Queen Essays

Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied

to the Complex Social Problem of School

Violence

In: Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research

By: Stuart Henry & Nicole L. Bracy

Pub. Date: 2013

Access Date: January 31, 2021

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Print ISBN: 9781412982481

Online ISBN: 9781483349541

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349541

Print pages: 259-282

© 2012 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the

online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social

Problem of School Violence

StuartHenry

Nicole L.Bracy

Introduction

Interdisciplinarians have been very clear that they are interested in addressing problems, questions, or topics

that are “too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline” (Klein & Newell, 1997, p.

393) and “whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline” (Boix-Mansilla, 2005, p. 16; National

Academies, 2005, p. 39). Single disciplinary approaches “fail to provide the truly comprehensive perspective

on the problem that policymakers and the public really need. On too many issues of public importance, the

disciplines tend to talk past each other” (Repko, 2008, p. 31). The charge of “disciplinary inadequacy” (p.

39) in dealing with complex social problems has been applied to crime by integrative criminologists who, like

interdisciplinarians, are also concerned about the myopic analysis offered by traditional disciplines (Barak,

1998a, 1998b, 2009; Messner, Krohn, & Liska, 1989; Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Beaver, 2009); each

discipline captures a narrow dimension of the crime problem but misses, or dismisses, the contributions of

the rest. As a result, public policies to deal with crime, which themselves derive from disciplinary analyses or

from media-driven fear (Muschert & Peguero, 2010), are also likely to be partial and fail to comprehend the

complexity of the problem.

Multidisciplinary approaches that acknowledge a range of disciplinary perspectives through a process of

“cognitive decentering” (Hursh, Haas, & Moore, 1998; Repko, 2008) are an advance over disciplinary

approaches. Cognitive decentering “is the intellectual capacity to move beyond a single center or focus

(especially the innate tendencies towards egocentrism and ethnocentrism) and consider a variety of other

perspectives in a coordinated way to perceive reality more accurately, process information more

systematically, and solve problems more effectively” (Hursh et al., 1998, p. 37). However multidisciplinarity

rarely looks at the dynamic, interactive, and cumulative effects of the complex problem over time; rather, it

fragments the complexity and fails to comprehend its emergent holistic characteristics. In contrast, integrative

interdisciplinary approaches to addressing complex social problems explicitly engage in “integration,

synthesis, or amalgamation that attempt to produce a ‘comprehensive’ explanation” (Einstadter & Henry,

2006, p. 310) and move us toward holistic policies to address them.

In this chapter, we explore the last steps of Repko's (2008) research process: how to integrate insights

to produce interdisciplinary understanding. We do so by examining the insights of those criminological

theorists who have been attempting to develop integrative theory for the past 30 years. In the first section

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

of the chapter, we critically review the issues that have arisen in criminological theory around what should

be integrated from the disciplines beyond simply “insights.” And in the second section, we show how

criminologists striving for an integrated theory have applied this to explain the crime of violence. In the third

section, we sketch out what an interdisciplinary understanding of school violence might look like and indicate

its policy implications.

Creating Common Ground(s) and a Comprehensive Understanding in

Criminology

For readers not familiar with the history of theory development in criminology, it is important to know

that criminology has, from the outset, been profoundly influenced by the theories of other disciplines to

explain why people commit crime, violate laws, or deviate from norms. In this sense, criminology is an

applied science/social science. Theoretical explanations of crime causation range from the theological and

demonological to economic, biological, psychological, sociological, and political; more recently, they also

include a variety of feminist, postmodernist, and social constructionist theories (see Einstadter & Henry, 2006;

Lanier & Henry, 2010). At different times some criminological theories have been more prominent than others,

but rarely are any theoretical explanations completely expunged, with the result that criminology fits Ritzer's

(1975) category of being a “multiparadigmatic” science.

However, since 1979 a subset of criminological theorists has attempted to harness the explanatory and

predictive power of existing theories of crime causation by integrating the concepts and propositions present

in the diverse range of disciplinary-based theories (see especially Akers, 1994; Barak, 1998a, 1998b,

2009; Bernard, 2001; Colvrn, 2000; Colvrn & Pauly, 1983; Elliott, Agerton, & Canter, 1979; Fishbein,

1998; Hagan, 1989; Hawkins & Weis, 1985; Jeffrey, 1990; Johnson, 1979; Messner et al., 1989; Muftić,

2009; Pearson & Werner, 1985; Robinson, 2004; Robinson & Beaver, 2009; Shoemaker, 1996; Tittle,

1995; Vila, 1994). This has been attempted in a variety of ways, which leads to an instructive set of

issues and challenges for interdisciplinary integrative theory. The three dominant positions are advocates,

critics, and moderates. Advocates see distinct advantages in integrating existing discipline-based theories.

Barak (1998b) summarizes these advantages, arguing that criminologists engaging in integration do so

(1) because of a desire to develop central concepts that are common to several theories; (2) to provide

coherence to a bewildering array of fragmented theories, and thereby reduce their number; (3) to achieve

comprehensiveness and completeness, and thereby enhance their explanatory power; (4) to advance

scientific progress and theory development; and (5) to synthesize ideas about crime causation and social

control policy.

In contrast, critics ask whether it is better to have a set of competing theoretical explanations, each of

which responds to a different, but overlapping, set of questions, or whether it is better to combine elements

of several theoretical perspectives into one integrative theory. For example, some critics have argued that

criminological theories should remain “separate and unequal” and that “theory competition” and “competitive

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

isolation” are preferable to theoretical integration (Akers, 1994, p. 195; Gibbons, 1994; Hirschi, 1979, 1989).

They claim the idea that integration appears to create a more powerful or more comprehensive explanation

is an illusion often resulting in theoretical confusion (Thornberry, 1989, p. 54).

We argue that these opposing positions need not be mutually exclusive; criminological theories can remain

separate because the separate disciplines illuminate different aspects of the issue, problem, or question, but

there are also potential benefits to be gained from integration (Newell, 2001). Our more moderate position

is that we should not integrate unless there is a measurable benefit from doing so. We maintain that if

integration produces a more comprehensive understanding that is not presently provided by disciplinary

approaches alone, then it is a valuable process. For example, a comprehensive approach to complex social

problems, such as crime, benefits from both disciplinary-based theories competing for the best explanations

and integrative approaches that go beyond the single theoretical approach.

