Paradigm shift or normal science? The future of (biosocial) criminology
For much of the history of criminology, tension has existed between sociologically oriented and biologically oriented perspectives. In recent years, a new, more nuanced approach has emerged which attempts to take both perspectives seriously and integrate them into a biosocial criminology. Yet, it re...
| Publié dans: | Theoretical criminology |
|---|---|
| Auteurs: | ; |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Sage
[2017]
|
| Dans: |
Theoretical criminology
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Résumé: | For much of the history of criminology, tension has existed between sociologically oriented and biologically oriented perspectives. In recent years, a new, more nuanced approach has emerged which attempts to take both perspectives seriously and integrate them into a biosocial criminology. Yet, it remains, in large part, a fringe field of study. We argue that this is due, primarily, to critical as well as supportive scholars’ views that the ‘biosocial’ perspective represents a paradigm shift in the field of criminology. In this article, drawing on our work with the late Nicole Rafter, we present a case that rather than a paradigm shift, this biosocial turn simply represents a maturing field. In doing so, we describe the ways in which biosocial criminology examines crime and antisocial behavior as a biological and social phenomenon. At the same time, we also point out some cautions with respect to this body of work. We conclude with a vision of the future of (biosocial) criminology. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1461-7439 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Theoretical criminology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/1362480617707949 |