UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.9 Free with a free account
Comparative Evaluation of Social Structure and Social Process Frameworks
Criminology · Chapter 7: Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceSection 7.9 · lesson 30 of 91video coming soon
← Policy Applications of Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceNext lesson: Social Conflict Theory: Definitions, Key Contributors, and Neutralization Theory →
In this lesson
Six criteria for judging what each tradition explains, and what it cannot.
- Apply six criteria for evaluating a theory.
- Compare the explanatory scope of both traditions.
- Identify which framework a research question requires.
- Name the question neither tradition addresses.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,443 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Right About What?
Chapter seven gave us two big traditions, structure and process. So which one is right? That is the wrong question. The better one is: right about what? Each tradition may be strong on one kind of question and weak on another.
Lesson Roadmap
Evaluating Two Traditions Side by Side
This lesson closes chapter seven by evaluating the structural and process traditions side by side. It introduces no new theory. Instead, it applies six standard criteria that any criminological theory can be judged against. You will compare the explanatory scope of the two traditions, and see where each is strong. You will learn some cautions about how those criteria should and should not be used. You will practice identifying which framework a research question actually requires. Finally, we will name the one question that neither tradition was built to answer. That question opens chapter eight.
Six Criteria
Six Standards for Judging Any Theory
There are six standard criteria for evaluating a criminological theory. Logical consistency asks whether a theory's internal assumptions are compatible with one another. Scope asks how much of the phenomenon a theory attempts to explain. Parsimony asks whether it does its explanatory work with as few assumptions as necessary. Testability asks whether it generates predictions that could, in principle, be shown false. Empirical support asks whether those predictions have actually been tested and confirmed, not merely left undisconfirmed. Policy usefulness asks whether the theory translates into an actionable intervention. Each criterion captures something a good theory should have, but no single one is enough. A theory with excellent policy usefulness but weak support has not earned confidence in its truth. And a well-supported theory of narrow scope has not been shown useless.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Where Structure and Process Each Excel
Start with the structural tradition, meaning social disorganization and strain theory. It performs well on scope and empirical support at the level it targets. It explains persistent rate variation across places, with substantial backing dating to the concentric zone research. Its principal weakness is individual prediction. Knowing a place's elevated rate says very little about which resident will or will not offend. The process tradition covers control, learning, and labeling theory. It performs well on individual-level empirical support. Bond strength, associational pattern, and labeling history each relate to individual variation in offending. Its principal weakness is explaining why rates differ between places. An individual's bonds do not explain why one community has more weak bonds than another.
Scorecard
Both Traditions Scored on Six Criteria
Here are the two traditions scored on all six criteria. On logical consistency, both are internally consistent within their own level of analysis. On scope, each is broad at its own level and narrow at the other. On parsimony, both are moderate, since a small number of factors or mechanisms explain substantial variation. On testability, structural theory is testable in aggregate but harder at the individual level. Process theory is the mirror image: testable for individuals, harder in aggregate. On empirical support, structure is strong for rate variation, and process is strong for individual variation. On policy usefulness, structure informs community-level investment, while process informs individual-level intervention. Notice the symmetry: neither tradition wins outright, and each wins at its own level.
Four Cautions
Using the Criteria with Care
Four cautions shape how these criteria should be applied. First, scope: a theory that explains everything explains nothing. If a theory can accommodate any pattern, no evidence could ever count against it. That echoes the unfalsifiability concern about the multiple-factor approach in subchapter six point two. So a narrower, honestly limited theory may be the better one, because its claims can be tested. Second, weak empirical support is not the same as failure, since a claim may simply be untested. Treating an untested theory as failed discards it too soon, while treating a failed one as untested keeps it alive too long. Third, macro-level claims are harder to test, because communities are hard to sample, randomize, or hold constant. That is a methodological asymmetry, not a sign that structural theory is less scientific. Fourth, policy usefulness is not truth. An actionable theory attracts funding, but truth and policy convenience are separate judgments.