Another contentious issue is whether integration can achieve comprehensive understanding or whether,

because of the increasing number of interdisciplinary combinations, it simply produces a plurality of

comprehensive understandings or competing meta-theories (Einstadter & Henry, 2006; Fuchsman, 2009):

When the conditions for interdisciplinarity exist, there are then a variety of results possible from

efforts to forge a synthesis. There can be full integration, no integration, partial integration, or

multiple integrations. The contending discourses, synthesis, ideological disputes, plural

epistemologies, and fragmentations that occur within disciplines and their subfields also make their

appearance within interdisciplinarity. (Fuchsman, 2009, p. 79)

Under these circumstances, we might argue that the concept of integration as a single coherent entity may not

always be possible; when there are multiple bases for integration (e.g., assumptions, concepts, or theories),

partial integration may be the best that one can achieve, although full integration remains the ideal. Indeed,

one recent review of integrated theories in criminology found that different integrative theories each draw on

2 to 10 of the 14 different discipline-based theories available, and their various combinations have produced

16 different integrative theories (Lanier & Henry, 2010). These come with a variety of indicative names, such

as “integrated social theory,” “integrated structural Marxist theory,” “conceptual integration theory,” “integrative

systems theory,” and “holistic theory.” Moreover, not all discipline-based theories that constitute these new

integrative theories are drawn on equally. The range of inclusions varies from 2, in the case of feminist

criminological theory, to 11 or more in the case of social learning theory and social control theory (Lanier &

Henry, 2010, pp. 382–391). This raises the question of whether theoretical integration should be striving for

comprehensiveness or multiple more-comprehensive understandings and, in criminology, whether the new

set of competing integrative theories provides theoretical clarity or “integrational chaos” (Einstadter & Henry,

2006, pp. 319–320).

Interdisciplinarians, however, might argue that the charge of integrational chaos presumes that there is no

way to adjudicate between competing integrative theories. Newell's (2001) theory of interdisciplinary studies

and Repko's (2008) version of the steps in the interdisciplinary research process both include a final step

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

of testing/applying the more comprehensive theory (Boix-Mansilla, 2005). As is the case in classic theory

building, the fit with empirical evidence determines which competing integrative theory is preferable or at least

has more practical value (Bernard, 2001). If multiple integrated theories of crime causation exist, whether

these have been arrived at by partial integration or by the integration of elements from different combinations

of root disciplines, the key issue is which stands up to the evidence. As a further test, we might ask which

of the different “comprehensive policies” produced by each of these different integrative theories lowers the

incidence of a particular crime. In short, which comprehensive policy works best when it is implemented?

Another approach to the issue of creating more comprehensive theory comes from addressing what,

precisely, is being integrated. In the criminological literature, there are four different ways that integration

in criminological theory has occurred: (1) conceptual integration; (2) propositional integration; (3) causal

integration; and (4) cross-level integration (Einstadter & Henry, 2006; Hirschi, 1979; Liska, Krohn, & Messner,

1989). When considering the meaning of these various integrations, it is important to be clear that social

science theorists (like their natural science counterparts) typically see theories as assertions about

relationships among variables. Different theories may have some variables in common, but they can be

distinguished by the differences in the variables they interconnect and by the assumptions about causal

relationships between the variables. There is no reason an integrative theory cannot include a wider array

of variables and provide a somewhat different explanation (from those contained in any of the theories

from which it derives its variables) for why those variables are included and how they are interconnected.

Here, a variable is a measurable way of operationalizing an abstract or general concept; a variable is

either in an equation or it isn't. For example, we might want to look at the range of variables derived from

different theories that have been empirically demonstrated to correlate with the propensity of juveniles to

join gangs. We might include neighborhood housing density, age, criminality of parent or siblings, degree of

neighborhood disorganization, and neighborhood transience rates. These variables may be interconnected

in different ways. Theories that claim community shapes the opportunities available for adolescents to make

delinquent decisions present a different set of interconnections than those that claim that only juveniles who

are predisposed to sensation-seeking behavior due to biological or psychological developmental processes

will act on environmental opportunities. In this individual-level predisposition case, we might be including

variables such as adolescent brain development, domestic abuse, traumatic brain syndrome, high sugar

consumption, addictive personality, and so on. Clearly, therefore, a different comprehensive understanding

would emerge, based on an integration of variables located at the micro-level of analysis (i.e., at the level of

the individual), than if we integrated elements of theory based at the macro-level of analysis (i.e., at the level

of the community and society) because the latter would embody the former and arguably shape its internal

relations/dynamics. So the decision about the nature of the interconnections between variables affects which

concepts are integrated from the different discipline-based theories.

Conceptual Integration

In order to achieve conceptual integration toward a more comprehensive understanding, concepts from

different disciplines first need to be reconciled through redefinition, extension, organization, or transformation.

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

This conceptual reconciliation is a step prior to the integration process (Step 8, creating common ground,

rather than Step 9, integrating insights into a more comprehensive understanding, in Repko's [2008] schema).

As we have previously argued, “integrating concepts involves finding those that have similar meanings in

different theories and merging them into a common language” (Einstadter & Henry, 2006, p. 316). This

technique of redefinition in interdisciplinary studies, referred to as “textual integration” (Brown, 1989), is one

of the foundations for creating common ground. Abstractly, theories are generally built up from concepts, or

kernels of ideas, that theorists then link together into explanations for events or phenomena. For example,

high levels of immigration into cities combined with profit-seeking landlords leads to poor quality, low rent,

multifamily inner-city housing with high resident turnover; the resultant neighborhood instability fragments

communities, resulting in a breakdown of informal networks of social control. Fearful of being victimized,

youth band together for self-protection, forming subcultures that can become territorial gangs that protect

their members by instilling fear in nongang or other gang members. They maintain autonomy by engaging in

a variety of delinquency, such as vandalism and drug dealing (i.e., the social disorganization theory of gang

formation).

In practice, many theories start with others' explanations that they modify by creating concepts to fit, or by

borrowing concepts from other theories. For example, the concept of social learning added to the theory of

social disorganization extends its explanatory power. It explains intergenerational gangs by showing that gang

members develop powerful rationalizations to justify their existence; define crime and violence as necessary

for survival; and pass the knowledge, skills, and markets on to new gang members. Once a gang is formed

in a neighborhood, youth can be socialized into the gang's subculture.

In creating common ground, then, the separate disciplinary “languages” (really, definitions of terms) reflect the

differences as well as the similarities in meanings of related concepts. Those differences, in turn, reflect what

distinguishes one discipline from another: most generally, its perspective or worldview. Merging concepts is

not the simple task of focusing on similarities and ignoring differences. Rather, it entails figuring out how to

utilize those similarities in a way that retains the integrity of the original concept.

