1
Annotated Proposal
Arad Kazemi (220499687)
York University
SOSC 1000 6.0 Section A
Tutorial 3
Professor Yesil
June 9th 2025
2
In every society, people are influenced by culturally defined goals of success, such as
status, wealth, and social achievement. In the United States, for example, the idea of the
“American Dream” reflects a widespread belief that anyone can succeed through hard work. In
Canada, while the societal goals are similar, there are slight cultural and structural differences.
However, access to the means of achieving these goals—such as education, employment, and
social services—is often unequally distributed. According to Robert Merton’s strain theory, the
disconnection between widely accepted societal goals and the limited access to legitimate means
of achieving them creates social and personal strain, such as frustration and stress. This strain
can lead some individuals to pursue deviant, criminal, or alternative paths. Specifically, among
Merton’s five modes of adaptation, the innovation mode explains how individuals who accept
society’s goals but lack the legitimate means to achieve them may resort to illegitimate strategies
to succeed (Murphy & Robinson, 2008).
Based on this framework, I propose the following research question: How does
structural inequality in access to legitimate means of success contribute to youth criminal
or deviant behavior in Canada, according to Merton’s strain theory of innovation? This
question is important because it challenges the dominant perspective that views crime as a result
of personal or moral failure. Instead, it shifts the focus to broader structural and sociological
factors—such as inequality, systemic barriers, and institutional failure—by framing crime as a
rational response to societal constraints.
To connect this topic with a core concept in sociology, I will apply C. Wright Mills’
sociological imagination, which emphasizes the relationship between personal troubles and
3
public issues. This paper will analyze how personal struggles—such as engaging in criminal
behavior—are often not the result of individual failings but are instead shaped by broader
structural inequalities, including poverty, homelessness, and lack of opportunity.
My tentative thesis is that Merton’s strain theory, particularly the innovation mode of
adaptation, challenges the idea of crime as a personal failure. It explains why some youth turn to
crime or deviance not out of inherent criminality, but as a rational response to structural
inequalities such as poverty, homelessness, and blocked access to legitimate means—like
education or employment—for achieving socially accepted goals such as wealth and material
success. Through this framework, the paper will explore the positive correlation between
systemic inequality in Canada and the inability of youth to attain culturally defined goals. The
argument will be supported by at least five peer-reviewed academic sources to substantiate and
develop the analysis. Sub-questions to be considered include: What types of barriers most
commonly prevent youth from achieving success in Canada? What are the policy implications of
understanding crime as a structural issue rather than a personal one? And how effective are these
policies in addressing the root causes of crime?
4
Annotated Bibliography
Baron, S. W. (2006). Street youth, strain theory, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(2),
209–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.003
This source focuses on the applicability of strain theory to youth and further explores how strain
influences criminal behavior among young people. Baron draws on both Merton’s strain theory
and Agnew’s general strain theory. While Merton emphasizes economic strain and the
disconnect between cultural goals and institutional means, Agnew broadens the scope by arguing
that any type of strain—not just economic—can lead individuals toward crime. Baron examines
how factors such as economic hardship, unemployment, lack of food and shelter, as well as
feelings of anger and other negative emotions, contribute to deviant behaviors like drug dealing,
property crimes, and robberies.
The study is grounded in empirical research conducted with 400 homeless and street-involved
youth in Toronto. The findings reveal that monetary strain was the most significant contributing
factor to criminal involvement, following blocked access to opportunities and feelings of anger.
The authors argue that strain theory is especially effective in explaining deviance among
marginalized populations, such as youth living on the streets.
One of the strengths of this source is its empirical foundation. By focusing on a large sample of
400 homeless and street-involved youth, the study moves beyond theoretical assumptions and
provides reliable, real-world insights. Another strength lies in its integration of both Merton’s
and Agnew’s theories, offering a more comprehensive view of strain—encompassing not only
financial pressures but also emotional strains like anger and frustration.
