Is Deviance “Dead”?
The Decline of a Sociological
Research Specialization
J. MITCHELL MILLER, RICHARD A. WRIGHT, AND DAVID DANNELS
Colin Sumner has declared that the sociology of deviance as a research specialty was
“dead” by 1975; later influential studies on norm-violating behavior appeared only in
the specific area of criminology. We subjected this argument to empirical test through
an analysis of the most-cited scholars and works in 263 textbooks, articles, and
research notes appearing in the sociology of deviance from 1993 to 1999. We found
some support for Sumner’s claims: The majority of the most-cited scholars in deviance today conduct research in other areas, primarily in criminology. Furthermore,
among the 31 most-cited works in our analysis, only two of 15 studies classified in
the sociology of deviance appeared after 1975. We conclude with some thoughts
about the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of research specializations in
sociology.
In a provocative historical review, Sumner (1994) proclaimed the death of
the sociology of deviance. Subtitling his study “an obituary,” he argued that the
sociology of deviance ceased to exist in 1975, the victim of attacks from radical
theorists on the left, along with a shift toward the analysis of more specific
crime and justice topics among mainstream scholars. Sumner asserted that no
influential contributions in the sociology of deviance appeared after 1975, although he offered no quantitative empirical evidence to support this claim.
We assessed Sumner’s arguments by analyzing the most frequently cited
scholars and works in the sociology of deviance. Through an examination of
recent textbooks, articles, and research notes published in leading journals, we
found that over one-half of the most-cited scholars were not primarily known
for studies in the sociology of deviance, but for research in other areas, primarily criminology. Furthermore, among the most-cited works, only two published
after 1975 were classified in the area of the sociology of deviance. These
findings seem to show the declining influence of scholarship in the sociology
of deviance.
We conclude this article with some speculation about the factors that contribute to the rise and fall of research specializations within sociology. A compariWe gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments that Lawrence T. Nichols and two anonymous
reviewers offered on earlier drafts of this article.
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
43
son of the sociology of deviance with early developments in criminology suggests that a core of general theories must emerge for a research specialization
to prosper.
Sumner’s “Obituary” for the Sociology of Deviance
In 1994, Sumner offered his controversial anthropomorphic history of the
sociology of deviance; he heralded the area’s “birth” in the work of Emile
Durkheim (specifically, with the publication of The Rules of Sociological Method
in 1895). The sociology of deviance blossomed in the 1950s and the early
1960s with the emergence of the labeling perspective (see Becker [1963]
1973; Goffman 1963; Lemert 1951), only to be decimated in the late 1960s and
early 1970s by radical theorists who criticized the area for ignoring the roles of
the “power elite” and “master institutions” in the assignment of labels (Gouldner
1968; also, see Liazos 1972; Thio 1973). Sumner argued that the sociology of
deviance was “dead” by 1975, as first mainstream researchers and then critical
thinkers turned their attention away from the general analysis of deviance
toward the more specific study of crime and justice issues (cf., Taylor, Walton,
and Young 1973, 1975).
What “killed” the sociology of deviance? Sumner (1994) argued that the
relativism of the area (the view that deviance was created situationally), along
with the ambitious attempt to explain a broad array of legal and illegal behaviors (ranging from crime and delinquency to substance abuse, suicide, sexual
deviance, mental illness, political protest, and religious extremism), meant that
the sociology of deviance could not generate a core group of general theories.
In Sumner’s (1994: 309) words, if deviance was nothing more than “a passing
feature of specific situations, contexts, and cultures varying in behavioral content from one another, then it was clearly not a behavioral phenomenon.”
Reactions to Sumner’s (1994) “obituary” for the sociology of deviance have
ranged from total silence in the leading journal in the area (no article, research
note, or book review appearing in Deviant Behavior has even mentioned
Sumner’s work), to name-calling by a prominent textbook author (Goode—
1997: ix—dismisses Sumner’s work as “inane and flatulent”), to some agreement (Bader, Becker, and Desmond 1996). In a note on pedagogy, Bader,
Becker, and Desmond (1996) discuss the difficulties in separating the subject
matter in deviance from criminology in those sociology departments that offer
both courses. The authors’ brief review of a handful of sociology of deviance
and criminology textbooks and the journal Deviant Behavior showed that most
of what appeared in these publications addressed crime and justice issues, not
broader concerns relating to legal and illegal norm-violations.
Given the importance of Sumner’s (1994) arguments, we undertook a study
of numerous publications, employing a technique specifically devised to measure the influence of scholars and works: citation analysis. If Sumner’s claims
have some merit, then a split should be observed in research on normviolating behavior. Citations to influential scholars and works in the general
area of the sociology of deviance should disappear after 1975, replaced by
citations to prominent scholars and works specifically dealing with crime and
justice issues.
