Falsification by Atrophy: The Kuhnian Process of Rejecting Theory in US Criminology

Abstract

Thomas Kuhn posits that the structure of science promotes revolutionary discovery. The decision of a scientific community to discard the status quo in favour of a revolutionary paradigm is influenced by sociological forces. Karl Popper disagreed, arguing that falsification is required. An examination of a random sample of 501 articles published in 14 peer-reviewed American outlets in criminology and criminal justice from 1993 to 2008 is coupled with oral histories from 17 leading criminologists in determining which approach best characterizes criminology. Twelve per cent of papers falsify theory. When not explicitly falsified, atrophy occurs when theory is overused (exhaustion), ignored (indolence) and subjected to a sustained critique (assault). The intention of the effort is to document and describe falsification and then invite further discourse.

Green Criminological Dialogues: Voices from Asia.

“…Second, we embrace anthropology's principle according to which it is in the exploration of the variety of cultures and ways of living around the world, where new ideas, ways of looking at the world and being appear (Beckerman and Lizarralde 2013). Considering that every arena of research runs the risk of 'disciplinary atrophy' (Dooley and Goodison 2019) when scholars keep repeating the same theories and concepts, only applied to new case studies, we find this collection of studies valuable for expanding the depth, breadth and fluidity of green criminology.…”

Concepts for the Revitalisation of Critical Criminology

“…Powerful theoretical models can determine large‐scale social change and some intellectual traditions are more powerful at that than others. Interpretative frameworks may become predominant and then decline, they may temporarily atrophy or be permanently ‘falsified’ (Dooley and Goodison 2020). This process is far from straightforward in criminology, a discipline that accommodates plurality and invites interdisciplinarity, while facing constant mutations of its object of study (Farrall and Sparks 2020).…”

Are Most Published Criminological Research Findings Wrong? Taking Stock of Criminological Research Using a Bayesian Simulation Approach

“…Numerous criminologists have observed that the traditional Popperian model of scientific progress has failed in criminology (Bernard, 1990;Bernard & Snipes, 1996;Dooley & Goodison, 2019;Elliot, 1985;Proctor & Niemeyer, 2019;Robinson & Beaver, 2020;Walsh, 2002). Elliot (1985), for example, advocates for theory development through theory integration over theory competition and falsification precisely because he sees theory falsification as having failed in criminology.…”

“…Within this tradition, theory is seen as an "all or nothing" (Bernard, 1990, p. 330) affair and empirical tests inevitably demonstrate 'some' support for a theory. Consequently, theories are rarely seen as being falsified, instead they are simply abandoned to atrophy, as Dooley and Goodison (2019) observe.…”

“…Previously, in situations where a true value of R is unknown, researchers have suggested the use of a wide range of prior probabilities aimed at reflecting high, moderate, and low probabilities (Wacholder et al, 2004). Directly in line with this suggestion, we looked to the existing criminological literature to find values that potentially represent high, moderate, and low probabilities of R. For the high prior probability category, we relied on findings from a recent study examining the extent to which criminologists falsify theories within their field's stocks of knowledge (Dooley & Goodison, 2019). The results of this study indicated that lifecourse perspectives and eight other theories exhibited confirmation rates of approximately 70% or greater.…”