Achieving cumulative progress in understanding crime: some insights from the philosophy of science

Sullivan, Jeffrey

doi:10.1080/1068316x.2019.1572755

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This account of how classification proceeds in science is highly idealized; if natural kinds are ultimately the goal of science, investigations into the nature of scientific practice reveal that classificatory practices and kind discovery in science do not follow this logical trajectory (e.g., Andersen, 2010;Bloch-Mullins, 2020a, 2020b, Chang, 2004Hacking, 1992b;Feest & Steinle, 2012;Kendig, 2016aKendig, , 2016bNersessian, 2008). Numerous philosophers of science and scientists have noted that exploratory and hypothesis-driven research often proceed in science without a firm grasp of what the objects of inquiry are nor how the kinds of things under study fit into some broader taxonomy of kinds (e.g., Anderson, 2015;Brigandt, 2003Brigandt, , 2020Chang, 2004Chang, , 2012Colaço, 2020;Feest, 2005Feest, , 2010Feest, , 2011Feest, , 2012Feest, , 2017Feest & Steinle, 2012;Griffiths, 1997Griffiths, , 2004Haueis & Slaby, 2017;Kendig, 2016aKendig, , 2016bMuszynski & Malaterre 2020;Rheinberger, 1997;Sullivan, 2009, 2017b, Sullivan, 2010Sullivan, 2019;Sullivan, 2020).…”

Section: Scientific Practice Coordinated Pluralism and Coordinated Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many researchers involved in the CNTRICS initiative agree that the more similar the tasks for assessing cognition are across species, i.e., face validity, the more likely it is that the same cognitive functions and neural circuits will be involved. Yet even if the tasks used to probe cognitive functions in different species look similar, this does not guarantee they are suitable for individuating cognitive capacities (construct validity (e.g., Cronbach & Meehl, 1955;Slaney, 2017;Shadish et al, 2002;Sullivan, 2019) and identifying neural circuits that mediate task performance (neurocognitive validity, e.g., Hvoslef-Eide et al, 2015). CNTRICS participants reached some consensus that construct validity and neurocognitive validity with respect to cognitive assessment tools for use in humans and rodents are essential (e.g., Carter & Barch, 2007).…”

Section: Scientific Practice Coordinated Pluralism and Coordinated Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classification, kinds, taxonomic stability and conceptual change

Mattu

Sullivan

2021

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists represent their world, grouping and organizing phenomena into classes by means of concepts. Philosophers of science have historically been interested in the nature of these concepts, the criteria that inform their application and the nature of the kinds that the concepts individuate. They also have sought to understand whether and how different systems of classification are related and more recently, how investigative practices shape conceptual development and change. Our aim in this paper is to provide a critical overview of some of the key developments in this philosophical literature and identify some interesting issues it raises about the prospects of the so-called "special sciences", including psychiatry, psychology, and the mind-brain sciences more generally, to discover natural kinds. 2. Principles of classification: a brief historical overview 2.1. Conventionalism Human beings impose conceptual order on their world. In the most basic terms, we are born into a world of language users; learning the meanings of words requires the abilities to detect objects having certain properties in the world, to recognize similarities and differences among those objects with respect to those properties and to understand that things that others identify using the same name share certain properties in common. We learn these basic rules of classification and assign things that share properties in common to groups having unique names. Common examples of groups include stars, mammals, trees, beliefs and feelings. We learn that stars have the basic properties of being luminous and visible in the night sky and that beliefs are things that humans and some non-human animals have that can be assigned a truth value. Sometimes we place unlike things into the same group-we misclassify

show abstract

Section: Scientific Practice Coordinated Pluralism and Coordinated Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Practice Coordinated Pluralism and Coordinated Kmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification, kinds, taxonomic stability and conceptual change

Mattu

Sullivan

2021

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, conceptual agreement and research co-ordination are necessary to achieve meaningful progress in this area (Sullivan, 2019).…”

Section: Implications For Theory Practice Policy and Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control and Intimate Partner Aggression

Dempsey¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Control is fundamental to theoretical conceptualizations of intimate partner aggression (IPA). In particular, it has been instrumental in the development of typologies of IPA, where control has been associated with more frequent and serious IPA carried out by men against women. Consequently, the concept of control has heavily influenced the design of treatment and legislation targeting partner violence. However, there is considerable theoretical divergence as to how control should be conceptualized, operationalized, and measured. This thesis comprises a series of studies designed to test the validity of some of the key theoretical assumptions that inform the common conceptualizations of control by examining control as a behavior, as a motivation, and as an outcome. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the thesis rationale and objectives. Chapter 2 investigated the theoretical assumption that non-physical ‘controlling behaviors’ (e.g., restricting access to money; threatening harm) comprise a unique form of IPA. Exploratory (N = 561) and confirmatory (N = 424) factor analyses on 54 measures used across the IPA literature identified three forms of aggression: Eclectic Aggression, Direct Psychological Aggression, Monitoring Acts. There was no evidence for a distinct form of ‘controlling behaviors’. Chapter 3 systematically reviewed the literature on motivations for physical and psychological IPA. The review aimed to appraise the quality of the literature and ascertain which motivations had the largest effect sizes. A meta-analysis of the motivations for physical IPA suggested self-defense, retaliation for emotional hurt, and communication difficulties had larger effect sizes than control. Chapter 4 investigated the assumptions that control motivations are associated with more severe and frequent IPA and IPA perpetrated by men. Categorical principal and latent class analyses (N = 1166) found considerable heterogeneity in motivations for IPA for both genders, but no evidence of distinct patterns or profiles of controlling motivations for either men or women. Chapter 5 investigated the assumptions that coercive control is experienced exclusively by women and is related to experiencing specific types and more frequent IPA (N = 1174). Evidence did not support a “coercive control” pattern or profile in people who experienced IPA, or that coercive control outcomes were gendered, or associated with the type or the frequency of IPA behaviors used. Regressing the item-average of coercive control outcomes on experiences of IPA in a path analysis provided some evidence that gender and experiences of physical and psychological aggression predicted feelings of coercive control. Collectively, the results of the thesis identified considerable heterogeneity in the patterns of behaviors, motivations and outcomes for IPA. The evidence challenges existing conceptualizations of control as a distinct and gendered construct and indicates the need for the development of a theoretical explanation of control, that is both gender-inclusive and multi-factorial, to guide future research.</p>

show abstract

“…For example, while the LSI tools converge around the central eight, the VRS measures specific factors relating to violence and other tools measure factors predictive of sexual recidivism. More broadly, Sullivan (2019) has recently highlighted a lack of consensus regarding the conceptualisation and measurement of key constructs in the fields of criminology and forensic psychology, which she argues has severely limited our ability to develop causal explanations for phenomena of interest. Likewise, such arguments apply here.…”

Section: Empirical Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these suggestions and developments are admirable, they are unlikely to advance our understanding of the causes of (and therefore solutions to) crime, because of the conceptual problems with the DRF construct (discussed further in the following chapter). Sullivan (2019) suggests that in order to advance the study of DRF and crime researchers should engage in 'co-ordinated pluralism'. This involves carefully defining and operationalising crime related constructs and facilitating interfield cooperation to uncover the mechanisms underpinning these constructs.…”

Section: Conclusion: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond dynamic risk factors: Towards a comprehensive explanation of offending

Heffernan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>The current conceptualisation of dynamic risk factors (DRF) for criminal offending is problematic. There have been significant conceptual issues highlighted in this domain, however, until recently addressing these has not been a priority for researchers. Instead, research has predominantly focused on the success of DRF in predicting reoffending and the effectiveness of treatment programmes that target these factors. DRF are typically defined as aspects of individuals and their environments that are associated with an increased likelihood of reoffending, and they are widely considered ‘plausible causes’ of criminal behaviour. It is acknowledged that this definition encompasses a wide range of individual characteristics, social processes, behaviours, and environmental features, and that these vary in their ability to explain and predict offending. The more recent interest in features that reduce risk has prompted similar discussions about the concept of protective factors (PF). Given the frequent use of, and interest in, these foundational concepts it is timely to investigate them in depth, and to address two key issues. First, both DRF and PF are broad category labels that encompass a diverse (and largely unspecified) range of psychological and contextual features and processes. Second, without a clear understanding of what exactly these constructs are, it is difficult to effectively link them to correctional research and practice. I will begin this thesis by setting out the problems with the reliance on DRF to explain offending. I will do this by exploring recent empirical findings concerning their relationship with recidivism and outlining numerous conceptual problems which make DRF poor candidates for causal explanation. I will then suggest a shift in focus, from these crime correlates to human nature and agency, and argue that this perspective is essential in explaining any behaviour. I will present a preliminary model based on agency and demonstrate the utility of this perspective in reconceptualising DRF as aspects of goal-directed behaviour. Next, I will develop a framework for continuing this theoretical research and adding depth to theories of agency. Finally, I will discuss the implications of agency theories for forensic interventions, including their integration with widely used rehabilitation models. I will conclude with an evaluation of the approaches developed throughout this thesis and make some suggestions for future research. This research holds promise in directing the field away from the otherwise inevitable theoretical ‘dead end’.</p>

show abstract

Achieving cumulative progress in understanding crime: some insights from the philosophy of science

Cited by 12 publications

References 50 publications

Classification, kinds, taxonomic stability and conceptual change

Classification, kinds, taxonomic stability and conceptual change

Control and Intimate Partner Aggression

Beyond dynamic risk factors: Towards a comprehensive explanation of offending

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About