The aim of interdisciplinary integration when creating common ground (Step 8) is to be identifiably responsive

to each disciplinary perspective on which one draws, but to be dominated by none of them. Although this test

for interdisciplinarians normally refers to constructing a more comprehensive understanding, it also applies

to creating common ground (i.e., a concept should be redefined such that it is responsive to the perspective

of the discipline into the domain of which the concept is entering). For example, Akers's (1994) “conceptual

absorption” approach takes concepts from social learning and social control theory (among others) and

merges them. The control theory concept of “belief,” which refers to a person's moral conviction for or

against delinquency, is equated to learning theory's “definitions favorable or unfavorable to crime” (differential

association). It is interesting that there are parallels here to the theory of human cognitive practice known

as “conceptual blending,” in which humans subconsciously integrate elements and relations from diverse

situations to create new concepts, a process seen by some as being at the heart of the creative process

(Fauconnier & Turner, 2002; Turner & Fauconnier, 1995).

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Although ultimately conceptual integration may distort, even transform, a disciplinary concept in creating a

new or blended concept (Lanier & Henry, 2004, p. 342), that need not be a disadvantage so long as it does

not engage in a reductionist practice, that is, to lose the integrity of the original idea through oversimplification

(during Step 9 of creating a more comprehensive understanding). The appropriate test is not to remain true

to disciplinary intent, but to faithfully capture the meaning of the aspect of the concept that will be utilized—its

kernel of truth or essential idea. A disciplinarian should be able to look at a redefined or extended concept,

for example, and agree that the part of the concept of interest to the interdisciplinarian has been accurately

and adequately captured.

Propositional Integration

Having created the common ground through conceptual integration, we can now move to Step 9, creating

a comprehensive understanding. If we take theoretical propositions to refer to the interconnections or

relationship between two or more variables, or among a specific (and usually small) set of variables, then

at least some theoretical propositions must be integrated in order to construct an integrated theory. If one

of those variables is also included in the causal explanations of another discipline, propositional integration

could involve the addition of another equation to a system of simultaneous equations or another independent

variable to a single equation. Propositional integration “refers to combining propositions from theories or

placing them in some causal order or sequence” (Lanier & Henry, 2004, p. 343) or what might simply be called

organizing them logically.

Propositional integration is a more formal effort because it entails linking the propositions and not

just the concepts of two or more theories into a combined theory. … Rather than simply usurpation,

a propositionally integrated theory must actually meaningfully connect or relate the propositions of

different theories into the new theory. (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 307)

Shoemaker (1996, p. 254) has observed that propositional integration can quickly result in an exponential

increase in the number of variables, making the testing of integrative theory impractical because of the sample

size necessary. However, this may be appropriate—the causal factors interacting to produce crime may

indeed be numerous—but it is not inevitable: Interdisciplinarians may come to realize that some variables

from one discipline are being used without much success to explain an aspect of crime that is much better

explained by another discipline. Those variables would then be supplanted in the more comprehensive theory

by variables from the other discipline or disciplines. Along this line of thinking, Robinson (2004, pp. x–xi)

advocates building integrative theory by examining the tested contribution to our understanding of crime

made by “risk factors” derived from each discipline, “illustrating how risk factors at different levels of analysis

from different academic disciplines interact to increase the probability that a person will commit anti-social

behavior” (Robinson, 2004, p. 271). It is important to note that Robinson is disaggregating these “risk factors”

from their discipline-based theories and applying the test of whether they contribute to the new integrated

theory based on their empirical veracity, then combining them into a new integrative explanation for why

people engage in crime, or why they engage in a particular kind of crime.

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Here, we are considering what is the most appropriate mechanism or method of integrating selected theories

to produce a more comprehensive understanding (Step 9). For example, is integration to take the form of

one grand theory? Does integration assume a sequential, “end-to-end” process, in which various theories

kick in at different stages? Does the mechanism of integration seek to provide a transcendent approach,

leaving the individual theories to deal with specifics? Does the mechanism used for integration discuss the

interrelationship between the component theories, showing how each of the dimensions relates, or do the

integrated propositions vary depending on which crime/offender/situation is being analyzed?

Liska et al. (1989, pp. 5–15), drawing on Hirschi (1979), suggest that a key issue in generating a

comprehensive understanding through integrating theory is to consider how theoretical propositions are

logically related. They describe three types of relationships, though others could also be envisioned: (1)

end-to-end or sequential integration, which implies a sequential causal order; (2) side-by-side or horizontal

integration, which implies overlapping influences; or (3) up-and-down or vertical integration, which “refers

to identifying a level of abstraction or generality that encompasses much of the conceptualization of the

constituent theories” (Bernard & Snipes, 1996; Messner et al., 1989, p. 5). The danger of up-and-down

propositional integration, in which one theory is subsumed by another that is claimed to be more general

in its explanatory power while incorporating the explanatory power of its constituent theories, is that it can

rapidly become an example of reductionism. However, in its less-often used synthetic form, it holds significant

promise, which is discussed below.

First, end-to-end or sequential integration links the immediate cause of crime to a more distant cause of

crime and then links that to an even more distant cause. For example, an arrest for gang violence might

be the outcome of the following process of sequential causes over time: Biological deficits at birth may lead

to low IQ, which leads to learning disabilities in early childhood, which may lead to an inability to follow

social norms, which may lead to group and institutional exclusion, which produces reduced self-esteem and

alienation, which generates anger and hostility that results in affiliations with similarly alienated peers, which

leads to delinquent peer or gang formation, which leads to law violation, which is reacted to by authorities,

producing criminal justice intervention and stigmatization, which results in an arrest for gang violence. In

this illustration, an arrest for gang violence is explained by a series of theoretical propositions drawn from

labeling theory, subcultural theory, learning theory, cognitive theory, and biological or genetic theory. No one

theoretical explanation explains the whole sequence, but linked end-to-end they may do so.

Second, in side-by-side or horizontal integration, each of the theories integrated explains a different aspect of

the phenomenon, in this case different kinds of crime or different types of criminal. So, one theory may explain

one type of crime, such as organizational (white-collar) crime, while another will explain violent crime such as

robbery, and yet another theory will explain workplace crime, and so on (Gibbons & Farr, 2001; Moffitt, 1993).

Added together, the collection of theories explains a variety of crimes, and it is also possible that two or more

theories may explain the same type of crime. For example, some acts of sexual assault may be explained by

self-control theory, which argues that such crimes are the result of a predisposition to sensation seeking and

the desire for immediate gratification, but sexual assault may also be explained by social learning theory and

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

low self-esteem as a result of the offender being a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Of course, the question

this raises is whether two acts defined by law as the same crime are actually the same or different behaviors.

If different, then each theory would be explaining a different act, even though the law classifies them as the

same with regard to the harm and consequences for the victim.

In side-by-side integration, “the integrated typological theory is simply all the separate explanations of crime

combined” (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 308). Alternatively, one theory may explain one type of offender.

A good illustration of this is provided by Terri Moffitt's (1993, 2003) theory of two types of offender: adolescent-

limited offenders have a pattern of extreme antisocial behavior during adolescence, which they mature out of

by early adulthood. In contrast, life-course-persistent offenders exhibit criminal activity across their life course.

