"Younger scholar" are people that are mid-ish career (like Chris Uggen) and those who are older, but not yet retired (like Messner).
LMAO Messer is a "younger scholar"?? He got his PhD in the 1970s for gods sake. What is "older scholar" to you? 6 feet deep?
Well since the critique was that google scholar citation rankings are populated by people who are in fact 6 feet deep, yes?
"Younger scholar" are people that are mid-ish career (like Chris Uggen) and those who are older, but not yet retired (like Messner).
LMAO Messer is a "younger scholar"?? He got his PhD in the 1970s for gods sake. What is "older scholar" to you? 6 feet deep?
Well since the critique was that google scholar citation rankings are populated by people who are in fact 6 feet deep, yes?
which is precisely why this is a garbage exercise on your part. c&cj programs are new. it only makes sense that the most cited dead crim scholars would have degrees in other disciplines.
100% ga/rb/ag/e exercise.
Crim/CJ programs don't want to be associated with sociology anymore. This has happened all over the country for decades. There are economic reasons and identity reasons, some of which are more or less influential in specific instances, but it's the way the field has moved and will continue moving.
I know it hurts, but this is the truth: we don't need you.
Just because you convinced administrators at Sam Houston St to let you have your own applied dept doesnt mean you have legitimacy. That's still the battle, no one takes you seriously as an academic discipline separate from your theoretical foundations in sociology.
Without us you might as well be public administration.
Your journals routinely publish qualitative ethnographies of f/a/t culture, and you think we're illegitimate?
Yeah. There's just a wider variance in quality in sociology. Your modal article in policing studies is 4 pages describing your survey of police chiefs and how they improve morale. There is no theory to speak of at all.
The best sociology > the best criminology.
The worst sociology < the worst criminology.
You can debate the utility of some police research if you want to, but it is a fact that the United States spends $300B annually on law enforcement.
There are very good reasons why sociology is a punchline, not just to CCJ but everywhere.
I'm not debating the utility. It's obviously "useful" as applied work should be, it's just not seen as legitimate theoretically informed social science research. Doubling down on your applied department at Sam Houston doesn't help this perception.
Sociology is a punchline because we are judged by our worst representatives. It's fair. But we retain some historical legitimacy and, like I said, our best work is better.
The best sociology > the best criminology.
The worst sociology < the worst criminology.
You're talking yourself in circles.
CCJ isn't part of sociology. Maybe it was when Merton and Sutherland were alive, but it hasn't been that way in a long, long time. Ergo, we don't need you. Dozens of PhD programs in CCJ have formalized this reality.
Policy/applied work in CCJ addresses real phenomena. CCJ research can't be "illegitimate" if it's useful.
By contrast, the soc "grounded theory" qualitative ethnographies of f/a/t culture exemplifies much of sociology's illegitimate research: it is barely empirical, it often crosses the objective boundary into pure advocacy, it is useful to no one.