C HO O LS O F C R IM IN O LO G Y

I. CHIC A G O S

MAICY BAES
 II. Learning Objectives of the Report
At the end of the presentation, Learners’ are able to learn:
a. Enlighten The Chicago Schools Criminology and its Theory
b. The Contribution Of The Chicago School Criminology
c. Advantages and Disadvangtages of Chicago Schools of Criminolgy
 O F T HE T HEO R Y
III. PROPONENTS
HAW A ND HE NRY D. MC K AY
CLIFFORD S
 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.

INTRODUCTION
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.

INTRODUCTION
 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.

INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION:
What is the Chicago School of Criminology?

Chicago school of criminology is an institution that stems

from the end of the first world war. It began as a section of the post-
progressive era social science movement. ... The main school of
thought is on urban sociology, social disorganization and other
concepts that explicate the crime rate in numerous neighborhoods.
Why was the Chicago School important?

Conceived in 1892, the Chicago School first rose to

international prominence as the epicenter of
advanced sociological thought between 1915 and
1935, when their work would be the first major bodies
of research to specialize in urban sociology.
Social Disorganization and Rural Communities
Social disorganization is defined as an inability of community members to achieve
shared values or to solve jointly experienced problems (Bursik, 1988). In recent
decades, the themes of social disorganization theory have been more clearly articulated
and extended by Kornhauser (1978), Bursik and Grasmick (1993), and Sampson and
Groves (1989). Shaw and McKay traced social disorganization to conditions endemic
to the urban areas that were the only places the newly arriving poor could afford to
live, in particular, a high rate of turnover in the population (residential instability) and
mixes of people from different cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity). Shaw and
McKay's analyses relating delinquency rates to these structural characteristics
established key facts about the community correlates of crime and delinquency, and
their work remains useful today as a guide for efforts to address
crime and delinquency at the community level.
Both theoretical development and empirical research in the study of community
influences on crime and delinquency have focused on urban settings. For instance,
studies of neighborhood differences in crime rates have been conducted in many of the
largest cities in the United States (including Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL;
New York, NY; and San Diego, CA), but only one such study has been conducted in a
smaller city—Racine, WI. Nonmetropolitan areas have been included in some studies
of communities and crime, but that research is of limited value for the purposes of this
Bulletin. Some of those studies were based on national samples with both urban and
rural respondents, but they did not separately examine patterns for nonmetropolitan
communities (Sampson, 1985; Sampson and Groves, 1989). Other studies analyzed
crime or delinquency in rural communities, but they were either very limited in scope
(e.g., Arthur, 1991, was limited to 13 counties; Petee and Kowalski, 1993, is only 3
pages long) or concerned with different issues (Wilkinson, 1984).
 Sampson and Lauritsen (1994)
highlighted five major differences between
the area studies conducted since the 1980s
and the early studies
 First of all, at the start of the 1980’s ecological studies into the
geographical distribution of delinquent young people’s
residences had become marginal within the broader research
tradition that became known as environmental criminology.
After some initial attempts of Schmid (1960a; 1960b),
Brantingham & Brantingham (1981), Roncek (1981) and
Crutchfield, Geerken & Gove (1982) convincingly argued that
ecological studies should focus on crime and victimization rates
instead of offender rates.
 A second difference with the traditional ecological approach is that
research is not restricted to the study of neighbourhoods in cities but also
extends to studies conducted at the aggregation level of the city (or
municipality) (Blau and Blau 1982; Messner 1982; Messner and Tardiff
1986). In studies conducted at the city-level, the city itself became the
unit of analysis, rather than the neighbourhood. Nowadays the focus is on
crime places (micro-places) rather than cities.
 Thirdly, social disorganization theory has undergone some influence of Cohen
and Felson’s routine activity approach (1979) and later the broken windows model
as developed by Wesley Skogan (1992). We do not have the space to discuss the
relation between broken windows models and collective efficacy models, scholars
should read Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) or Steenbeek and Hipp (2011) to learn
about this discussion. The point made here is that the attempt to integrate the
disorganization perspective of the Chicago School with other perspectives has been
the start of an intriguing area of research. Studies started to look at the relative
effects of opportunity characteristics independent of measures of the structural
antecedents of disorganization (Miethe and Meier 1994).
 Fourth, studies are no longer restricted to the explanation of
geographical differences in crime. They also attempt to examine changes
in crime concentrations and the development of ‘neighbourhood criminal
careers’, analogous to the individual criminal careers (Kubrin and Weitzer
2003; Kubrin 2009). Bob Bursik played a major role in the
implementation of longitudinal studies (Bursik 1984; Bursik and
Grasmick 1993; Bursik and Webb 1982; Schuerman and Kobrin 1986;
Steenbeek and Hipp 2011). These longitudinal studies show clearly that
neighbourhoods are constantly changing and that unicausal theories and
models do not adequately capture the complex relationship between crime
and structural characteristics.
 Fifth, social disorganization theory has evolved from an aggregate level theory to a
theory that accounts for the aggregate and contextual effects of area concentrations of
disadvantage on a variety of outcomes, ranging from offender and crime rates to a wide
array of individual level attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as offending
behavior, violent victimization, fear of crime, legal cynicism and perceptions of
neighbourhood problems. We must acknowledge the role that methodological
innovations have played in this theoretical evolution. The introduction to the field of
criminology of advanced statistical techniques, such as the multilevel analysis of
clustered data, has made this evolution possible (Oberwittler 2004; Sampson,
Raudenbush, and Earls 1997; Wikström 2010). This evolution can now be seen in an
increasing number of studies (Pauwels, Hardyns, and Van de Velde 2010).
 These methodological innovations made it possible that scholars
retested the idea that always was implicitly present in the early versions
of social disorganization theory, namely the breeding ground hypothesis:
the idea that disadvantaged neighbourhoods spawn juvenile delinquency.
Results of studies of contextual effects vary widely and it is far too early
to draw conclusions. Support for contextual effect vary by dependent
variable. Results clearly differ depending on the number of individual
factors that are controlled (Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rawley
2002; Thorlindsson and Bernburg 2004; Oberwittler 2004).
 Few studies demonstrate strong direct effects of
neighbourhood characteristics on offending (Brännström 2006).
However, it seems most plausible that neighbourhood conditions
interact with individual level predictors of offending (Loeber
and Wikström 1993; Peeples and Loeber 1994; Wikström and
Loeber 2000). Stronger effects are reported for contextual
effects of neighbourhood characteristics on fear of crime and
within-area victimization.
What are three concepts of social disorganization theory?