5
However, a limitation of the study is that it exclusively examines youth, which may limit the
applicability of its findings to other groups, such as adults or Indigenous populations. Stephen
W. Baron, a criminology professor at Western University in Canada, specializes in youth crime,
deviance, and social exclusion, lending credibility to the study.
A unique feature of this source is how it narrows the focus of my research to youth poverty and
blocked opportunities while grounding its findings in actual Canadian data. It may also expand
the scope of my research by incorporating emotional and situational dimensions of strain, not
just structural or economic ones. This makes the source highly relevant to my research question,
as it directly addresses how structural inequalities—such as poverty and homelessness—limit
access to legitimate means of success and thereby push youth toward deviant behavior.
In conclusion, this source is critical and provides a highly detailed analysis that supports the
main argument of Merton’s strain theory: systemic limitations can contribute significantly to
crime and deviance.
6
Baron, S. W. (2011). Street youths and the proximate and contingent causes of instrumental
crime: Untangling anomie theory. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 413–436.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.512871
This article focuses on why youth commit crimes such as theft and drug dealing, particularly in
relation to structural causes, using Merton’s strain theory as the central framework. The source
argues that economic inequality and blocked legal opportunities—such as access to education
and employment—drive juveniles to adopt illegitimate means, or what Merton refers to as
innovation, in order to satisfy their needs and achieve socially defined goals.
The reading highlights both proximate causes, such as peer pressure and drug use, and deeper
structural causes like financial hardship, poverty, and lack of access to legitimate opportunities.
The emphasis on these structural factors is the key contribution of this source.
One of the strengths of this article is its clear and direct application of Merton’s strain theory
within the Canadian context. It provides empirical support through interviews and data gathered
during the research, effectively grounding its claims. The source maintains a focused analysis on
long-term structural causes of crime rather than blending them with short-term or surface-level
explanations. A limitation, however, is that the findings may not be generalizable to the broader
population beyond the study sample.
Stephen W. Baron is a sociology professor at Brock University, specializing in youth, deviance,
and criminology with a particular focus on strain theory. His academic background enhances the
credibility of the analysis.
7
This source directly supports my tentative thesis and research question by drawing a clear link
between structural inequality and youth criminal behavior. The inclusion of interview excerpts
also adds qualitative depth, which I can incorporate into my final paper as strong evidence not
only for the connection itself but for the rigidity and persistence of these structural effects.
Ultimately, this is a highly useful source that covers both empirical and theoretical aspects of my
topic. I will definitely include it in my final paper to support my thesis and research question
with both scholarly analysis and firsthand data.
8
Farnworth, M., & Leiber, M. J. (1989). Strain theory revisited: Economic goals, educational
means, and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 54(2), 263–274.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095794
This source, through the lens of Merton’s strain theory—but with a unique conclusion—
examines the relationship between adolescents’ financial and economic goals and their
perception of accessible educational means to achieve them. It highlights how, in contemporary
society, economic success is a widely recognized and pursued goal, with education often viewed
as the only conventional means to attain it. The source clearly defines its scope: youth who hold
strong economic ambitions but view higher education as unattainable are more likely to turn to
illegitimate methods to achieve success.
The study was based on a survey conducted among high school students in the 1980s. It used a
random sampling method, ensuring that every student had an equal chance of being selected. The
core aim of the research was to test whether a mismatch between high achievement goals and
low perceived opportunities would increase delinquent behavior. The authors concluded that
when youth internalize cultural goals—such as wealth and success—but perceive limited access
to legitimate means like education or employment, they are more likely to engage in
delinquency. This directly supports Merton’s concept of innovation, where structural inequality
fosters deviance and criminality.
A key strength of this source is its empirical application of Merton’s strain theory through a
structured study. However, a notable limitation is that the data was collected in the late 1980s.
While the theoretical framework remains valid, the social and economic landscape has changed
over time, which may affect the applicability of the findings to today’s context.
