This document discusses challenges in developing scientific theories of criminology. It notes there is no agreement on what constitutes an explanation or the methodological rules of theory. Contrary to other disciplines, criminology includes unclear definitions, mixing of normative and causal claims, and theories are tested inconsistently. However, these issues also exist in other social sciences. The document recommends adopting an emergent systemism framework and meta-theory to bring philosophy of science back into criminology. This could provide rules for theory building and interdisciplinary studies while allowing for pluralism. While difficult, using a common analytical framework may help identify patterns and test competing theories to advance the field.

1. CRIMINORUM
COGNOSCERE CAUSAS?
Lieven J.R. Pauwels
VAKGROEP CRIMINOLOGIE, STRAFRECHT EN SOCIAAL RECHT
ONDERZOEKSGROEP IRCP

2. Gerbens statement (IV)
• IV When studying The
Encyclopedia of
Criminological Theory
(Cullen & Wilcox, 2010) a
reader notices huge
differences in theoretical
criminology about what
an explanation is. There
seems to be no
agreement among
criminologists about the
methodological rules of a
scientific theory.
2

3. Gerbens statement IV
• Contrary to other disciplines, definitions,
empirical generalizations, multiple factors,
unclear causal direction of relationships,
missing units of analyses, irrefutable (always
true) kind of propositions, and mixing
normative and causal propositions in one
theoretical framework are all presented
equally as ‘a scientific theory’ in these two
volumes.
3

4. 4
Introduction
Mankind has always been
Interested in causes (see quotes)
E.g. From folk psychology
To interdisciplinary approaches
Agency Detection
Causal attribution

5. Gerbens statement
5
My message:
Do not get depressed after having read statement IV
The criticisms Gerben Bruinsma refers to in statement IV are also present in
other social sciences!
Blalock & Davies have come to devastating conclusions on sociology

6. What is the cement of scientific explanations (which may result in theories)?
How to avoid that trees of knowledge become graveyards?
6
Defaitism The Cemetary of Theories

7. Major pittfalls have been identified
for a long time
Sisyphus Strategy (Opp, 2014[1971])
7
E.g. Some theories are tested like propositional oneliners
• For too long, it has
been impossible to
evaluate the status
of theories due to
unclear strategies
E.g.: no two test of
anomie theory are the
same
• This is the Sysiphus
strategy (endless
competitive testing)
• Why do we keep on
repeating this?

8. In search for the cement of theorizing
• Somewhere, we lost the connection between
philosphy of science and social science.
• This should be repaired!
• But:
– Theories are constructed by criminologist (humans) !
– Confirmation bias
– Novelty seeking ( “Theories are some-one’s babies,
Don’t kill your baby’s”)
8

9. What to do, to avoid mistakes that
keep coming back?
• (Re)enter meta-theory (theory on how to theorize and develop
explanations) into the field and criminology programmes
• Study and design rules for interdisciplinary analytical studies on
“crime causation”
• Is a common language possible?
– (I know this is a tough nut)
• Get rid of outdated views on human nature and social order
(Agnew, 2011; Wikström et al, 2012)
• Get rid of outdated (positivist) views on causation and
“mechanical” views on mechanisms.
– Study some philosophy of causation before “drawing arrows”
• Restore the balance between general theories and theories of the
middle range, both can be complementary (Opp, 2009)
9

10. An example: Emergent systemism or
the CESM model (Bunge,1999)
Systems consist of
• Composition
• Environment
• Structure
• Mechanisms
• Less noticed in criminology
(although introduced during
SCOPIC conference -2006)
• Can we use such a framework
to study the problems in
existing theories?
• Is this a means to reduce the
number of theories?

11. 11
Emergent systemism also provides clear
methodological rules for theory building

12. An example: Pauwels (in press)
Genetics / biology
Compliance
Cooperation /
altruism,
Harmful behaviour
…
Culture,
opportunity
structure
Decision
algoritms
Levels of harm
Context of
action
Context of
development
Moral
sensePerson
characteristics

13. What do we have to gain by using ES?
• A third way (“between the Scylla of atomism and
Charibdis of holism”) may help building better bridges
between levels and disciplines (biology, psychology,
sociology, geography, …)
• BUT: An overarching metatheoretical lens does NOT imply
one theory!
– A general framework can be used to test alternative
(conflicting) models (E.g. SAT versus Opp’s wide version of RCT)
• This idea may be combined with a revival of the research
programme of theory comparison (Forschungsprogramm
der Theorienvergleich)
• Towards real pluralism in theory development?
13

14. Final thoughts?
• Extremely difficult! No holy grale.
• Given the complexity of studying the cogs
and wheels of the intentional world, isn’t it t
is surprising to find the patterns we observe!
• Motto “I have not failed, I have just tried
many ways that did not work out” (Einstein)
14
Do not

15. 15
All theories should be problem solving too!
LP