Measures of three central theoretical elements in Shaw

and McKay's social disorganization perspective (poverty,
residential mobility, and racial heterogeneity) and
variables from the subculture of violence, social control, and
opportunity perspectives are included in this research.
What is the main point of social disorganization theory?

Social disorganization theory suggest that a person's

residential location is more significant than the
person's characteristics when predicting criminal activity
and the juveniles living in this areas acquire criminality by
the cultures approval within the disadvantaged urban
neighborhoods.
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Social Disorganization Theory
 Advantages
 Focused on the social disorganisation of an area - did not 'blame' the
individual (changed perspectives)
 Shaw and McKay used juvenile court data in order to gain accurate
data on juvenile delinquency - did not rely upon self report as this
would be unreliable (used quantitative methods)
 Used a variety of methods (qual and quan) to gather info
 
Disadvantages
 Ignored individual explanations eg. biological, psychological or mental illnesses, cognitive
processes
 Tautology - arguing in circles - don't know where it begins (crime is caused by social
disorganisation, which in turn, causes crime)
 Ecological fallacy - gathering individual-level references from group data - assumptions and
predictions made
 Issued with qual data sometimes - comes from self-report which is unreliable
 Must be careful when applying it to other countries or countryside places
 The Contribution Of
The Chicago School Criminology
 The Chicago school is the name given to the work conducted at
the University of Chicago since the 1890’s. The Chicago school
emerged at a time when the city was experiencing rapid social
changes owing to a rapid increase in population as a result of great
migration. These massive social changes caused problems regarding;
housing, poverty and strain on institutions. These rapid social
changes interested sociologists; they were concerned as to how the
city would stay stable in relation to these changes (Faris, 1967, p.5).
 The Chicago school primary work took a positive stance; however, sociologists were more
focused on social positivism. This social positivism I will demonstrate in social structural
theories by Robert Park, Ernest Burgress, Robert Merton, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay.
Following world war two some sociologists at the school employed a different form of enquiry
to the previous positivist approach. These sociologists’ applied an interactionism form of
enquiry to study the social world; this was called symbolic interactionism strongly influenced
by the work of Ernest Simmel. This interactionism form of inquiry I will demonstrate in the
work of Edwin Sutherland.
In order to understand the contributions made by the Chicago school, we need to
understand the context in which the Chicago school emerged. The dominant theories in
Criminology preceding the Chicago school were classical criminological and positivist theories
of crime.
 The classical school of criminology dates back to the
enlightenment in the early 18th century. Philosopher’s Jeremy
Bentham and Cesare Beccaria, focused their interest on the
system of criminal justice and penology, they suggested that
crime is a product of human nature and rational humans
possess free will, therefore have the ability to control their
actions. (Carrabine et al, 2004, chap. 3)
 This perspective emerged as an alternative to the old barbaric system
of capital punishment and was concerned with generating a criminal
justice system which was more reasonable. This theory was not
concerned with the individual causes of crime but instead focused on the
law enforcement and legal procedure. Classical criminologists believe that
laws are constructed to demonstrate that non-criminal behaviour is in
peoples self interests because, according to Jeremy Bentham, it
corresponds to his hedonistic utilitarian principle, ‘the greatest good for
the greatest number’ (Bentham,1789).
 Beccaria suggests that crime is a result of bad laws and had nothing to do with bad individuals.
Beccaria’s famous book On Crime and Punishment, offered a new perspective based on justice, his
