists themselves debate whether the field’s rapid expansion — particularly at the undergraduate level — has diluted academic standards or produced a generation of graduates without adequate theoretical and methodological training. The relationship between criminology as a science and criminal justice as a professional practice continues to generate disagreements about curriculum design, research priorities, and the appropriate role of academics in policy advocacy.




Understanding criminology’s disciplinary status matters for practical reasons that extend beyond academic turf disputes. Departmental affiliation determines faculty hiring criteria, tenure standards, and the methodological training available to graduate students. Disciplinary identity shapes which funding agencies consider criminological proposals competitive, which journals carry prestige, and how the public and policymakers perceive the credibility of crime research. The history and current structure of criminology as an academic discipline are therefore not merely questions of institutional sociology; they have direct consequences for the quality and direction of knowledge production about crime and justice.

Historical Development of the Discipline

European Origins and American Transplantation

Criminology’s emergence as a recognizable intellectual enterprise is typically traced to the European positivist movement of the late nineteenth century, although systematic thinking about crime, punishment, and social order extends much further back. Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments (1764) and Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian writings on punishment established the classical school’s emphasis on rational choice, proportionality, and deterrence — ideas that profoundly influenced criminal law reform but did not generate an institutionalized academic discipline. The positivist turn, initiated by Cesare Lombroso’s Criminal Man (1876) and elaborated by Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo, shifted attention from the criminal act to the criminal actor, proposing that scientific methods could identify the biological, psychological, and social causes of offending (Rafter, 2009). Although Lombroso’s specific biological claims were eventually discredited, his insistence that crime could be studied scientifically — using measurement, comparison, and empirical observation — provided the founding methodological commitment of the discipline.

The transplantation of criminological inquiry to the United States occurred primarily through sociology departments in the early twentieth century. The University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology became the field’s most influential institutional home, producing the ecological studies of Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, the cultural transmission analyses of Frederick Thrasher’s gang research, and the methodological innovations of the Chicago Area Project (Laub, 2004). Edwin Sutherland, who held positions at multiple universities before settling at Indiana University, arguably did more than any other individual to establish criminology as a recognized specialty within American sociology through his textbook Criminology (first published 1924), his theory of differential association, and his pioneering research on white-collar crime. Thorsten Sellin’s work on culture conflict and crime and his editorship of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science further institutionalized criminological inquiry during the interwar period (Sellin, 1938). By mid-century, criminological research was being conducted in sociology departments across the country, but the field lacked the independent organizational infrastructure — departments, journals, professional associations — that would characterize a fully autonomous discipline.

The Post-War Expansion and Institutional Autonomy

The transformation of criminology from a sociological specialty into an independent academic enterprise accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by converging political, social, and institutional forces. Rising crime rates, urban unrest, the civil rights movement, and growing public concern about law enforcement effectiveness created political demand for expertise about crime and criminal justice. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) and the subsequent creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) channeled substantial federal funding into criminal justice education, research, and program development. LEAA’s Law Enforcement Education Program provided tuition assistance to criminal justice practitioners, stimulating rapid growth in undergraduate and graduate programs (Morn, 1995). Between 1965 and 1975, the number of criminal justice degree programs in the United States increased from fewer than 50 to more than 600, a pace of institutional proliferation virtually without precedent in American higher education.

This growth created institutional dynamics that pulled the field toward independence from sociology. New criminal justice programs were often housed in their own departments or schools rather than within sociology, reflecting both the practical orientation of their student bodies and the administrative advantages of organizational autonomy. The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), founded in 1963, provided a professional home for scholars and practitioners in criminal justice education, while the American Society of Criminology (ASC), which had existed in various forms since the 1940s, increasingly attracted researchers with doctoral training in criminology-specific programs rather than traditional sociology departments. The establishment of dedicated doctoral programs — at the University at Albany’s School of Criminal Justice (1968), Rutgers University, the University of Cincinnati, the University of Maryland, and elsewhere — created a pipeline of researchers whose primary disciplinary identification was with criminology rather than sociology (Akers, 1992).