44
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
Research Design
Academicians have traditionally judged the influence of scholars and publications by the number of citations they receive in leading periodicals (see Bott
and Hargens 1991; Cohn, Farrington, and Wright 1998; Cole and Cole 1973;
Roche and Smith 1978; Wolfgang, Figlio, and Thornberry 1978). In an extensive
critical review, Cohn, Farrington, and Wright (1998: 4) concluded that, when
compared to rival techniques (e.g., peer review of scholars, counts of journal
publications, and receipt of scholarly awards and prizes), citation analysis is the
most valid and reliable, “straightforward, objective, [and] quantitative measure
of [the] influence and prestige” of scholars and works. Throughout academia,
citations in leading periodicals are customarily used to evaluate faculty for
promotion and tenure and to rank the prestige of academic departments and
programs (Cohn, Farrington, and Wright 1998). For example, recent studies in
sociology have evaluated the influence of individual scholars (Cohn and Farrington
1996, 1998b; Wright 1998), disciplinary specializations (Wright and Friedrichs
1998; Wright and Miller 1998; Wright and Sheridan 1997), research articles,
chapters, and books (Bott and Hargens 1991), textbooks (Wright 1995b; Wright
and Carroll 1994), doctoral dissertations (Wright and Soma 1995), and departments and programs (Cohn and Farrington 1998a) through citation analyses of
prominent journals. Consequently, we assumed that citation analysis offered a
reasonable way to examine the argument that no influential works in the sociology of deviance have appeared after 1975.
We began our analysis by listing the most-cited scholars and works in the
sociology of deviance. To compile these lists, we analyzed representative publications—textbooks, articles, and research notes—in the area from 1993 to
1999. All known textbooks (seven) appearing in the sociology of deviance
during these years were examined, including Clinard and Meier (1998), Curra
(1994), Goode (1997), McCaghy and Capron (1997), Pfohl (1994), Thio (1998),
and Ward, Carter, and Perrin (1994).1
Articles and research notes were analyzed from five academic journals—
American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Deviant Behavior, Social Forces, and Social Problems. American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and Social Forces were chosen because they are
customarily ranked as the leading general-interest journals published in sociology (Allen 1990; Bott and Hargens 1991; Glenn 1971). We analyzed Social
Problems because it is a respected journal that frequently publishes articles
dealing with the sociology of deviance. Deviant Behavior was chosen for our
study because it is the only periodical devoted solely to the general study of
deviance.2 In the American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Social Forces, and Social Problems, we examined only those articles and
research notes that specifically dealt with the topic of deviance; all articles/
research notes appearing in Deviant Behavior were studied.3 Altogether, 256
articles and research notes were analyzed.4
Specialized journals and research monographs and books devoted to particular forms of deviant behavior were excluded from our analysis because we
wished to identify the most-cited scholars and works in the general area of the
sociology of deviance. Analyzing the citation patterns in specialized publica-
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
45
tions would have required the difficult task of compiling a comprehensive
bibliography of all the journals (e.g., Contemporary Drug Problems, Criminology, Journal of Drug Issues, Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, and Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior) and books dealing with every form of deviant behavior. Fears that these
logistical complications might bias our findings convinced us not to examine
these publications.
Most studies of journals tally citations from the references at the ends of
articles/research notes. Wright and his associates, however, arguably have introduced a more accurate, but cumbersome and time-consuming, means to
count citations: Each mention of a scholar/work—in the text or in a substantive
footnote—accompanied by a reference is counted as a citation (see Wright and
Friedrichs 1998; Wright and Miller 1998; Wright and Sheridan 1997). Because
we wanted to measure the influence of scholars and works using the most valid
techniques, we followed the latter procedure.
In most prior citation studies, self-citations have been a problem for researchers. Some analysts have excluded these citations from their counts (Cohn
and Farrington 1996, 1998b); others routinely include self-citations (Wright 1995a).
Neither approach is entirely satisfactory: Excluding self-citations risks underestimating the influence of prolific scholars responsible for numerous publications
examined in a study (in effect, these scholars are ranked based on fewer
publications). Including self-citations risks overestimating the influence of scholars
who are fond of citing their own work.
A formula was recently introduced to adjust for self-citations (see Wright and
Friedrichs 1998; Wright and Miller 1998; Wright and Sheridan 1998). “C2” (the
adjusted number of citations) is calculated as follows:
C1
C2=C1+
P1
(P2),
where “C1” is the total number of citations to a scholar in publications not
written by the scholar, “P1” is the total number of publications not written by a
scholar that cite his/her work, and “P2” is the total number of publications
written by a scholar that contain self-citations. For all the publications that cite a
scholar, this formula adjusts for self-citations by projecting the average number
of citations the scholar receives in works that he/she did not write into the
works that he/she wrote.5 We used this formula to calculate adjusted citation
scores for each extensively cited scholar who wrote at least one article/research note examined in our study that contained a self-citation, although the
adjusted scores were used to rank scholars and works only when these estimates were lower than the actual counts that included self-citations.6
Cohn and Farrington (1996) have advocated the use of incidence and prevalence measures to rank the most-cited scholars and works. Incidence is the total
number of times that scholars/works were cited in the 263 publications that we
examined; prevalence is the total number of publications that cite a scholar/
work. Citation studies that ignore prevalence measures risk overestimating the
influence of scholars who are cited heavily, but only in a handful of publications.