She argues that a different causal explanation is needed to explain the two types of offender.

[Side-by-side integration addresses the] scope of theoretical explanation and whether the integration

is intended to explain crime in general or a specific type of crime, or whether it is intended to

explain a specific kind of motivation across a range of different crimes. Is it intended to apply to the

population in general or only certain sectors of it (e.g., young, old, men, women, African American,

Hispanic)? Is it intended to apply in all situations or is it situationally specific? (Einstadter & Henry,

2006, p. 318)

Finally, up-and-down or deductive integration attempts to explain crime by generalizing from a range of

constitutive theoretical explanations. The synthetic form of up-and-down integration is consistent with the

aim of developing an integrative comprehensive understanding. It involves creating a theory of sufficient

generality that incorporates multiple propositions from constitutive theories, each of which explains a part of

the process that is the crime. The difference between this and the other forms of propositional integration

is that each of the explanations plays a part in explaining the whole crime event, but none alone explains

the whole event. Consider again the example of delinquency. Several different theories offer explanations

for why adolescents engage in delinquent acts. Control theory, for example, has a key concept of parental

attachment, which is inversely related to delinquency (assuming parents are themselves moral and law

abiding). When lack of parental attachment is combined with other elements, such as low commitment to

convention and lack of involvement in conventional activities, an adolescent may do poorly in school. Conflict

theory, as well as developmental theory, argues that family conflict can arise from a variety of internal

family dynamics or external societal pressures and can produce alienation of the adolescent from his or

her family. Low commitment to convention can also lead to underachieving in school, which in turn can

exacerbate conflict and alienation in the family. Social disorganization also contributes to the alienation of

some adolescents from their parents, due to a lack of identification, and social learning theory shows how

alienated and underachieving students can identify more directly with underachieving peers, which in turn can

create more alienation and further underachievement, as well as lead to deviant and law-breaking activity. A

synthetic version of up-and-down integrated theory would argue that none of these theoretical propositions

alone explains delinquency, but taken together they show how delinquency can be the codetermined outcome

from the different propositions acting in the same direction. This is not because one factor causes the other,

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

but rather because relations in the family are part of the relations in the school, and relations between peers

are part of the relations of school and family. One does not cause the other to change, but when one changes,

the qualities of the other are changed simultaneously. This leads us to the notion that when we are talking

about integration, different causal relations are implied in each of these models of integration, which suggests

that before integrating, the interdisciplinarian must think hard about how causal factors are related.

Causal Integration

Another key issue affecting the nature of theoretical integration is causality. When developing a theory of

common ground (Step 8) toward a more comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena (Step 9), we

need to recognize that there are different kinds of causal models that describe the relationships between

variables. We can identify a minimum of four kinds of causality: (1) linear causality, which takes the form of

a sequential chain of events; (2) multiple causality, which sees the phenomenon as the outcome of several

different independent causes or a combination of interdependent causes (but see 4 below); (3) interactive

causality, in which the effects of one event influence its cause(s), which then influences the event; and (4)

dialectical or reciprocal causality, in which causes and events are not discrete entities but are overlapping,

interrelated, and codetermining (Barak, 1998a; Einstadter & Henry, 2006; Henry & Milovanovic, 1996). The

difference between interactive causality and reciprocal causality has to do with the way the causes and

events are conceived. In interactive causality, one cause produces an effect, which subsequently acts on the

original cause and affects it in an interactive cycle. In dialectical/reciprocal causality, causes and events are

intertwined such that each is a part of the other. A clear example is the relationship between law and society.

Law is not separate from society or from the social forms, such as family or government, to which it is related:

“Law is integrally constituted in relation to a plurality of social forms” (Fitzpatrick, 1984, p. 115) and “elements

of law are elements of the other social forms, and vice versa” (p. 122). The effect is not independent but

instantaneous because a change in one is simultaneously a change in the other (imagine a Venn diagram).

This presents a challenge to theorists attempting to examine individual causal links in turn. The interactive

and dialectical/reciprocal models of causality suggest a dynamic, rather than static, form of integration, one

that will be of particular interest to interdisciplinarians examining complex phenomena. This typology leads to

a series of questions:

Should different causalities be integrated such that some are dynamic and some static? … Is the

weight given to theories emphasizing a fixed or changing picture of social life? Do most of the

theories combined assume a static or dynamic state? (Einstadter & Henry, 2006, pp. 318–319)

If we were to integrate these models of causality, some (such as those found in the more linear and static

theories) might explain some stages of a phenomenon while others (that are nonlinear and dynamic) might

explain the relationship between stages or how a process evolves over time and across space.

Cross-Level Integration

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Finally, we need to consider the level of integration, meaning whether an integrated theory should address

a micro-, meso-, or macro-level of integration, or integrate across all levels, which is called “cross-level

integration” (Liska et al. 1989; Muftic, 2009). Intuitively, it seems that if comprehensiveness is the goal,

then all three levels (and even a fourth global level) need to be addressed simultaneously in what has

been called “multilevel” integration (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 305). The integrational levels to be

considered include “(1) kinds of people, their human agency, and their interactive social processes (micro);

(2) kinds of organization, their collective agency, and their organizational processes (meso); and (3) kinds

of culture, structure, and context (macro)” (Einstadter & Henry, 2006, p. 319). An example of cross-level

(macro-micro) integration in criminology is Colvin and Pauly's (1983) attempt to combine Marxist, conflict,

and strain (macro-level) with subculture, social learning, and social control (micro-level) theories. It could

be argued that considering the levels of integration takes us back to Step 1 in the interdisciplinary process,

namely, the identification of the kind of complex problem to be studied, and the distinction between broad and

narrow interdisciplinarity. The question about the appropriate breadth of study perhaps can only appropriately

be answered for a particular instance (of crime, in this case). Still, interdisciplinarians need to be aware of

these questions as they decide on the scope of the particular complex problem they want to study. This is

an important consideration because without an explicit awareness that macro-micro level interactions occur,

it might be seductive to believe that an integration of a range of theories is adequate, without realizing that

macro-level theories have been omitted. For example, the 16 different integrated theories identified by Lanier

and Henry (2010, pp. 385–389) draw on micro-level theories in greater numbers (66%) than they draw on

macro-level theories (33%). Put simply, integration of discipline-based theories in criminology has typically

been biased toward same-level rather than cross-level analyses.

Toward an Integrated Analysis of Violence and School Violence

In this section, we first establish that violence/school violence is a complex problem. Second, we examine the

integrated causal analysis of violence/school violence, arguing that this is best explained using interactive/

reciprocal causal explanations rather than single or multiple independent causality. Third, we argue that a

comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon requires that we examine causation across multiple levels,

and we explain how these levels are interactive and interrelated. Finally, we suggest the kind of policy that

such an integrated reciprocal, multi-level causal analysis would imply.