The institutional proliferation raised persistent questions about quality and coherence. Frank Cullen (2005) has observed that the rapid expansion of criminal justice programs during the LEAA era sometimes prioritized enrollment growth over intellectual rigor, producing programs with weak methodological training and heavy reliance on adjunct instructors drawn from practitioner backgrounds. The tension between scientific training and professional preparation — between producing researchers who advance knowledge and producing graduates who can immediately enter law enforcement, corrections, or court administration — has never been fully resolved and continues to shape curricular debates in the field. The Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards, convened in the 1970s to establish curricular guidelines, represented an early effort to impose intellectual coherence on a rapidly diversifying educational landscape, though its recommendations were unevenly implemented.

Disciplinary Identity Debates

Whether criminology constitutes a discipline in its own right or remains fundamentally dependent on parent disciplines — primarily sociology, but also psychology, economics, law, and political science — has been debated for decades. Critics of disciplinary independence argue that criminology lacks a unified theoretical paradigm, that its most productive scholars continue to be trained in and publish within traditional disciplinary frameworks, and that autonomous criminology programs risk intellectual isolation from the broader social sciences (Savelsberg & Sampson, 2002). Defenders counter that the field has developed sufficient theoretical, methodological, and institutional infrastructure to justify independent status — its own journals, its own doctoral programs, its own bodies of cumulative knowledge — and that the study of crime and justice constitutes a coherent intellectual domain that cannot be adequately addressed by any single parent discipline (Krohn & Akers, 2006).

John Laub’s (2004) ASC presidential address traced the “life course” of criminology in the United States, arguing that the field’s institutional trajectory mirrors the developmental processes that life-course criminology studies in individuals: early formation, critical turning points, and ongoing adaptation to changing environments. Laub emphasized that criminology’s greatest strength lies precisely in its interdisciplinary character — its capacity to integrate insights from sociology, psychology, biology, economics, law, and public policy around a shared substantive focus. This integrative capacity, he argued, is what distinguishes a mature discipline from a narrow specialty, and it is what makes criminology’s contribution irreducible to any single parent field. Subsequent commentators, including Nicole Rafter (2010) and Francis Cullen, have generally endorsed this view while acknowledging that interdisciplinarity creates governance challenges — disputes over which methodological standards to apply, which theoretical traditions to privilege, and which kinds of scholarship to reward in hiring and tenure decisions.

The debate has practical consequences. Departments that identify primarily with criminology tend to hire faculty with training in criminology-specific doctoral programs and to prioritize crime-focused research in tenure decisions. Departments that maintain a stronger connection to sociology may require broader disciplinary training and evaluate faculty contributions against sociological standards of theoretical sophistication. Graduate students choosing programs must weigh the depth of criminological specialization against the breadth of disciplinary exposure, a decision with career implications that extend well beyond the choice of dissertation topic. Ronald Akers (1992) argued that the field’s long-term intellectual health depends on maintaining connections to parent disciplines even as it develops its own institutional infrastructure — a position that remains widely shared but difficult to operationalize in practice.

Institutional Structure and Organization

Departments, Programs, and Degree Structures

The institutional home of criminology in American higher education takes several organizational forms. Some universities house criminology within sociology departments, either as a formal concentration or simply as a cluster of faculty with crime-related research interests. Others maintain independent departments of criminology, criminal justice, or criminology and criminal justice — the naming conventions vary and carry subtle signals about intellectual orientation. A smaller number of institutions have established freestanding schools of criminal justice (the University at Albany, Rutgers University-Newark) or colleges of criminology and criminal justice (Florida State University), organizational structures that confer greater administrative autonomy and typically support larger faculty rosters and more extensive graduate programs.

Undergraduate programs in criminology and criminal justice have grown enormously, with criminal justice consistently ranking among the most popular majors at many state universities. The National Center for Education Statistics has documented steady growth in criminal justice bachelor’s degrees conferred annually, a trend driven by student interest in law enforcement, homeland security, forensic science, and legal careers. Curricula at the undergraduate level typically combine core coursework in criminological theory, criminal justice systems (policing, courts, corrections), research methods, and statistics with elective concentrations in specialized areas such as juvenile justice, cybercrime, forensic investigation, or policy analysis (Clear, 2001). The balance between theoretical depth and practical application varies significantly across programs and remains a point of ongoing faculty debate. Programs anchored in research universities tend to emphasize analytical and methodological skills, while those at teaching-oriented institutions may weight practitioner preparation more heavily.