9
Farnworth is a sociologist with expertise in criminology and juvenile delinquency, and Leiber is
also a criminologist specializing in youth deviance. Their academic backgrounds support the
credibility of the research and its interpretation of Merton’s theory.
This article aligns well with my research question and complements the other sources I have
selected. It reinforces the idea that not only structural limitations themselves, but also youth
perceptions of those limitations, can block access to culturally defined goals and lead to
deviance—an argument consistent with Merton’s innovation mode of adaptation. What makes
this source unique is its focus on educational inequality, supported by quantitative data. Unlike
purely theoretical sources, this study contributes concrete evidence showing how perceived
inaccessibility to education—an essential societal institution—can shape youth outcomes.
Ultimately, this source is valid and valuable to include in my research. It contributes empirical
data and provides insight into how the perception of unfair or unequally distributed educational
opportunities can determine the future of youth in society.
10
Jones, D., Roper, V., Stys, Y., & Wilson, C. (2004). Street gangs: A review of theory,
interventions, and implications for corrections (Research Report No. R-161).
Correctional Service Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/strtgngs/index-en.aspx
This source, published by the Correctional Service of Canada in 2004, provides a strong and
comprehensive understanding of criminological theories as they relate to street gangs, including
their history, theoretical explanations, interventions, and policy implications. One of the key
theories discussed is Merton’s strain theory, which is used to explain how blocked legitimate
opportunities—particularly economic and social participation—can lead youth to pursue
illegitimate means to achieve culturally defined goals, such as joining gangs.
The source discusses how gang involvement can be seen as an adaptation among deprived youth
who seek belonging, identity, and financial resources through the illicit economy. It frames gang
membership as a rational response to structural inequality and social exclusion.
A key strength of this source is its breadth: it includes a wide range of criminological theories,
each with explanations tied to street gang behavior, and it draws empirical associations to
support its arguments. This makes the source rich in both theoretical insight and empirical data.
However, a weakness is that Merton’s strain theory is not the sole or central framework of the
analysis, as the source presents multiple theories without focusing exclusively on one.
All contributing authors are affiliated with the Research Branch of the Correctional Service of
Canada and specialize in criminology, interventions, and correctional practices, lending
credibility and authority to the research.
11
This source is highly relevant to my research question and tentative thesis, as it explains youth
gang involvement through the lens of blocked access to legitimate means of achieving socially
defined goals—supporting the sociological imagination aspect of my paper. What makes this
source unique compared to others is that it concludes with policy implications from the
perspective of each theory discussed. This makes it a valuable addition to my final paper,
particularly when addressing concerns raised in one of my sub-questions related to real-world
interventions and solutions.
Overall, this is an excellent source. It reinforces the relevance of Merton’s strain theory—on
which my paper is based—and provides both empirical evidence and theoretical depth, along
with practical policy implications, making it an ideal resource for my research.
12
Murphy, D. S., & Robinson, M. B. (2008). The maximizer: Clarifying Merton’s theories of
anomie and strain. Theoretical Criminology, 12(4), 501–521.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480608097154
The main argument and background of this source focus on Merton’s theory of anomie and its
interpretation of the American Dream as criminogenic. According to the authors, the American
Dream emphasizes success—"winning the game" or "making it"—to such an extent that it leads
to an overemphasis on achieving monetary goals while devaluing the legitimate means of
reaching them. When these cultural goals are so strongly promoted, the importance of adhering
to socially approved, institutionalized means becomes secondary. As a result, individuals may
resort to illegitimate methods to achieve these goals, which explains criminal behavior through
the disconnection between societal goals and the means to attain them.
Murphy and Robinson further argue that other societal institutions—such as family, education,
politics, healthcare, and religion—each have their own values and norms intended to guide
human conduct. However, the overpowering influence of the economy on all these areas
undermines those norms and contributes to deviant behavior. In this way, the authors place the
blame for crime not on individuals but on the structural dominance of economic values in
society.
