Qualitative research is published in criminology journals at a frequency far smaller than that of quantitative research. The question is ‘Why?’ After reviewing existing theories of the discrepancy, this article draws on the paradigm of Blackian sociology, Jacques and colleagues’ theory of method, and Black’s theory of ideas to propose a new theory: compared to quantitative research-based ideas, qualitative ones are evaluated as less important—and therefore published less often in journals—because they place the subject closer in cultural distance to the source and audience, though for that same reason they are also evaluated as being more attractive. Implications for criminology are discussed.
AthensL (1997) Violent Criminal Acts and Actors Revisited. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
2.
BergerPLLuckmannT (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor.
3.
BestJ (2001) Damned Lies and Statistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
4.
BlackD (1976) The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
5.
BlackD (1980) Manners and Customs of the Police. New York: Academic Press.
6.
BlackD (1983) Crime as social control. American Sociological Review48: 34–45.
7.
BlackD (1989) Sociological Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BlackD (1995) The epistemology of pure sociology. Law & Social Inquiry20: 829–870.
9.
BlackD (1998) The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10.
BlackD (2000) Dreams of pure sociology. Sociological Theory18: 343–367.
11.
BlackD (2004) The geometry of terrorism. Sociological Theory22: 14–25.
12.
BucklerK (2008) The quantitative/qualitative divide revisited: A study of published research, doctoral program curricula, and journal editor perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education19: 383–403.
13.
CampbellB (2010) Contradictory behavior during genocides. Sociological Forum25: 296–314.
14.
CohnEGFarringtonDP (2011) Scholarly influence and prestige in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education22: 5–11.
15.
CollinsR (2000) The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
CooneyM (1998) Warriors and Peacemakers: How Third Parties Shape Violence. New York: New York University Press.
17.
CooneyM (2006) The criminological potential of pure sociology. Crime, Law, and Social Change46: 51–63.
18.
CooneyM (2009) Is Killing Wrong? A Study in Pure Sociology. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
19.
CopesHCardwellSSloanJJIII (2012a) h-index and m-quotient benchmarks of scholarly impact in criminology and criminal justice: A preliminary note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education23: 441–461.
20.
CopesHKheyDNTewksburyR (2012b) Criminology and criminal justice hit parade: Measuring academic productivity in the discipline. Journal of Criminal Justice Education23: 423–440.
21.
DavisM (1971) That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Sciences1: 309–344.
22.
DiCristinaB (1997) The quantitative emphasis in criminal justice education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education8: 181–199.
23.
GalensonDW (2006) Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
GansH (1999) Making Sense of America: Sociological Analyses and Essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
GibbsJP (1975) Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.
26.
GoffmanE (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
27.
HackingI (2000) The Social Construction of What?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
HomansGC (1967) The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harbringer, Brace & World.
29.
HuffD (1954) How to Lie with Statistics. New York: Norton.
30.
JacobsBA (1998) Researching crack dealers: Dilemmas and contradictions. In: FerrellJHammMS (eds) Ethnography at the Edge: Crime, Deviance, and Field Research. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
31.
JacobsBA (2006) The case for dangerous fieldwork. In: HobbsDWrightR (eds) The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
32.
JacquesSWrightR (2008) Intimacy with outlaws: The role of relational distance in recruiting, paying, and interviewing underworld research participants. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency45: 22–38.
33.
JacquesSWrightR (2010a) A sociological theory of drug sales, gifts, and frauds. Crime & Delinquency. DOI: 10.1177/0011128710386199.
34.
JacquesSWrightR (2010b) Dangerous intimacy: Toward a theory of violent victimization in active offender research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21: 503–525.
35.
JacquesSWrightR (2010c) Apprehending criminals: The impact of law on offender-based research. In: BernascoW (ed.) Offenders on Offending: Learning about Crime from Criminals. Cullompton, UK: Willan.
36.
JacquesSWrightR (2010d) Criminology as social control: Discriminatory research and its role in the reproduction of social inequalities. Crime, Law, & Social Change53: 383–396.
37.
JacquesSWrightR (2010e) Right or wrong? Toward a theory of IRBs’ (dis)approval of research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21: 42–59.
38.
JacquesSLindegaardMRVan GelderJ (2011) Foreign fieldworkers & native participants: A theory of method. Victims & Offenders6: 246–259.
39.
KingGKeohaneROVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
KleckGTarkJBellowsJJ (2006) What methods are most frequently used in criminology & criminal justice?Journal of Criminal Justice34: 147–152.
41.
KuhnTJ (1977) The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
LaubJHSampsonRJ (2003) Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LeeRM (1995) Dangerous Fieldwork. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
44.
MertonRK (2002 [1938]) Science, Technology & Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New York: Howard Fertig.
45.
MichalskiJH (2003) Financial altruism or unilateral resource exchanges? Toward a pure sociology of welfare. Sociological Theory21: 341–358.
46.
MoskosP (2008) Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore’s Eastern District. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
MullinsNC (1973) Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper and Row.
48.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2004) General guidelines for developing qualitative research projects. Prepared by RaginCCNagelJWhitePfor the Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
49.
PhillipsS (2003) The social structure of vengeance: A test of Black’s model. Criminology41: 673–708.
50.
PhillipsSCooneyM (2005) Aiding peace, abetting violence: Third parties and the management of conflict. American Sociological Review70: 334–354.
51.
PogrebinMR (2010) On the way to the field: Reflections of one qualitative criminal justice professor’s experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21: 540–561.
52.
PopperK (2002 [1959]) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge Classics.
53.
RobertsLLaftaRGarfieldRKhudhairiJBurnhamG (2004) Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Cluster sample survey. The Lancet364: 1857–1864.
54.
ScottMBLymanSM (1968) Accounts. American Sociological Review33: 46–62.
55.
Senechal de la RocheS (1996) Collective violence as social control. Sociological Forum11: 97–128.
56.
SeverB (2001) Research methods for criminal justice graduate students: Comparing textbook coverage and classroom instruction. Journal of Criminal Justice Education12: 337–353.
57.
SlukaJA (1990) Participant observation in violent social contexts. Human Organization49: 114–126.
58.
SmallML (2009) ‘How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography10: 5–38.
59.
SullivanCJMaxfieldMG (2003) Examining paradigmatic development in criminology and criminal justice: A content analysis of research methods syllabi in doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education14: 269–285.
60.
SutherlandEH (1937) The Professional Thief. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61.
TewksburyR (2009) Qualitative versus quantitative methods: Understanding why qualitative methods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology1: 38–58.
62.
TewksburyRDabneyDDCopesH (2010) The prominence of qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice scholarship. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21: 391–411.
63.
TewksburyRDeMicheleMTMillerMJ (2005) Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education16: 265–279.
64.
WilliamsTDunlapEJohnsonBDHamidA (1992) Personal safety in dangerous places. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography21: 343–374.
65.
WorrallJL (2000) In defense of the ‘quantoids’: More on the reasons for the quantitative emphasis in criminal justice education and research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education16: 265–279.
66.
WrightRJacquesSSteinM (in press) Where are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How do we get there? The future of qualitative research in American criminology. Advances in Criminological Theory20.