Graduate education in criminology operates at two distinct levels with different purposes. Master’s programs serve both students seeking professional advancement in criminal justice careers and those preparing for doctoral study. Doctoral programs aim to produce researchers capable of advancing theoretical knowledge, conducting rigorous empirical research, and contributing to evidence-based policy. The top-ranked doctoral programs — typically identified through surveys conducted by the ASC, ACJS, or publications such as U.S. News & World Report — share certain characteristics: strong methodological training sequences, active faculty research programs with external funding, low student-to-faculty ratios, and placement records that demonstrate graduates’ success in obtaining tenure-track positions or research appointments (Steiner, Wright, & Toto, 2020). Florida State University, the University of Cincinnati, the University at Albany, the University of Maryland, and Penn State University have consistently appeared among the most highly regarded programs in national rankings.

Professional Associations and Scholarly Infrastructure

The organizational infrastructure of criminology as a discipline includes professional associations, peer-reviewed journals, and research centers that collectively define the field’s intellectual standards and social networks. The American Society of Criminology, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, holds an annual meeting that attracts several thousand participants and serves as the primary venue for presenting new research, recruiting faculty, and socializing graduate students into the profession. The ASC publishes Criminology, widely regarded as the field’s top journal, along with Criminology & Public Policy, which focuses on the policy implications of criminological research. The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, oriented more toward criminal justice education and practice, publishes Justice Quarterly and holds its own annual conference, drawing a membership that includes both researchers and practitioners (Maguire, 2015).

Beyond these flagship organizations, specialized professional bodies serve particular subfields and constituencies. The Division on Women and Crime, the Division of International Criminology, and the Division of Policing within the ASC provide intellectual homes for scholars working in those areas. The Western Society of Criminology, the European Society of Criminology, and the Asian Criminological Society reflect the field’s increasingly international character. The journal landscape has expanded correspondingly: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime & Delinquency, Feminist Criminology, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Annual Review of Criminology, and numerous others provide specialized publication venues that did not exist a generation ago. This journal proliferation has created more outlets for research but has also fragmented the field’s conversation, making it possible for scholars working in different subfields to publish extensively without sustained engagement with one another’s work.

Research centers and institutes constitute a third institutional pillar. University-based entities — the RAND Corporation’s criminal justice portfolio, the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and departmental research centers at major universities — conduct policy-relevant research, secure external funding, and train the next generation of researchers through assistantship and fellowship positions. Federal agencies, particularly the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), fund the empirical research that constitutes the discipline’s evidence base, making government-academic partnerships a defining feature of criminological knowledge production. NIJ’s annual budget, though modest compared to funding agencies in the natural sciences, supports a substantial portfolio of research grants, graduate research fellowships, and data collection efforts that shape the discipline’s research agenda in ways both productive and constraining.

Table 1. Criminology’s Institutional Evolution in American Higher Education

Era Key Developments Institutional Home Dominant Methods Funding Environment Disciplinary Status
1890s–1930s European positivism imported; Chicago School ecological research; Sutherland’s textbook and white-collar crime concept Sociology departments Ethnography, ecological mapping, case studies Private foundations, university internal Specialty within sociology
1940s–1960s Post-war expansion of social science; early professional associations formed; federal crime commissions Sociology departments with emerging separate programs Survey research, official statistics, field experiments Federal commissions, early NIJ precursors Growing subspecialty seeking autonomy
1965–1980 LEAA funding explosion; 600+ new CJ programs; first independent doctoral programs established Mix of sociology and new CJ departments/schools Program evaluation, victimization surveys, quasi-experiments LEAA ($850M+ at peak), state grants Rapid institutional independence
1980s–2000s Evidence-based movement; Campbell Collaboration; methodological sophistication increases; top programs consolidate Independent departments and schools predominate RCTs, meta-analysis, longitudinal studies, GIS NIJ, BJS, OJJDP, private foundations Established independent discipline
2000s–present Computational methods; data science integration; internationalization; diversity and inclusion initiatives Diverse: departments, schools, interdisciplinary centers Machine learning, network analysis, big data, mixed methods Federal agencies, NSF, foundation partnerships Mature discipline with interdisciplinary pressures

