Integrated Theories

Integration Debate

Those who seek theoretical integration must address the issue of combining contradictory theoretical views with different causal assumptions into a consistent framework. For example, at first glance, there is a contradiction between the main assumptions of classical and positivist criminology. In classical criminology, intelligence and rationality are accepted as fundamental human characteristics. Crime is seen as a product of free will rather than driven or caused by other factors. However, in positivist criminology, human behavior is determined by factors beyond individual control such as biological, sociological, or psychological factors. Such theories attempt to find the causes of criminal behavior in various factors other than free will. In this case, if we really seek to integrate theories, then we must address how integration can be done to ensure that the integrated theory is logically consistent. Moreover, even theories with similar causal assumptions can have different levels of explanations that can be difficult [Page 380]to combine. Thus, integration cannot be done by randomly picking the constructs and causal assumptions of various theories.

With all these issues in mind, the social learning theorist Ron Akers agrees that contradictory assumptions of theories cannot be integrated; however, he also asserts that if the concepts and propositions of different theories overlap and are compatible, the similarity cannot be ignored, and one cannot pretend as though they are different. He calls this technique “conceptual absorption” and gives the example of “attachment” in bond theory, which can be subsumed under “intensity” of association in social learning theory.

As an opponent of the integration of theories, Travis Hirschi stated that integration can only be done if the theories argue the same thing, but most criminology theories do not. One of the potential weaknesses of integrated theories is the risk of overlooking the causal processes of the borrowed variables in reference to their original theories. Nonetheless, he suggested three ways of integration. First, the sequence of theories can be linked by their final products in an additive process that can be called “end to end.” Second, separate concepts of different theories can be considered co-occurring and can be called “side by side.” Third, the level of abstraction of theories can change from macro to micro or vice versa and may be called “up and down.”

...