Women in Criminology - Criminology Education

Women in criminology encompasses the historical participation, intellectual contributions, institutional experiences, and ongoing challenges faced by women scholars and practitioners within the discipline of criminology and its allied professional fields. As a subject central to Criminology and Criminal Justice Education, the role of women in the discipline raises questions about who produces criminological knowledge, whose perspectives shape the field’s theoretical frameworks and research priorities, and whether the institutional structures of academic criminology provide equitable opportunities for women to develop, contribute, and advance. Within the broader field of Criminology, the status of women is not merely a demographic concern but an intellectual one: the historical exclusion and marginalization of women scholars has shaped what the discipline knows and does not know about crime, victimization, and justice, producing blind spots and biases that the field has spent decades identifying and only partially correcting.

Introduction

Criminology’s relationship with women — both as subjects of study and as producers of knowledge — has been characterized by a long history of exclusion followed by a period of transformative but incomplete integration. For most of the discipline’s institutional life, women were largely invisible in three senses: as scholars conducting criminological research, as subjects of theoretical attention in a field focused overwhelmingly on male offending, and as participants in the criminal justice workforce whose experiences and perspectives were systematically ignored (Renzetti, 2013). The feminist critique that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s challenged all three forms of invisibility simultaneously, arguing that the exclusion of women from criminological inquiry was not merely an oversight but a structural feature of a discipline built on patriarchal assumptions about whose behavior warranted scientific attention and whose scholarship merited professional recognition.

The progress since that critique has been substantial but uneven. Women now constitute a larger share of criminology faculty, doctoral students, and professional association members than at any point in the discipline’s history. Feminist criminology has established itself as a recognized and institutionally supported subfield, with its own journal, its own ASC division, and a body of scholarship that has fundamentally expanded the discipline’s theoretical and empirical scope. Yet significant gender disparities persist in faculty representation at research universities, in publication rates in top-tier journals, in representation among named chairs and endowed professorships, in leadership positions within professional associations, and in the informal networks of mentorship and collaboration that shape academic careers. The distance between where the discipline was and where it is now should not obscure the distance between where it is and where genuine equity would require it to be.

This article examines the role of women in criminology across multiple dimensions: the historical exclusion and gradual incorporation of women into the discipline, the intellectual contributions of feminist criminology, the current status of women faculty and students, the persistent gender gaps that characterize the field’s institutional structure, and the initiatives that have been developed to support women scholars and advance gender equity within the profession.

Historical Exclusion and Pioneering Women

Early Exclusion and Invisible Contributions

The exclusion of women from criminological inquiry was not an accident of circumstance but a reflection of the broader exclusion of women from higher education, scientific research, and professional life that characterized Western societies through much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The foundational figures of criminology — Beccaria, Lombroso, Durkheim, Merton, Sutherland — worked within institutional contexts from which women were largely absent, and the theories they developed reflected male experiences, male social structures, and male patterns of offending without acknowledging the gendered limitations of their analytical scope. When women appeared in early criminological writing, they were typically objects of study rather than producers of knowledge, and the treatment they received often reflected the gender biases of the era. Lombroso’s The Female Offender (1895), co-authored with Guglielmo Ferrero, explained female criminality through atavistic biology and deviations from “natural” feminine passivity — a framework that pathologized women who violated gender norms rather than analyzing the structural conditions that shaped women’s involvement in crime (Rafter & Gibson, 2004).

Despite this exclusionary institutional context, individual women made contributions to criminological knowledge that were often unrecognized or undervalued by the discipline’s male establishment. Jane Addams, whose work at Hull House in Chicago addressed juvenile delinquency, urban poverty, and criminal justice reform, produced analyses of crime and social disadvantage that paralleled and in some cases anticipated the Chicago School research that would later be canonized in theory courses. Edith Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge conducted empirical research on delinquency, court processing, and institutional conditions that contributed to the Progressive Era’s reform of juvenile justice. Frances Kellor’s Experimental Sociology (1901) applied empirical methods to the study of female criminality at a time when such work was rare regardless of the researcher’s gender. These women worked at the margins of institutional power, often in social work rather than sociology or criminology departments, and their contributions were largely forgotten until feminist historians of the discipline recovered them decades later (Belknap, 2015).