The source also revisits Merton’s five modes of adaptation: conformity, innovation, ritualism,
retreatism, and rebellion. Conformity occurs when both societal goals and institutional means are
accepted. Innovation describes individuals who accept the cultural goals but reject or bypass
legitimate means. Ritualism involves rejecting the goals while continuing to follow the means.
Retreatism is the rejection of both goals and means, often leading to social withdrawal. Rebellion
13
is when individuals reject the existing goals and means and seek to replace them, often through
protest or collective action.
A particularly strong contribution of this source is its introduction of a sixth category—the
Maximizer—which combines elements of both conformity and innovation. The maximizer
pursues cultural goals using both legitimate and illegitimate means. According to Murphy and
Robinson, this hybrid adaptation fills a gap in Merton’s original theory, which they argue is
incomplete without recognizing the existence of individuals who operate within both legitimate
and deviant frameworks.
Murphy and Robinson are scholars in the field of criminology, affiliated with the University of
Pennsylvania and Appalachian State University, respectively. Their academic credentials and
contributions to criminological theory and deviance lend credibility to their interpretation of
Merton’s strain theory.
This source is highly relevant to my research, as it provides the theoretical foundation for the
essay and introduces the concept of the maximizer—a category I had not previously encountered
but which could offer useful insight for my topic. While the authors present a compelling
theoretical and conceptual expansion of Merton’s work, a notable limitation is the lack of
empirical evidence to support the existence and function of the maximizer. Despite this, for the
purposes of my research, I will focus on the adaptation of innovation, as it most directly relates
to my topic.
14
Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2006). Immigration, social disadvantage and urban youth gangs:
Results of a Toronto-area survey. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 15(2), 18–37.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26192500
This source examines the relationship between street youth and high school youth in relation to
gang membership, with a focus on how immigration status and social disadvantage affect youth
living in inner-city and urban areas of Toronto. The authors conducted a survey to explore
whether high school students are increasingly joining or affiliating with gangs and streetinvolved peers. Through reading the source, it becomes clear that systemic inequalities—such as
poverty, discrimination against marginalized youth, and lack of legitimate opportunities—are
strong predictors of gang involvement among youth.
The main conclusion is that gang activity is significantly more prevalent among street youth
compared to high school students. Additionally, contrary to popular belief, the findings challenge
the narrative that youth gang activity is an immigration issue. Instead, the research argues that
this problem is deeply rooted in Canadian society and structural inequality.
A key strength of this source—and a reason for its relevance to my research—is that it
demonstrates how youth are most vulnerable to gang recruitment in poor, inner-city areas where
access to financial, educational, and social opportunities is limited. In such environments, young
people often feel isolated, excluded, and stigmatized. As a result, they may join gangs in search
of social status, respect, a sense of belonging, or financial gain through the illicit economy.
These findings directly support my research question and thesis, which explore how structural
limitations contribute to youth deviance, as explained by Merton’s strain theory.
15
One limitation of this study is that the survey was cross-sectional, meaning the data was
collected at a single point in time. This restricts the ability to assess long-term outcomes or
changes in behavior over time, which would be more feasible through longitudinal research that
tracks subjects across multiple time periods.
Scot Wortley is a Canadian criminologist at the University of Toronto who specializes in crime
and justice, while Tanner is a sociology professor at the same institution with expertise in youth
culture and delinquency. Their academic backgrounds lend credibility to the study and its
findings.
The unique contribution of this source lies in its empirical support for strain theory and its
specific focus on youth gang involvement. Ultimately, this source provides strong evidence in
support of my research question and thesis by offering a well-rounded, data-backed analysis of
how systemic inequality and blocked access to legitimate means can lead youth toward deviance
and gang affiliation.
16
Arad Kazemi
1) 20 May,2025(Proposal)
2) 9 June 2025 (Annotated
Research Proposal)