Violence as a Complex Problem

Leaving aside for the moment the problematic status of “problems,” “problem solving,” and “problem solvers”

(see McCormack, 2009), we need first to decide what makes a problem complex and, indeed, what are

the criteria of complexity. This issue has been addressed in the interdisciplinary studies literature (Meek,

2001; Meek & Newell, 2005; Newell, 2001, 2003), has been incorporated into Step 2 of Repko's (2008)

schema, and has also been explored by scholars seeking to understand the nature of complex problem

solving. For example, according to Funke (1991), building on the work of Dietrich Dörner, a complex problem

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

is defined by the following five characteristics: (1) multiple variables and decisions (complexity), that (2)

interact and interrelate in nonlinear, even chaotic and dynamic ways (connectivity), that (3) achieve multiple

goals or outcome states (polytely), that (4) lack clarity of content and meaning (opacity), and that (5)

change over time (variable temporal dynamics), being unpredictable (temporal sensitivity) and yet occurring

in waves (patterned clusters of events). Detombe (1994, 2003) says that complex social problems involve

multiple people and organizations, are characterized by a lack of knowledge and data, and produce uncertain

and often undesired outcomes. She says, “knowledge about the issues involved in the problem normally

belongs to more than one discipline” and “belongs to the subject of study of different domains within one

discipline [inter-domain problems]” (Detombe, 2003). The complexity of the issue reflects the multiple levels

of phenomena that are involved, which can be “viewed from the micro-, meso- or macro-aggregation” levels

and includes “persons, groups, societies, organizations, buildings, education, ministries” (Detombe, 2003).

These entities are interrelated in uncertain dynamic ways, changing over time, with uncertain start and end

points, and often with unexpected or unique outcomes. Definitions of the problem are lacking or conflicting,

and the problem has so far defied a comprehensive understanding, which challenges any simple analysis.

Complex societal interdisciplinary problems are often embedded in a dynamic context (continuously changing

environment), as a result of which the problems change continually. This, combined with the unpredictability

of the effects of interventions, makes it difficult to handle the problem (Detombe, 2003).

To what extent does violence/school violence qualify as a complex social problem, according to these criteria?

Clearly, from the perspective of producing unwanted outcomes, the harms of violence/school violence affect

not only the victims but also the perpetrators, their families, and, in the case of school violence, the school

as an institution, the learning environment, the community, and the wider society. Violence/school violence,

therefore, qualifies as a social problem with multiple and variable negative outcomes. In the case of school

violence, these outcomes are relatively unpredictable, both in their timing and their impact, which is especially

true for the extreme forms, such as rampage shootings (Newman, Fox, Harding, Mehta, & Roth, 2004),

although the outcomes may be less random and more predictable for the continual occurrence of subforms

of violence that permeate urban schools. Indeed, the question of unpredictability is difficult to answer in

general because, although the outcomes of complex systems are not strictly predictable, they are often

quasi-predictable. And they usually produce identifiable patterns of behavior, as can be seen in the research

on patterns of school violence; although those patterns do evolve over time, they don't evolve quickly or

capriciously. The least predictable aspects of complex systems are the bifurcation points at which one pattern

suddenly transforms into another, but those are quite infrequent. A good example here would be when

a school system, such as Columbine, embodies a pattern of repeated bullying over many years, which

transforms into a dramatic rampage shooting as the victims of bullying seek to destroy the school and those

in it. Therefore, we argue that complex systems are relatively unpredictable if we approach them without a

comprehensive understanding of their complexity, which, of course, is the point of an integrative analysis.

It is certainly the case that acts of violence/school violence are often depicted as meaningless random acts

of aggression rather than acts targeted at particular persons or groups. Also, the definition of violence/

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

school violence is contested. Some restrict it to any form of physical violence and bullying; others include

psychological and emotional harm through intimidation; and still others include institutional and symbolic

forms of violence as expressions of power and control by teachers, administrators, and politicians (for a

review of these different definitional positions, see Henry, 2000, 2009). Finally, as we reiterate in the next

section, violence/school violence is constituted through multiple causal relationships, operative on micro-,

meso-, or macro-levels of society, from individual through interactive group level, institutional and community

levels, to societal, cultural, and even global levels (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Henry, 2009; Muschert, 2007;

Muschert & Peguero, 2010). In short, violence/school violence satisfies the five conditions of complexity,

connectivity, polytely, opacity, and temporality to qualify as a complex interdisciplinary social problem. In the

next section, we argue that violence/school violence has multiple constitutive causal variables that interact

in nonlinear, chaotic, and dynamic ways to produce multiple uncertain but harmful outcomes or events,

themselves subject to change in relation to the changing environments, including being transformed and

accumulating over time.

Integrative Theory in Criminology as an Explanation of Violence/School

Violence

Violence is defined by law as a serious crime:

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force

against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its

nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may

be used in the course of committing the offense. (18 U.S.C. 16)

School violence, because of the age of the victims, is seen as a particularly heinous form of crime and has

a broader definition that includes a wide range of disruptive activities seen as harmful to victims besides

physical and/emotional violence, though its definition is contested (Henry, 2000).

There are approximately 12 different theoretical explanations for crime causation in the criminological

literature, each tied to the following academic disciplines, fields, or schools of thought: economics, biology,

psychology, geography, sociology, social constructionism, political science, philosophy, feminism, and

postmodernism (see Einstadter & Henry, 2006; Lanier & Henry, 2010). However, as we have argued, several

criminologists have recognized the value of taking an integrative approach that incorporates various different

combinations of these causal explanations. Thus, instead of seeing crime through a single disciplinary

framework, or even through multiple paradigms, integrative criminological theorists take an interdisciplinary

approach defined as “the combination of two or more pre-existing theories, selected on the basis of their

perceived commonalities, into a single reformulated theoretical model with greater comprehensiveness

and explanatory value than any one of its component theories” (Farnworth, 1989, p. 95). Hunter and

Dantzker (2002, p. 150), for example, describe “holistic” explanations of crime, which “combine multifactor

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

perspectives” allowing “criminologists to see the entire panorama” rather than a one-dimensional picture.

Robinson (2004, 2006; Robinson & Beaver, 2009) has refined the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of crime

causation while still retaining an overall holistic approach as an “integrated systems perspective.” This theory

“asserts that various criminogenic factors interact among all levels of analysis—cell, organ, organism, group,

community/organization, and society—to produce antisocial and criminal behavior” (Robinson, 2006, p. 322).