The Feminist Breakthrough

The emergence of feminist criminology in the 1970s and 1980s represented a fundamental challenge to the discipline’s intellectual foundations. Carol Smart’s Women, Crime and Criminology (1977) provided one of the earliest systematic critiques, arguing that criminology had failed to develop adequate theories of female offending, had ignored the victimization of women as a serious object of study, and had treated women’s experiences in the criminal justice system as peripheral rather than central to understanding how justice institutions operate. Dorie Klein’s influential essay “The Etiology of Female Crime” (1973) dissected the sexist assumptions embedded in biological, psychological, and sociological theories of female criminality, demonstrating that each tradition explained women’s offending through reference to women’s deviation from prescribed gender roles rather than through the structural and situational factors that the same theories invoked to explain men’s behavior.

Meda Chesney-Lind’s work on the criminalization of girls’ survival strategies — running away from abusive homes, engaging in survival sex, violating status offense laws — demonstrated that the juvenile justice system operated as a mechanism for enforcing gender norms, punishing girls for behaviors that were either responses to victimization or expressions of autonomy that the system deemed inappropriate for young women (Chesney-Lind, 1989). This research established the “pathways” approach to understanding female offending — the recognition that women’s routes into the criminal justice system frequently involve histories of sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, substance use, poverty, and homelessness that differ qualitatively from the peer-influenced, opportunity-driven trajectories more commonly identified among male offenders. The pathways framework has become one of the most influential contributions of feminist criminology, generating a substantial body of empirical research and directly informing the development of gender-responsive correctional programming (Daly, 1992).

Kathleen Daly’s contributions to feminist criminology extended across multiple domains — sentencing research that examined how gender influences judicial decision-making, theoretical work on justice and gender that challenged the masculinist assumptions of both retributive and restorative justice frameworks, and methodological arguments for the value of qualitative and narrative approaches in studying women’s experiences with crime and punishment. Claire Renzetti’s research on same-sex intimate partner violence challenged the assumption that domestic violence was exclusively a heterosexual phenomenon, expanding the discipline’s understanding of violence in intimate relationships. Sally Simpson’s work on corporate crime and gender examined how organizational and structural factors shape women’s involvement in white-collar offending, challenging the stereotype that women’s criminality is limited to interpersonal and survival-motivated offenses. Together, these scholars and their contemporaries transformed feminist criminology from a critique of the discipline’s exclusions into a positive research program with its own theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and policy implications.

Intellectual Contributions of Feminist Criminology

Theoretical Innovations and Gendered Analysis

Feminist criminology’s intellectual contributions extend far beyond the study of female offenders to encompass a fundamental reconceptualization of how gender operates as an organizing principle of crime, victimization, and criminal justice processing. The concept of “doing gender” — developed by Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987) in sociology and applied to criminological contexts by James Messerschmidt (1993) — reframed gender from a static variable (male vs. female) to an ongoing accomplishment through social interaction, opening analytical space for examining how the performance of masculinity and femininity shapes patterns of offending, victimization, and institutional response. Messerschmidt’s structured action theory argued that crime itself can function as a resource for accomplishing masculinity in contexts where legitimate masculine resources — employment, education, status — are unavailable, providing a theoretical framework that explains not only why men commit more crime than women but why specific forms of violent and predatory crime are so disproportionately male.

The gendered analysis of victimization has produced some of feminist criminology’s most consequential scholarship. Research on intimate partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sexual harassment has transformed both scholarly understanding and legal responses to gendered violence. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, provides national data on the prevalence and characteristics of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking that has documented the scale of gendered victimization with a precision that earlier studies could not achieve. Rebecca Campbell’s research on the secondary victimization of sexual assault survivors by medical and criminal justice systems — what she terms the “second rape” — has influenced the development of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs, victim advocacy protocols, and trauma-informed approaches to law enforcement interviewing (Campbell, 2008).

The study of women in the criminal justice workforce represents another domain where feminist criminology has produced important findings. Research on women in policing — from Susan Martin’s (1980) pioneering ethnographic study of women patrol officers through contemporary analyses of gender and police culture, use of force, and leadership — has documented both the barriers women face in law enforcement and the distinctive contributions they make, including evidence that women officers use force less frequently, generate fewer citizen complaints, and are more effective in handling domestic violence calls. Research on women in corrections, including studies of female correctional officers in men’s prisons and analyses of women’s prison management, has examined how gender dynamics shape institutional culture, organizational behavior, and the exercise of authority in settings historically defined as masculine domains.

Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice

Feminist criminological scholarship has directly informed policy innovations that have reshaped how the criminal justice system responds to women as both offenders and victims. The concept of gender-responsive programming — interventions designed specifically for women and girls that address the gendered pathways through which women enter the criminal justice system — emerged directly from the pathways research pioneered by Chesney-Lind, Daly, and their colleagues. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) published influential guides on gender-responsive strategies for women offenders that drew on this scholarship, recommending approaches that address trauma histories, substance use, parenting, economic marginalization, and relationship dynamics rather than applying male-normed programming to female populations (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003).

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first enacted in 1994 and subsequently reauthorized, represents the most significant federal policy response to gendered victimization and reflects decades of feminist scholarship and advocacy. VAWA established the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) within the U.S. Department of Justice, funded victim services and law enforcement training programs, created new federal criminal penalties for gender-motivated violence, and expanded legal protections for victims of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The research that informed VAWA — prevalence studies, evaluations of arrest policies for domestic violence, analyses of protective order effectiveness, studies of the health consequences of intimate partner violence — was produced largely by feminist criminologists and their allied scholars in public health and social work. The act’s subsequent reauthorizations have expanded protections for underserved populations including immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBTQ+ individuals, reflecting the intersectional analysis that contemporary feminist criminology increasingly emphasizes.

Restorative justice approaches to gendered violence represent an active area of feminist policy scholarship that illustrates the productive tensions within feminist criminology itself. Some feminist scholars have advocated for restorative processes in sexual assault and intimate partner violence cases, arguing that conventional criminal justice processing fails most victims — producing low reporting rates, traumatic court experiences, and outcomes that do not address victims’ needs for acknowledgment, accountability, and safety. Others have raised concerns that restorative approaches may expose victims to manipulation by skilled abusers, that power imbalances between victims and offenders may undermine the voluntariness that restorative processes require, and that diverting gendered violence from criminal prosecution sends a message that society does not take these offenses seriously (Daly & Stubbs, 2006). This debate reflects the discipline’s ongoing struggle with questions about how the interests of victims, offenders, and communities should be balanced in responding to crimes that occur within the context of intimate relationships and gendered power dynamics.

Current Status of Women in the Discipline

Faculty Representation and Publication Patterns

Women’s representation among criminology faculty has increased substantially since the 1970s, when women constituted a small minority of the professoriate. By current estimates, women represent approximately 40 percent or more of criminology and criminal justice faculty nationally, with higher representation among assistant and associate professors than among full professors — a pattern that reflects both recent hiring gains and the cumulative disadvantages that have historically slowed women’s advancement through the academic ranks (Kim, Cwick, & Gertz, 2016). The representation of women varies across institutional types: women are better represented at teaching-oriented institutions and master’s-granting programs than at research-intensive universities, where the faculty demographics most directly shape the discipline’s intellectual agenda through doctoral training, journal editorship, and funded research programs.

Publication patterns reveal persistent gender gaps that affect women’s professional advancement. Studies of authorship in criminology’s top journals have documented that women are underrepresented relative to their share of the faculty, particularly as sole authors and first authors in multi-authored publications (Tewksbury, DeMichele, & Miller, 2005). The causes of this gap are debated: some scholars attribute it to differential research productivity driven by gendered differences in teaching and service loads, family responsibilities, and access to research resources; others point to biases in peer review processes, editorial networks, and the substantive preferences of journals whose editorial standards may implicitly favor certain topics and methods over others. The gender composition of journal editorial boards — which has historically skewed male among the discipline’s top journals — may influence both the substantive range of published research and the receptiveness of the review process to work that addresses gendered topics or employs methods more commonly used by women scholars.

The representation of women in professional association leadership has improved significantly, with women serving as presidents of both the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences at multiple points. However, women remain underrepresented among named chairs, endowed professorships, and the senior faculty positions that carry the greatest influence over departmental hiring, curriculum, and research direction. The concept of the “leaky pipeline” — the progressive loss of women at each successive career stage from doctoral enrollment through assistant, associate, and full professor ranks — describes a pattern that persists in criminology despite decades of awareness and targeted intervention. The pipeline metaphor has been critiqued for implying that women passively fall out of the system rather than being actively pushed out by institutional structures and cultural norms that disadvantage them, but the empirical pattern it describes remains robust.