Methodological Standards and Intellectual Norms

The Evidence Hierarchy and Experimental Criminology

Criminology’s methodological standards have evolved substantially over the past half-century, tracking broader developments in the social sciences while responding to the field’s distinctive challenges. The evidence-based movement, which gained momentum in the 1990s and 2000s, promoted a hierarchy of research designs in which randomized controlled trials occupy the highest evidentiary tier, followed by quasi-experimental designs, observational studies with statistical controls, and qualitative or descriptive research (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, & MacKenzie, 2002). The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, which Lawrence Sherman and colleagues developed for their congressional report on crime prevention, formalized this hierarchy and has been widely adopted in systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted by the Campbell Collaboration and other synthesis organizations.

The privileging of experimental and quasi-experimental designs has generated considerable intellectual debate within the discipline. Proponents argue that causal inference — the ability to determine whether an intervention actually reduces crime rather than merely correlating with lower crime — requires the kind of comparison group logic that only experimental designs can provide cleanly. The growth of randomized controlled trials in criminology, from the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment in the early 1980s to contemporary evaluations of body-worn cameras, focused deterrence programs, and cognitive-behavioral therapy in prisons, reflects a methodological achievement that has strengthened the field’s capacity to inform policy (Weisburd, 2010). The founding of the Journal of Experimental Criminology in 2005 and the Academy of Experimental Criminology institutionalized this methodological commitment, creating dedicated venues for experimental research and its systematic synthesis.

Critics contend that the evidence hierarchy systematically devalues forms of knowledge production — ethnography, historical analysis, critical theory, participatory research — that address questions experiments cannot answer. Jock Young (2011) argued that the aspiration to emulate medical research models represents a “narrow empiricism” that strips away the social, political, and experiential context necessary for understanding crime. Feminist and critical criminologists have raised analogous concerns, noting that experimental designs are often impractical or ethically inappropriate for studying phenomena such as sexual violence, state crime, or structural racism, and that privileging experimental evidence marginalizes entire research traditions and the scholars who work within them (Chesney-Lind, 2006). The tension between methodological rigor and methodological pluralism remains one of the discipline’s most consequential intellectual divides, with implications for journal gatekeeping, funding priorities, and the definition of what constitutes legitimate criminological knowledge.

Publishing, Peer Review, and Knowledge Production

The peer review system constitutes the primary mechanism through which criminological knowledge is evaluated and certified. Manuscripts submitted to leading journals undergo blind review by two or more experts, a process intended to ensure that published research meets standards of theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and analytical integrity. Acceptance rates at the field’s top journals are typically low — Criminology has historically accepted fewer than 10 percent of submissions — creating intense competition and significant career consequences for junior scholars navigating the tenure process. The time from submission to publication can extend to two years or more, a pace that frustrates researchers working on fast-moving policy questions and creates incentives for preliminary dissemination through working papers, conference presentations, and policy briefs.

The publishing landscape has changed in ways that reflect broader trends in academic knowledge production. The proliferation of specialized journals has created more outlets for research but has also raised questions about the field’s capacity to maintain shared intellectual standards across an increasingly fragmented publication environment. Impact factors, citation counts, and journal rankings — metrics borrowed from the natural sciences — have become increasingly influential in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, though their appropriateness for evaluating social science research remains debated (Cohn & Farrington, 2012). Open-access publishing, preprint servers, and data sharing mandates are gradually changing how criminological knowledge circulates, though the field has been slower to adopt these practices than some natural and biomedical sciences.