notions became the foundations of the modern criminal justice system (Beccaria, 1764, p.8-19).
Early positivist theories of crime are deterministic as they reject the nation of free will. This
deterministic approach uses empirical research methods. This perspective proposes that crime is a
consequence of biological, psychological and environmental determents (Ceurabine et al, 2004, chap.
3). This is in contrast to the classical approach, which focuses on legal issues and prevention of crime.
Positivist criminologists alleged that the causes and effects of criminal behaviour are directly
observable; this view was shared by Cesare Lombroso. Lombroso did not believe in the notion of free
will, he believed that criminal behaviour was inherited. Lombroso suggested that a ‘criminal type’
exists, criminals are physiologically different to non –criminals and these criminals display observable
physical signs and deformities. Lombroso conducted research on criminals to gain observable evidence
(Macionis and Plummer, 2005, p.442).
 Both of these theories offer interesting explanations of crime and have
contributed to the development of criminology today. The criminal justice system
might not exist without the work of Beccaria and perhaps capital punishment might
still be in use presently. The work of early positivist criminologists have contributed
to criminology by suggesting that crime is not necessarily a matter of free will but
could in fact be a result of determining external factors. The positivist tradition was
also employed by Emile Durkheim. The Chicago school was highly influenced by
Durkheim’s work and his ideas contributed to the development of some of their
theories. The Chicago School’s early work employed a social positivist tradition as
they believed that crime was not a matter of free will but was determined by social
factors.
 Emile Durkheim was interested in social positivism; his
theories focused macro sociological issues. Durkheim looked at
societies as a whole and believed that there were laws that
govern and control our behaviour. Durkheim suggested that a
certain degree of crime and deviance was necessary for a healthy
society. He suggested that individuals are influenced by different
factors and may not share the same values; these conflicting
values can cause deviant behaviour (Durkheim, 1895, p.65-73).
 Durkheim suggested that too much crime and deviance threatens the stability
of society but too little indicates apathy as well as limiting change and innovation.
Durkheim also suggested that deviance has a positive function because exposure to
criminal behaviour reinforces society’s belief in shared norms and values, when a
criminal trial transpires; it heightens awareness of society’s moral code. Durkheim
believed that society can be viewed similarly to an organic organism because both
are made up from interdependent parts working together in order for the whole to
function; he suggested that institutions such as the family, education and religion
all contribute to the overall functioning of society. (Macionis and Plummer, 2005
p.444)
Discussion Question
What was the focus of the Chicago School of 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.

Question #1
What was the Chicago School's approach to studying society?

The “Chicago School” refers to a specific group of

sociologists at the University of Chicago during the first half
of this century. Their way of thinking about social relations
was heavily qualitative, rigorous in data analysis,
and focused on the city as a social laboratory.

Question #2
 What is Shaw and McKay's social disorganization theory?

Shaw and McKay traced social disorganization to

conditions endemic to the urban areas that were the
only places the newly arriving poor could afford to
live, in particular, a high rate of turnover in the population
(residential instability) and mixes of people from different
cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity).

Question #3
 References:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321007066
REF: Hardyns, W., Pauwels, L. (2017) The Chicago School and Criminology, pp 123-139. In: Tripplett, R.A. The
Wiley Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminology (ISBN: 978-1-119-01135-4)
The Chicago School of Criminology - Oxford Bibliographies https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com