The Division on Women and Crime and Feminist Institutional Infrastructure

The establishment of the ASC Division on Women and Crime (DWC) in 1984 represented a milestone in the institutionalization of feminist scholarship within the discipline’s primary professional organization. The DWC provides an organizational home for scholars working on gender, crime, and justice; sponsors panels, workshops, and mentoring events at the annual ASC meeting; administers awards that recognize feminist scholarship; and advocates for policies that support women within the profession. The division’s activities have created a visible and sustained feminist presence within the ASC that would have been unimaginable in the organization’s earlier decades, when the annual meeting’s intellectual agenda was set almost entirely by male scholars addressing questions defined by male experiences.

The founding of Feminist Criminology in 2006, published by Sage under the auspices of the DWC, provided a dedicated peer-reviewed journal for feminist scholarship on crime and justice. The journal publishes empirical, theoretical, and policy-oriented work that addresses gender across the full range of criminological topics — offending, victimization, criminal justice processing, correctional programming, policing, and the criminal justice workforce. Feminist Criminology‘s existence ensures that feminist scholarship has a guaranteed publication venue, though it also raises the question of whether a dedicated journal creates a parallel intellectual universe in which feminist work circulates among feminist scholars without engaging the broader discipline. The most influential feminist scholarship has appeared in both Feminist Criminology and the discipline’s generalist journals, suggesting that the dedicated journal supplements rather than substitutes for mainstream publication.

Mentoring programs for women in criminology have developed through both formal organizational channels and informal scholarly networks. The DWC’s mentoring program connects junior women scholars with senior mentors who provide guidance on research development, publication strategy, tenure preparation, and work-life balance. Informal mentoring networks — often organized by senior women scholars who recognize the importance of supporting the next generation — provide additional support that formal programs cannot fully replicate. The concept of “feminist mentoring” — mentoring relationships that explicitly address the gendered dimensions of academic careers, including the management of service burden expectations, the navigation of work-family conflicts, and the handling of gender-based discrimination and harassment — has been articulated as a distinctive approach that differs from generic academic mentoring in its attention to the specific challenges women scholars face (Belknap, 2015).

Persistent Challenges and Future Directions

Work-Life Balance and Institutional Culture

The challenge of balancing academic career demands with caregiving responsibilities affects women faculty disproportionately and represents one of the most persistent barriers to gender equity in criminology. The tenure clock — typically six to seven years from initial appointment — coincides with the years during which many women faculty are bearing and raising young children, creating a time conflict that men in the same career stage may experience less acutely due to gendered divisions of domestic labor. Stop-the-clock policies, which allow faculty to extend the probationary period following childbirth or adoption, have become standard at most research universities, but their effectiveness depends on departmental cultures that do not penalize faculty who use them — a condition that is not universally met.

The service burden that women faculty carry — disproportionate committee assignments, student mentoring expectations, diversity and inclusion programming, emotional labor in departmental interactions — consumes time and energy that could otherwise be devoted to the research productivity on which tenure and promotion depend. Women of color face compounded service demands, as they are called upon to represent both gender and racial diversity on committees, to mentor students from multiple underrepresented groups, and to serve as visible symbols of institutional inclusivity in ways that their white male colleagues are not expected to. These service contributions are essential to institutional functioning but are systematically undervalued in promotion and tenure evaluations that weight research productivity above all other professional contributions (Chesney-Lind, 2006).

Sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination represent additional challenges that women in criminology face, as in all academic fields. The discipline’s close relationship with criminal justice institutions — police departments, courts, prisons — that are themselves characterized by masculine cultures and documented patterns of gender discrimination creates contexts in which women scholars may encounter harassment or hostility during field research, agency partnerships, or practitioner interactions. Within the academy, power dynamics between senior male faculty and junior women scholars can create conditions conducive to harassment, particularly in the close mentoring relationships that doctoral training requires. The #MeToo movement prompted some disciplinary reckoning with these issues, but systematic data on the prevalence and consequences of harassment in criminology specifically remain limited.

Toward Gender Equity in the Discipline

Achieving genuine gender equity in criminology requires addressing both the quantitative representation of women and the qualitative conditions under which they work. Quantitative representation has improved substantially — women now earn a majority of doctoral degrees in criminology and criminal justice at many programs, and their representation among faculty continues to grow. But numerical presence does not guarantee equitable treatment, intellectual influence, or professional advancement if the institutional structures within which women work continue to disadvantage them through gendered service expectations, biased evaluation criteria, inflexible career timelines, and cultures that implicitly define scholarly excellence in terms of characteristics more commonly associated with male academic careers.