Replication studies, long undervalued in the social sciences generally, have received growing attention in criminology as concerns about the reliability and generalizability of single-study findings have intensified (Pridemore, Makel, & Plucker, 2018). The replication crisis that has affected psychology and other disciplines has prompted criminologists to examine the extent to which their own foundational findings hold up under independent scrutiny. Calls for pre-registration of study hypotheses and analytical plans, more transparent reporting of null results, and greater attention to statistical power have gained traction within the discipline, reflecting a broader movement toward open science practices that could reshape how criminological knowledge is produced, evaluated, and accumulated over the coming decades.

Ongoing Debates and Future Directions

The Tension Between Science and Advocacy

One of the defining tensions within criminology as an academic discipline is the relationship between scientific inquiry and social advocacy. Some criminologists maintain that the field’s credibility depends on strict adherence to value-neutral scientific methods — that researchers should produce the best possible evidence about crime and leave policy advocacy to practitioners and elected officials. Todd Clear (2010) has argued, conversely, that criminologists have an obligation to engage with policy debates and to communicate their findings in ways that are accessible to decision-makers, particularly when the evidence points to clear harms — such as mass incarceration — that public policy could ameliorate. Clear’s ASC presidential address explicitly challenged the notion that scientific objectivity requires political silence, arguing that the discipline’s accumulated knowledge about the costs and limited benefits of mass imprisonment creates a professional responsibility to speak.

Critical criminologists position themselves still further along the advocacy spectrum, arguing that the pretense of value neutrality in crime research is itself a political stance that implicitly endorses existing power arrangements. From this perspective, choosing to study street crime rather than corporate crime, or to evaluate policing strategies without questioning the legitimacy of policing itself, reflects ideological commitments that mainstream criminology refuses to acknowledge (DeKeseredy, 2011). The growing influence of public criminology — efforts to bring criminological knowledge to broader audiences through popular writing, media engagement, policy briefs, and community partnerships — represents a partial resolution of this tension, creating institutional space for scholars who wish to combine rigorous research with public engagement without fully collapsing the distinction between science and politics. Ian Loader and Richard Sparks (2011) have proposed a model of “democratic underlabouring” in which criminologists contribute expertise to public deliberation without claiming epistemic authority over policy questions that are fundamentally political.

The debate intersects with questions about diversity within the discipline. Criminology’s faculty demographics do not reflect the populations most affected by crime and criminal justice policy. Despite significant progress in recent decades, women, Black scholars, Latino scholars, and scholars from other underrepresented groups remain disproportionately concentrated in lower-ranked programs, at contingent faculty ranks, and in subfields that carry less prestige within the discipline’s internal status hierarchy (Gabbidon, Penn, & Richards, 2003). The intellectual consequences of this demographic imbalance are substantive, not merely symbolic: the questions researchers ask, the populations they study, the methods they employ, and the interpretive frameworks they bring to data are all shaped by lived experience and social position. Ruth Peterson’s (2012) ASC presidential address drew explicit attention to these dynamics, arguing that the field’s capacity to produce accurate and complete knowledge about crime depends on diversifying the scholars who produce that knowledge.

Interdisciplinarity and the Future of the Field

Criminology’s future as an academic discipline will be shaped significantly by its capacity to maintain productive relationships with adjacent fields while sustaining its own institutional coherence. The increasing importance of computational methods, data science, and artificial intelligence in crime analysis requires partnerships with computer science and engineering that few criminology departments currently support through their own faculty. Sarah Brayne’s (2020) ethnographic research on predictive policing in Los Angeles illustrates the kind of interdisciplinary work — combining sociological theory, computational analysis, and ethnographic method — that the field will need to produce more systematically. The growing recognition of crime as a public health problem, reflected in the American Public Health Association’s engagement with gun violence and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s research on youth violence prevention, creates opportunities for collaboration with epidemiologists, public health researchers, and medical professionals that could strengthen criminology’s evidence base and expand its policy influence.

At the same time, criminology faces pressures that could fragment the discipline or diminish its institutional standing. The consolidation of higher education budgets, the declining number of tenure-track positions in the social sciences, and the growing emphasis on workforce-oriented degree programs create competitive pressures that affect all academic fields but may disproportionately impact disciplines whose value proposition to students is tied to specific career pathways in law enforcement, corrections, or legal services. The emergence of criminal justice studies as a distinct field — more oriented toward systems analysis and institutional evaluation, less toward etiological theory — has created organizational ambiguity that some scholars view as healthy differentiation and others as threatening fragmentation (Decker, 2014). Whether criminology can sustain its dual identity — as a rigorous social science and as a professionally relevant field of study — will depend on the capacity of its programs, its scholars, and its professional organizations to demonstrate that theoretical knowledge and methodological sophistication produce better practitioners and better policy, not merely better publications.