Explanatory Scope
Overlapping Ranges and Two Remaining Gaps
Picture each tradition's explanatory scope as an overlapping range. The structural tradition covers rate variation across places. The process tradition covers individual variation within a place. Where they overlap, the integrated models of subchapter seven point seven do their work. But two gaps remain, even when the traditions are combined. The first gap is that neither addresses who defines conduct as criminal, the subject of chapter eight. The second gap is that neither predicts a specific individual's single decision reliably. Both gaps are honest limits, not failures of execution.
Big Picture
Why Place-Level Explanation Is Necessary
Taken as a whole, the sociological tradition established something chapter six could not. It gives a credible account of why crime rates differ systematically across places and social positions. That pattern persists even as the individuals living in a place change over time. The persistence finding is not a minor curiosity. A place's elevated rate survived major turnover in its population. That is direct evidence that social arrangements, independent of who occupies them, drive an outcome. Individual-level theory alone has no natural way to explain that. So any complete account of crime needs place-level explanation alongside person-level explanation. The sociological tradition shows why that second kind of explanation is necessary, not optional.
Quick Check
A Proposal Mismatching Data and Question
Now consider a case. A doctoral committee reviews a proposal asking why one city has a much higher overall offending rate, compared with a similar city. The proposal draws on a process theory. It measures bond strength and associational patterns in a small sample of individuals. A committee member asks whether that data can answer the question being asked. Quick check: can individual-level data on bond strength answer that city-level question? Pause, and decide. It cannot, because individual-level data cannot explain a rate-level difference between cities. The reverse mismatch, city-level data for an individual-level question, fails for the same reason. When data operate at one level and the question is framed at another, the findings become uninterpretable.
Beyond Both Traditions
The Question Neither Tradition Asks
Even combined, the structural and process traditions leave one question entirely untouched. Who holds the power to define particular conduct as criminal, and in whose interest does that definition operate? Both traditions take the criminal law's existing definitions as a given starting point. They ask why rates or individual behavior vary within that framework. Neither asks where the framework itself came from. That is precisely the question chapter eight's social conflict tradition opens with. Recognizing this boundary is a form of intellectual honesty. A tradition that made real progress on its own questions is not obliged to answer every question. Reaching this one requires a genuinely different theoretical starting point.
Practice Matching
Sorting Research Questions by Tradition
Let's practice matching research questions to traditions. Why one neighborhood has a higher rate than a comparable neighborhood is a structural question. Why one person offends while a similarly situated sibling does not is a process question. Why a category of conduct is criminalized in one era and not another is answered by neither tradition. Why two structurally similar cities show different long-run rates is structural. Why a specific person's bond strength predicts their own offending is a process question. Whose interests a specific criminal statute serves is, again, a question for neither. Why an integrated model predicts both rate and individual variation requires both traditions, combined. And why an association pattern predicts an individual's behavior is a process question.
Theory Review
Strongest and Weakest Criterion by Theory
Now identify each theory's strongest and weakest criterion. Social disorganization theory is strongest on empirical support for rate variation across places. It is weakest at predicting which individual will offend. Strain theory's strength is its scope across social positions. Its weakness is explaining why some strained individuals never offend. Social bond theory is strongest on empirical support for individual variation, especially attachment. It is weakest at explaining why rates differ between places. Labeling theory is best supported on reduced conventional opportunity after a formal label. Its weakest point is support for the strongest identity-change claims. These answers draw on the assessments made across subchapters seven point three to seven point six.
Working Method
Four Steps for Applying the Chapter
Let's pull the chapter together into a working method. First, identify the level of the question: rates across places, or individuals within a place? Second, choose the matching framework. Use structural theory for rates, process theory for individuals, and integration when you need both. Third, judge any theory on all six criteria, not just the one that flatters it. Fourth, name the boundary. The question of who defines crime belongs to the conflict tradition. Chapter eight begins exactly there, with social conflict theory.
Key Takeaways
Recap and the Road to Chapter Eight
To recap. Judge theories on six tests, and no single one decides. Structure and process each win at their own level, and the gaps are honest limits. Match the question to the right level. Next, chapter eight asks who defines crime at all.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Comparative Evaluation of Social Structure and Social Process Frameworks
What are the six criteria for evaluating a criminological theory?
What is the difference between structural and process theories in what they explain best?
How do I decide whether a research question needs a structural or a process framework?
What question do neither structural nor process theories answer?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →