Grounded Theory

The Positivist-Interpretivist Debate in Criminology

Since its inception in the 19th century, criminology has been dominated by rationalist, positivist emphases. Most researchers following Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, Wilhelm Wundt, and Émile Durkheim stress deductive analysis and the use of quantitative data to comprehend and examine the causes and connections between the phenomena under consideration.

Generally speaking, positivist (also structuralist, determinist, objectivist) approaches to the study of crime and deviance attempt to explain deviant behavior through notions of cause and effect—that is, the interplay of internal (physiological and/or psychological deficiencies) and/or external (encompassing a variety of community effects) forces, factors, or variables that produce deviant behavior.

Although some scholars have been concerned with developing theory in more abstract terms, a major objective of positivist research has been that of better predicting and controlling aspects of crime and deviance. A major attraction of a logical positivist approach in criminology reflects the success that this methodological emphasis has achieved in the physical or natural sciences. It was anticipated that one might be able to shape human behavior and community life by applying a parallel methodology and associated notions of cause and effect (independent variables and dependent variables) to the human subject matter. Some researchers of crime and deviance hoped we would eventually be able to reduce, if not eliminate, crime through the effective development and implementation of social policy (Prus & Grills, 2003). Indeed, positivist approaches to criminology are appealing to lawmakers and politicians due to the simple and precise answers they provide and their efficient (inexpensive and quick) nature relative to non-positivist or qualitative approaches.

...