International developments also bear on the discipline’s trajectory. Criminology has historically been dominated by Anglo-American scholarship, with theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and policy prescriptions developed primarily in the United States and United Kingdom. The rapid growth of criminological programs and research communities in continental Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa is diversifying the field’s intellectual base in ways that challenge assumptions rooted in American exceptionalism (Nelken, 2010). Comparative criminology, transnational crime research, and global justice scholarship are expanding the discipline’s substantive scope while raising methodological questions about the transferability of findings across radically different institutional and cultural contexts.

Conclusion

Criminology’s trajectory as an academic discipline reflects both the intellectual richness of its subject matter and the institutional complexities of a field that emerged from multiple parent disciplines, expanded rapidly in response to political demand, and continues to negotiate fundamental questions about its identity, methods, and social obligations. From its European positivist origins through its American institutionalization within sociology, its post-war expansion into independent departments and schools, and its contemporary diversification into specialized subfields and computational approaches, criminology has built a substantial organizational infrastructure — doctoral programs, professional associations, peer-reviewed journals, research centers — that supports sustained knowledge production about crime and justice. The debates that animate the discipline — science versus advocacy, experimental rigor versus methodological pluralism, disciplinary independence versus interdisciplinary integration, American-centered versus globally comparative — are not signs of intellectual weakness but rather evidence of a field grappling seriously with the conceptual and practical challenges that any attempt to study crime scientifically must confront.

References

  1. Akers, R. L. (1992). Linking sociology and its specialties: The case of criminology. Social Forces, 71(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579962
  2. Brayne, S. (2020). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press.
  3. Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282893
  4. Clear, T. R. (2001). Has academic criminal justice come of age? Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095071
  5. Clear, T. R. (2010). Policy and evidence: The challenge to the American Society of Criminology: 2009 Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 48(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00178.x
  6. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2011.604417
  7. Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00001.x
  8. Decker, S. H. (2014). The challenges of theory, method, and data in the study of crime and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.951497
  9. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2011). Contemporary critical criminology. Routledge.
  10. Gabbidon, S. L., Penn, E. B., & Richards, W. A. (2003). The status of Black criminologists in the discipline’s top-ranked journals and doctoral programs: An update. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250300085761
  11. Krohn, M. D., & Akers, R. L. (2006). Criminology is a discipline. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 237–249.
  12. Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 Presidential Address. Criminology, 42(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00511.x
  13. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2011). Public criminology?. Routledge.
  14. Maguire, E. R. (2015). New directions in criminological theory and criminal justice organizations. In M. D. Maltz & S. K. Rice (Eds.), Envisioning criminology (pp. 91–105). Springer.
  15. Morn, F. (1995). Academic politics and the history of criminal justice education. Greenwood Press.
  16. Nelken, D. (2010). Comparative criminal justice. Sage Publications.
  17. Peterson, R. D. (2012). The central place of race in crime and justice — the American Society of Criminology’s 2011 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 50(2), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00271.x
  18. Pridemore, W. A., Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2018). Replication in criminology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091849
  19. Rafter, N. (2009). The origins of criminology: A reader. Routledge.
  20. Rafter, N. (2010). Silence and memory in criminology — the American Society of Criminology 2009 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 48(2), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00190.x
  21. Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
  22. Savelsberg, J. J., & Sampson, R. J. (2002). Mutual engagement: Criminology and the sociology of deviance. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 501–525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140932
  23. Sellin, T. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. Social Science Research Council.
  24. Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge.
  25. Steiner, B., Wright, E. M., & Toto, S. (2020). What matters in doctoral education in criminology and criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 153–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2019.1705987
  26. Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of experiments in criminal justice research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9101-7
  27. Young, J. (2011). The criminological imagination. Polity Press.