Sociological interest in the "criminogenic" features of organizational structure has tended to focus on crime-coercive corporate systems that compel their members to commit illegal acts as the price of successful system membership. Our purpose is to alert researchers to another variety of organizational criminogenesis, not equally likely to be noticed and studied: the crime-fuciliiative system. In this second model of criminogenesis, system members are not forced to break the law, but rather are presented with extremely tempting structural conditions-high incentives and opportunities coupled with low risks-that encourage and facilitate crime, both by system members and by outsiders who seek to enter or use the system for criminal purposes. Using the securities industry as an illustration, we review some elements we feel may be characteristic of crime-facilitative systems, and suggest some directions for further investigation. To yield a coherent and testable theory of organizational crime, research in this area now needs to move beyond simple identification of corporate criminogenesis, and on to specification of the conditions under which various types of criminogenesis are likely to occur.The sociological study of both white collar and blue collar crime has traditionally been dominated by a focus on individual criminal offenders, the personal circumstances associated with their illegal acts, and society's reaction to them as individuals (Wheeler, 1976). Only fairly recently have sociologists become sensitive to the idea that at least some criminal behavior usefully may be viewed not as personal deviance, but rather as a predictable product of the individual's membership in or contact with certain organizational systems, typically industries or professions. Such systems are said to be criminogenic (Leonard and Weber, 1970) in the sense that features of their internal structures-economic, legal, organizational and normative-play a role in generating criminal activity within the system, independent at least to some degree from the criminal's personal motives. The illegal behavior, usually but not always involving relatively high-status individuals, is a "normal" byproduct of legitimate corporate activity.Converging with a renewed interest in studying high-status crime and white collar crime in general (Wheeler, 1976;Ermann and Lundman, 1978a, 1978b;Schrager and Short, 1978 ) , the recognition of organizational criminogenesis seems likely to provide a fruitful new field for sociological investigation. What kinds of organizational systems influence their members to commit illegal acts?

No abstract

KEY WORDS: qualitative research methods, social science, intervention research, disease prevention I NTROD UCTl 0 NThe recent Workshop on Intervention Research held by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) signals the beginning of an increased agency emphasis on this kind of research effort, underscoring NIOSH's direct contribution to improving public health. Through well-constructed field research on the process and outcomes of worksite-based health and safety programs, NIOSH can play an active role in shaping the way scientific knowledge about occupational hazards is actually used to protect the health of workers. In the process. the agency may help in a direct and visible way to reduce the enormous cost burden [Institute of Medicine, 1981; Landrigan and Markowitz, 1987; Bresnitz et al., 19901 presently imposed on the U.S. economy by preventable occupational illness and injury.However, the new emphasis will involve more than simply applying familiar quantitative research methods in new field settings. Many important intervention research questions cannot be answered satisfactorily by measuring and counting, no matter how precise and intricate the data collection and analysis. Far more than most laboratory and epidemiologic studies, intervention research requires a qunlitative understanding of the social meanings and social relationships that make up the study environment, in order to clarify possible explanations for the quantitative findings and to suggest new interpretations and lines of inquiry.In occupational health, quantitative methods have been emphasized far more than other research strategies, with the result that many scientists feel on uncertain ground when faced with the challenge of developing qualitative insight [Strong, 1992;Holman, 1993; Black, 19941. The purpose of the present article is to make this kind of research easier to understand by providing an overview, along with selected references for further exploration.The article first describes a number of ways that qualitative methods can be useful for sound intervention research. Next, it contrasts the basic premises of qualitative and quantitative methods on four fundamental issues: ( I ) the way reality is defined, (2) the preferred focus of data collection, (3) the use of pre-existing data, and (4) the approach to achieving research rigor. The paper then offers a brief review of some specific techniques in qualitative re-0 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

No abstract

No abstract