Institutional changes that would advance gender equity include the systematic valuation of feminist scholarship in tenure and promotion decisions, the equitable distribution of service responsibilities across gender lines, the provision of adequate parental leave and childcare support, the implementation of transparent processes for salary determination and named chair allocation, and the creation of reporting mechanisms for harassment and discrimination that protect complainants from retaliation. Professional organizations can contribute by monitoring gender representation in journal authorship, editorial board composition, and conference programming; by ensuring that award criteria do not inadvertently disadvantage scholars working on gendered topics or employing methods more commonly used by women; and by maintaining mentoring programs that address the specific challenges women scholars face at different career stages. The discipline’s capacity to produce accurate and complete knowledge about crime and justice — a subject matter fundamentally shaped by gender — depends on creating institutional conditions in which women’s intellectual contributions are fully supported, fairly evaluated, and equitably rewarded.

Table 1. Women’s Contributions to Criminology: Key Scholars and Their Impact

Scholar	Primary Contributions	Key Works	Impact on the Discipline
Carol Smart	Foundational feminist critique of criminology’s exclusion of women	Women, Crime and Criminology (1977)	Launched feminist criminology as a recognized subfield
Meda Chesney-Lind	Girls in the juvenile justice system, criminalization of survival strategies, pathways approach	“Girls’ Crime and Woman’s Place” (1989)	Established gendered pathways framework; influenced juvenile justice reform
Kathleen Daly	Gender and sentencing, feminist justice theory, restorative justice and gender	Gender, Crime, and Punishment (1994)	Advanced intersectional analysis of justice processing
Claire Renzetti	Same-sex intimate partner violence, feminist methodology	Violent Betrayal (1992); Feminist Criminology (2013)	Expanded understanding of intimate partner violence beyond heterosexual framework
Sally Simpson	Corporate crime and gender, feminist theory of white-collar offending	“Feminist Theory, Crime, and Justice” (1989)	Extended feminist analysis to organizational and white-collar crime
Joanne Belknap	Women in criminal justice system, feminist pedagogy	The Invisible Woman (1996, 4th ed. 2015)	Definitive text on gender throughout the justice system
Susan Martin	Women in policing, gender and police culture	Breaking and Entering (1980)	Pioneering ethnographic study of women patrol officers
Rebecca Campbell	Secondary victimization of sexual assault survivors, SANE programs	“The Community Response to Rape” (1998, 2008)	Influenced victim service delivery and law enforcement practices

Conclusion

The story of women in criminology is one of exclusion, challenge, breakthrough, and ongoing struggle for equitable incorporation into a discipline whose subject matter is profoundly gendered but whose institutional structures have historically reflected and reinforced the gender hierarchies of the broader society. The intellectual contributions of feminist criminology — the pathways framework, the gendered analysis of victimization, the critique of male-normed theory, the development of gender-responsive programming, the application of intersectional analysis — have fundamentally expanded what the discipline knows about crime and justice, producing scholarship that is among the most practically influential in the field. The institutional progress women have made — increased representation among faculty and doctoral students, the establishment of the Division on Women and Crime and Feminist Criminology, the election of women to leadership positions in professional organizations — is real and significant. But the persistence of gender gaps in publication, promotion, compensation, and professional influence, compounded by disproportionate service burdens, work-life conflicts, and the ongoing risks of harassment and discrimination, demonstrates that the discipline has not yet achieved the gender equity that both justice and intellectual quality require. The challenge for the coming decades is to move beyond the recognition of gender inequality toward the institutional changes necessary to eliminate it.

References

Belknap, J. (2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections.
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702
Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of female delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128789035001002
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
Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52.
Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606059980
Kim, B., Cwick, J. M., & Gertz, M. G. (2016). An assessment of professional engagement in the top-ranked criminal justice and criminology doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(4), 538–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1188890
Martin, S. E. (1980). Breaking and entering: Policewomen on patrol. University of California Press.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Rafter, N., & Gibson, M. (2004). Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman (Translation of Lombroso & Ferrero). Duke University Press.
Renzetti, C. M. (2013). Feminist criminology. Routledge.
Smart, C. (1977). Women, crime and criminology: A feminist critique. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250500082278
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Related Articles