Gregg Barak, the author of a foundational book on integrative theory in criminology (1998b), also wrote

Violence and Nonviolence: Pathways to Understanding (2003). Here, Barak points out that in spite of clear

evidence that the causes of violence are cumulatively interrelated across a range of societal levels, most

analyses of violence are “un-reflexive,” about the relationship between causes, or about whether forms of

violence can themselves become causes of violence. This is partly because analysts tend to “focus on one

particular form of violence, without much, if any, reflection on the other forms.” He further argues that “these

fragmented and isolated analyses seek to explain the workings of a given form of violence without trying

to understand the common threads or roots that may link various forms of violence together” (p. 39; see

also Barak, 2006). Critical to our purpose in this chapter is the nature of the links to which he alludes.

In one sense, Barak could be talking about side-to-side linkages of the kind discussed earlier, but he is

actually talking much more about both reciprocal causality and cross-level causality. Indeed, he argues that

causes of violence (and nonviolence) ranging “across the spheres of interpersonal, institutional, and structural

relations as well as across the domains of family, subculture, and culture are cumulative, mutually reinforcing,

and inversely related [emphasis added]” (p. 169), but that “most explanations of the etiology of violence

and nonviolence … emphasize the interpersonal spheres to the virtual exclusion of the institutional and

structural spheres” (p. 155). He argues that we need to take account of the dynamic interrelations of these

different levels in order to understand the pathways to violence (p. 170). Important to his argument is that

occurrences of violence at these different levels can themselves be implicated in the causes of subsequent

acts of violence as the process of violence unfolds over time. Barak (2006) observes that we need to

consider the full range of behavioral motivations and sociocultural constraints that intersect with the spheres

of interpersonal, institutional, and structural communication. This same multilevel, interactive, and reciprocal

analysis of culminating factors can be applied to school violence, and a few scholars have attempted this

approach.

Integrative Analysis of School Violence as a Cumulative Reciprocal

Causal Process

Several researchers studying school violence have noted that a complex set of influences on, or multiple

causes of, school violence operate at the individual, community, and national levels (Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008; Garbarino, 1999; Henry, 2000, 2009; Newman et al., 2004). Muschert

(2007), for example, states, “School shooting incidents need to be understood as resulting from a

constellation of contributing causes, none of which is sufficient in itself to explain a shooting” (p. 68). He

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

identifies 13 categories of “causes” of school shootings, arguing that “causes may emerge from a variety

of levels, ranging from the individual causes, community contexts, and social/cultural contexts in which

the events occur.” These include (1) “individual” causes such as mental illness, access to guns, peer

relationships, family neglect, or abuse; (2) “community” context such as youth and peer dynamics; (3)

“institutional” contexts such as school-based interaction that encompasses poor student/faculty relationships,

ineffective school administration, inability of communities to respond to delinquency or excessively oppressive

community responses to delinquency, and intolerant community climate; and (4) the “social and cultural” level,

such as the crisis in public school education, gender role violence, conservative religious political climate, gun

culture, and media violence (p. 69).

Some school violence researchers have envisioned these levels not only as interacting but as incorporated,

one in the other, such that the individual is incorporated into the group, which is incorporated into the

society, from micro- to macro-structural levels (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Muschert, 2007; Henry, 2000;

Welsh, Greene, & Jenkins, 1999). As Benbenishty and Astor (2005) state, school violence “is the product of

many factors that are associated with multiple levels organized hierarchically (nested like a matryoshka doll):

individual students within classes, classes within schools, schools within neighborhoods, and neighborhoods

within societies and cultures” (p. 113). The problem with this nested analysis is that the metaphor begs the

key question of the nature and strengths of the inter-level linkages.

Henry (2009), applying Barak's (2003) reciprocal cumulative analysis (itself influenced by the work of Moffitt,

2001; Sampson & Laub, 2001; and Colvin, 2000), argued that in order to examine complex social problems

such as school violence, or subsets of it such as rampage school shootings,

we need to take a wide-angle interdisciplinary lens to the nature of what constitutes violence in

schools and retain the connection between school violence and violence at various levels within

the institution of the school and the wider society. We need to consider the range of different

disciplinarily-based explanations in order to assess what each brings to a comprehensive analysis

of school violence. (p. 1248)

He agrees that school violence is a broad phenomenon with multiple manifest forms that together constitute

a continuum of violence. However, he also argues that what is critical is the ways that these causes come

together over time through a culmination process that can produce a dramatic outcome of mass violence or

remain as less violent forms. For example, school shooter Kip Kinkel's repeated victimization by school bullies

escalated into an explosion of violence and rage when the “killer at Thurston High” shot his parents and then

his fellow students. Other students may be subjected to similar repeated abuse that remains internalized as

harm but does not escalate to the crescendo reached in the more extreme cases. Conventional analyses of

school violence explain each subtype of school violence, without recognizing the cumulative interrelations and

interaction between them. Research, however, suggests that violence is a more reciprocal process embedded

in a set of mutually reinforcing ongoing causal chains that lead to episodes of violence on the pathway to

more serious violence (Athens, 1992; Colvin, 2000; Hotaling, Straus, & Lincoln, 1989, as cited by Loeber &

Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998, p. 112; Straus, 1994; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994).

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

A growing body of research indicates that victims of violence are more likely than their peers to also

be perpetrators of violence, and that individuals most likely to be victims of personal crime are those

who report the greatest involvement in delinquent activities. (Siegfried, Ko, & Kelley, 2004)

Similarly, research on school violence shows that violent social interaction between student offenders and

victims can turn some victims into offenders seeking to exact reparation or “level the score” (Furlong, Sharma,

& Rhee, 2000, p. 83; Lockwood, 1997). Evidence also supports the claim that forms of violent victimization

such as bullying and exclusion can eventually produce an inner sense of hopelessness and vulnerability that

can lead to rampage shooting (Newman et al., 2004). However, not all rampage shooters were bullied; some

may have suffered psychological trauma, and others have been influenced by witnessing violent trauma to

their friends and in their neighborhoods. Henry (2009) urges,

Consider the range of physical, psychological, and symbolic violence as cumulatively reciprocal

contributing causal elements that can build over time to produce instances of extreme violence.

From this perspective, rampage school violence is not a different crime but an extreme level of the

culmination of its constitutive forms of subviolence. (p. 1252)

Henry (2000, 2009) further argues that incidents of violence in school are not only cumulative between victim

and offender, but operate across multiple levels. As such, micro-level interpersonal violence can combine

with symbolic images of media violence and with institutional acts of coercive power and government acts

of force and violence. The expression of force through agencies of the state, whether the military or the

justice system, legitimates the use of violence to deal with problems and cannot be left out of any equation

seeking a comprehensive explanation for specific acts of violence, however remote may seem the direct

interrelationships between these different levels. The challenge is to develop ways to assess the nature and

strengths of these interrelationships over time.

