7.5 Theory Integration
Some contemporary theorists combine select aspects of foundational theories to form brand new explanations for criminal behavior based on ever-changing environmental, social, psychological, economic, and political events. These theorists will take a little bit of classical theory, mix it with some positivist, splash it with some neoclassical, and voila! Because there is no absolute when it comes to which theory is correct, criminologists are able to mix and match multiple theories into a cohesive hodgepodge to suit their needs—as long as the data supports the validity and reliability of the theory, of course.
You might be thinking, haven’t many of the theories discussed in this book already done this? It is true that there is overlap between many of the theories we have covered. However, often a theory will focus strictly on the macro-level (e.g., neighborhoods) or micro-level (e.g., individual characteristics) or will only apply to certain types of crime (e.g., street crime). In the 1980s, many criminologists advocated for the integration of multiple existing theoretical frameworks and components to better account for complex human behavior. But theory integration is not as simple as slapping together a couple different ideas. Rather, there are different ways in which theories can be carefully and thoroughly integrated. These include end-to-end, side-by-side, up-and-down, and conceptual integration, all of which are explained in figure 7.8 (Tibbetts, 2015). Those in favor of theory integration also argue that theories should be multidisciplinary to advance the field of criminology.
| Type of theory integration | Description |
|---|---|
| End-to-end integration | Theories are merged “one after another,” indicating that one occurs before the other. For example, a theory might state that weak social bonds lead to negative peer associations and then to crime. |
| Side-by-side integration | Theories are considered parallel explanations that might apply based on which type of situation is being explained. For example, impulsive theft might be explained by a theory of low self-control, while white collar crime might be explained by rational choice theory, as both have elements of control and opportunity involved. |
| Up-and-down integration | Theories are integrated by increasing the level of abstraction of one theory so that others can be incorporated into it. In other words, one theory’s concepts may be broad enough that other theories can fit within it. |
| Conceptual integration | Key concepts from different theories that have similarities, even if different terms are used, can be integrated if they share similar meaning or operationalization. |
There are many examples of integrated theories, some of which we have already discussed in previous chapters, but some heavily focus on the integration of concepts from multiple theories. American criminologist Delbert Elliott and colleagues provide one example with their integrated p