Finally, using a more expansive definition of school violence, including institutional and mass mediated forms

of symbolic violence, Henry (2009) identifies and locates these examples of school violence at different levels

and represents them in a typological matrix, showing that instances of school violence at one level can

themselves serve as causes of school violence at another level. Moreover, the effects of one form of school

violence operative at one level can be both the outcome of a subset of causative processes and a contributing

cause to subsequent violent outcomes, in an ongoing chain of violence. He concludes:

It is not enough to limit the analysis of school violence to incidents of particular types of student

violence. Rather, it is important to identify a range of levels of violence within the school and a wide

range of violence at different levels of society that impact the school, to identify and to see how these

are each reciprocally interrelated in the school setting as a cumulative process over time. In this way,

we will be able to comprehend how violent acts, including extreme expressions such as rampage

school shootings, are outcomes of multiple subviolent, violent, and symbolically violent processes….

Any adequate analysis of school violence, therefore, has to locate the micro-interactive, institutional

practices and sociocultural productions in the wider political economy of the society in which these

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

occur. Ignoring the structural inequalities of power in the wider system reduces the cause of school

violence to local and situational inequalities of power, suggesting that policies can be addressed to

intervene locally, such as at the level of peer subculture or school organization. While these levels

of intervention are important, they alone are insufficient. (Henry, 2009, p. 1262)

Thus, in order to develop adequate policies concerning school violence, we need to identify the multiple

causes of school violence, noting that some of the causes are, indeed, themselves forms of violence. We also

need to locate these causes at their level of operation in a nested hierarchy of cumulative interaction, examine

the linkages between the different levels of cause (micro, meso, macro), and determine the strengths of these

inter-level linkages. Indeed, although the CDC (2008) sees school violence as facilitated by different level

strategies, for example, individual level, relationship level, community level, and societal level strategies, it

fails to recognize that systemic, inter-level linkages exist between levels that require strategies that address

these linkages. Thus, the CDC argues that at the community level, in addition to local and school-based

strategies that involve class management and curriculum techniques and practices, changes to “the social

environment of the school … can reduce crime and fear” (p. 4). Further, “Schools are embedded within

a larger community environment by which they are influenced. As a result, broader efforts to change the

physical and social environments of communities can also benefit schools” (p. 4). Unfortunately, this policy

analysis implies dealing with each level separately, which ignores the interrelationships between the levels

that is fundamental to the Barak (2003) and Henry (2009) analysis discussed earlier. Although it may seem

that policies that deal with each level separately would negate the need for considering the interrelationships

between levels, this presumes that we can know what the relevant levels are without an analysis of these

interrelationships. So part of the reason for examining this interrelationship across levels is to establish which

causal factors at which levels are in need of policy intervention.

Conclusion

Our purpose in this chapter was not to arrive at a comprehensive policy for school violence, but to

demonstrate the advantages of approaching a complex social problem with the tools of the integrative

research process. We examined how the complex problem of violence/school violence would be analyzed

from such a perspective rather than from the conventional disciplinary or multidisciplinary perspectives. We

explored how integrative criminologists have struggled with the issues of which elements of the variety

of disciplinary theories to include in their analysis, how they integrate concepts through redefinition, the

different ways they integrate disciplinary-based theoretical propositions, and their incorporation of different

kinds of causality. We also demonstrated the importance not only of recognizing different levels of analysis

but of developing a holistic understanding of the strengths of interaction between these different levels as

they vary over time. We determined that the most promising explanation of violence/school violence is the

cumulative reciprocal theory that sees causes of violent events at different levels and also sees these very

events as contributing causes of subsequent violent acts. Finally, we argued that the most promising policies

for combating school violence are those that incorporate an appreciation of multiple causality operative at

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

different levels and identify the strengths or nature of the interrelationships of the processes operative at the

different levels.

Any policy based on an integrative theory must address this challenge if we are to transcend our current state

of knowledge and develop the ability to address such complex social problems. One promising way forward

is The Columbine Effect (Muschert & Peguero, 2010; Muschert, Henry, Bracy, & Peguero, in press), which

examines school antiviolence policy in the context of the totality of the complexity of the problem, seeking

to relate specific policies to different levels and dimensions of the problem. Rather than taking policies in

isolation or as alternatives, the authors argue that effective prevention policy requires the multiple, cumulative

causes of school violence to be simultaneously addressed through a comprehensive web of policies.

References

Akers, R. (1994). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Athens, L. H. (1992). The creation of dangerous violent criminals. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Edited by: Barak, G. (Ed.). (1998a). Integrated criminology. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Barak, G. (1998b). Integrating criminologies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Barak, G. (2003). Violence and nonviolence: Pathways to understanding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231716

Barak, G. (2006). Applying integrative theory: A reciprocal theory of violence and non-violence. In Edited

by: S.Henry & M. M.Lanier (Eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 336–346). Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Barak, G. (2009). Criminology: An integrated approach. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school

and gender. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/

9780195157802.001.0001

Bernard, T. J. (2001). Integrating theories in criminology. In Edited by: R.Paternoster & R.Bachman (Eds.),

Explaining criminals and crime (pp. 335–346). Los Angeles: Roxbury Press.

Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. In Edited by: M.Tonry (Ed.),

Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 20, pp. 301–348). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boix-Mansilla, V. (2005, January/February). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change,

37(1), 14–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.1.14-21

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Brown, R. H. (1989). Textuality, social science, and society. Issues in Integrative Studies, 7, 1–19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Understanding school violence: Fact sheet. Retrieved

January 3, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/SchoolViolence_FactSheet-a.pdf

Colvin, M. (2000). Crime and coercion: An integrative theory of chronic criminality. New York: Palgrave Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780312292775

Colvin, M., & Pauly, J. (1983). A critique of criminology: Toward an integrated structural-Marxist theory of

delinquency production. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 513–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227904

Detombe, D. J. (1994). Defining complex interdisciplinary societal problems: A theoretical study for

constructing a co-operative problem analyzing method: The method COMPRAM. Amsterdam, NL: Thesis.

Detombe, D. J. (2003). Defining complex interdisciplinary societal problems. Retrieved from

http://www.complexitycourse.org/detombecompramh1thesis.html

Einstadter, W. J., & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying assumptions.

Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

Elliott, D., Agerton, S., & Canter, R. (1979). An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior.

Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 16, 3–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002242787901600102

Farnworth, M. (1989). Theory integration versus model building. In Edited by: S. F.Messner, M. D.Krohn,

& A.Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and prospects (pp.

93–100). Albany: State University of New York.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden

complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Fishbein, D. (1998). Biological perspectives in criminology. In Edited by: S.Henry & W. J.Einstadter (Eds.),

The criminology theory reader (pp. 92–109). New York: New York University Press.

Fitzpatrick, P. (1984). Law and societies. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 115–138.

Fuchsman, K. (2009). Rethinking integration in interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 27,

70–85.

Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Human identification and control of complex systems. In Edited

by: R. J.Sternberg & P. A.Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp.

185–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Furlong, M. J., Sharma, B., & Rhee, S. S. (2000). Defining school violence victim subtypes: A step

toward adapting prevention and intervention programs to match student needs. In Edited by: D. S.Sandhu

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

& C. B.Aspey (Eds.), Violence in American schools (pp. 69–85). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling

Association.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. New York: Free

Press.

Gibbons. D. C. (1994). Talking about crime and criminals: Problems and issues in theory development in

criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gibbons, D. C., & Farr, K. A. (2001). Defining patterns of crime and types of offenders. In Edited by: S.Henry

& M. M.Lanier (Eds.), What is crime? Controversies over the nature of crime and what to do about it (pp.

37–64). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency

prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6(2), 73–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01325432

Henry, S. (2000). What is school violence: An integrated definition. ANNALS of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 567, 16–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716200567001002

Henry, S. (2009). School violence beyond Columbine: A complex problem in need of an interdisciplinary

analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1246–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764209332544

Henry, S., & Milovanovic, D. (1996). Constitutive criminology: Beyond postmodernism. London: Sage.

Hirschi, T. (1979). Separate and equal is better. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 34–38.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002242787901600104

Hirschi, T. (1989). Exploring alternatives to integrated theory. In Edited by: S. F.Messner, M. D.Krohn, &

A. E.Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 37–49). Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Hotaling, G. T., Straus, M. A., & Lincoln, A. J. (1989). Intrafamily violence and crime and violence outside

the family. In Edited by: L.Ohlin & M.Tonry (Eds.), Family violence (pp. 315–375). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Hunter, R. D., & Dantzker, M. L. (2002). Crime and criminality: Causes and consequences. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hursh, B., HaasP., & Moore, M. (1998). An interdisciplinary model to implement general education. In Edited

by: W. H.Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 35–49). New York: College Board.

Jeffrey, C. R. (1990). Criminology: An interdisciplinary approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Johnson, R. E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In Edited by: J. G.Gaff, J. L.Ratcliff,

et al. (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum (pp. 393–415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2004). Essential criminology (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Lanier, M. M., & Henry, S. (2010). Essential criminology (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Liska, A. E., Krohn, M. D., & Messner, S. F. (1989). Strategies and requisites for theoretical integration in

the study of deviance and crime. In Edited by: S. F.Messner, M. D.Krohn, & A. E.Liska (Eds.), Theoretical

integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 1–19). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lockwood, D. (1997). Violence among middle school and high school students: Analysis and implications for

prevention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Juvenile aggression at home and school. In Edited by: D.

SElliott, B. A.Hamburg, & K. R.Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools (pp. 94–126). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

McCormack, B. (2009). The problem with problem solving. Issues in Integrative Studies, 27, 17–34.

Meek, J. (2001). The practice of interdisciplinarity: Complex conditions and the potential of interdisciplinary

theory. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 123–136.

Meek, J., & Newell, W. T. (2005). Complexity, interdisciplinarity and public administration: Implications for

integrating communities. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 321–349.

Edited by: Messner, S. F., Krohn, M. D., & Liska, A. E. (Eds.). (1989). Theoretical integration in the study of

deviance and crime. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental

taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

Moffitt, T. (2001). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental

taxonomy. In Edited by: A.Piquero & P.Mazerolle (Eds.), Lifecourse criminology: Contemporary and classic

readings (pp. 91–145). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour: A 10-year research

review and a research agenda. In Edited by: B.Lahey, T.Moffitt, & A.Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct

disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49–75). New York: Guilford Press.

Muftić, L. R. (2009). Macro-micro theoretical integration: An unexplored theoretical frontier. Journal of

Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(2), 33–71.

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

Muschert, G. W. (2007). Research in school shootings. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 60–80. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00008.x

Edited by: Muschert, G. W., Henry, S., Bracy, N., & Peguero, A. A. (Eds.). (in press). The Columbine effect:

Fear and the expansion of school antiviolence policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

S0196-1152%282010%290000017007

Muschert, G. W., & Peguero, A. A. (2010). The Columbine effect and school antiviolence policy. Research

in Social Problems and Public Policy, 17, 117–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

S0196-1152%282010%290000017007

National Academies of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine. (2005).

Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies.

Newell, W. G. (2001). A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 1–25.

Newell, W. T. (2003). Complexity and interdisciplinarity. In Edited by: L. D.Kiel (Ed.), Knowledge

management, organizational intelligence, and learning and complexity: Encyclopedia of life support systems

(pp. 849–874). Oxford: EOLSS.

Newman, K., Fox, S. C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school

shootings. New York: Basic Books.

Edited by: Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (Eds.). (2001). Explaining criminals and crime. Los Angeles:

Roxbury.

Pearson, F. S., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an integration of criminological theories. Journal of Criminal

Law and Criminology, 76(1), 116–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143355

Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ritzer, G. (1975, August). Sociology: A multi-paradigm science. American Sociologist, 15–17.

Robinson, M. B. (2004). Why crime? An integrated systems theory of antisocial behavior. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Robinson, M. B. (2006). The integrative systems theory of anti-social behavior. In Edited by: S.Henry & M.

M.Lanier (Eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 319–335). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Robinson, M. B., & Beaver, K. (2009). Why crime? An interdisciplinary approach to explaining criminal

behavior. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2001). A lifecourse theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of

delinquency. In Edited by: A.Piquero & P.Mazerolle (Eds.), Lifecourse criminology: Contemporary and

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 22 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence

classic readings (pp. 146–170). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior

(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Siegfried, C. B., Ko, S. J., & Kelley, A. (2004). Victimization and juvenile offending. Los Angeles: National

Child Traumatic Stress Network, Juvenile Justice Working Group.

Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Spanking in the home and children's

subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445–461.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006040

Straus, M. A. (with D.Donnely). (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American

families. San Francisco: Lexington Books/Jossey-Bass.

Thornberry, T. P. (1989). Reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical elaboration. In

Edited by: S. F.Messner, M. D.Krohn, & A. E.Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance

and crime (pp. 51–60). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor & Symbolic

Activity, 10(3), 183–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3

Vila, B. (1994). A general paradigm for understanding criminal behavior: Extending evolutionary ecological

theory. Criminology, 32, 311–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01157.x

Welsh, W. N., Greene, J. R., & Jenkins, P. H. (1999). School disorder: The influence of individual,

institutional and community factors. Criminology, 37, 73–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1745-9125.1999.tb00480.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349541.n9

SAGE

2012 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 23 of 23 Integrative Theory in Criminology Applied to the Complex Social Problem of

School Violence