46
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
Both incidence and prevalence measures were used to compile our lists of
the most-cited scholars and works in the sociology of deviance. We identified
the 50 most-cited scholars in incidence and in prevalence; combining these
measures resulted in a list of 67 influential scholars (see Table 1). In our
identification of the most-cited works, we implemented a simple procedure to
offset the influence of “citation outliers” (i.e., works that were cited repeatedly
in a few publications, but nowhere else). To appear on our most-cited lists,
works had to be cited at least 20 times (incidence) in at least ten publications
(prevalence). Thirty-one works met this criterion (see Table 3).
After completing our citation analysis, we categorized scholars and works by
research area. Through a content analysis of articles and research notes appearing in Deviant Behavior, the seven textbooks that we examined, and works both
endorsing the sociology of deviance (e.g., Becker 1963; Matza 1969) and critical of the area (Liazos 1972; Sumner 1994), we arrived at a conventional definition of the sociology of deviance, involving a distinctive subject matter, perspective, and method. First, the sociology of deviance attempts to explain both
legal and illegal norm-violating behavior. Second, the sociology of deviance
endorses a constructionist (relativistic and subjectivist) perspective that recognizes that norms are created situationally and have social consequences. Third,
the sociology of deviance favors ethnographic techniques, analyzing small
samples of human subjects first-hand and in-depth.
We conducted an extensive search and analysis of the publications written by
the 67 most-cited scholars to see if they met this conventional definition. The
31 most-cited works in our study were also carefully reviewed. We classified
scholars as “sociologists of deviance” and works as “sociologies of deviance” if
the publications that we examined met any one of the defined criteria.7
We also examined publications to classify scholars and works into other
research areas. Here, we defined criminology (including crime and justice research) narrowly as the explanation of only illegal norm violations, from an
objectivist perspective (that views the situational creation and social consequences of norms as nonproblematic), using mostly quantitative measures (e.g.,
police statistics and survey research). Studies that appeared outside the areas of
the sociology of deviance and criminology (e.g., in race and ethnic relations or
sociological theory) were classified only by subject matter. On the rare occasions where we had some difficulty classifying scholars by research area, we
consulted the American Sociological Association’s Guide to Graduate Programs
(1989) and Biographical Directory of Members (1990) to make placements.
Scholars and works were classified by research area, although works were
further classified by year of publication. To determine if they appeared by
1975, we simply noted the original publication dates for the 31 most-cited
works in our study.
It is crucial to note that in all of our classifications, we chose to err in favor of
false positives—over-identifying scholars and works with the sociology of deviance—to subject Sumner’s (1994) arguments to the sternest possible test.8 Assuming the merit of Sumner’s (1994) claims, we expected to find that many of
the most-cited scholars identified by our research would be classified as criminologists, not as sociologists of deviance. Furthermore, we anticipated that
virtually all of the most-cited works classified in the sociology of deviance
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
47
would be published by 1975; later works would be classified outside the area,
mostly as criminological studies.
Finally, we compared our findings on the most-cited scholars and works in
the sociology of deviance to similar studies in criminology and criminal justice
(specifically, to Cohn and Farrington 1996, and to Cohn, Farrington, and Wright
1998). The most-cited scholars and works in criminology/criminal justice were
classified by research area (scholars and works) and years of publication (works)
to determine if there were differences in the patterns of influence between the
sociology of deviance and criminology.
Findings
Table 1 lists the 67 most-cited scholars in the sociology of deviance from the
263 publications that we examined, ranking these scholars by incidence and by
prevalence of citations. Table 2 identifies these scholars by areas of research.
Thirty-three of the 67 most-cited scholars (49.3%) were classified as sociologists of deviance; over one-half (34) are known for research in other areas.
Most of the latter were categorized as criminologists, but some other specializations associated with scholars in the table included race and ethnic relations
(Douglas S. Massey and William Julius Wilson) and sociological theory (Peter M.
Blau and Robert K. Merton). In general, these data offer some support for
Sumner’s (1994) claim that in recent years, many influential scholars have turned
their attention away from the broader topic of deviance, toward narrower research concerns.
This interpretation is reinforced when considering the 15 scholars—Ronald L.
Akers, Howard S. Becker, Robert J. Bursik, Jr., Emile Durkheim, Delbert S.
Elliott, Richard J. Gelles, Erving Goffman, Michael R. Gottfredson, Travis Hirschi,
David Matza, Robert J. Sampson, Murray A. Straus, Edwin H. Sutherland, and
William Julius Wilson—who placed among the ten most-cited authors in either
incidence or prevalence measures. Only five of these scholars (Akers, Becker,
Durkheim, Goffman, and Matza) were classified as sociologists of deviance;
two of these are deceased (Durkheim and Goffman), while two others (Becker
and Matza) have not published in the area of deviance since the early 1970s
(see Becker [1963] 1973; Matza 1969). Among the eight scholars classified
outside the sociology of deviance, only one is deceased and has no publications since 1975 (Sutherland).
A comparison of the 67 most-cited scholars in our study with Cohn, Farrington,
and Wright’s (1998) list of the 49 most-cited scholars in nine leading criminology/criminal justice journals published from 1991 to 1995 shows marked differences in the citation patterns between the sociology of deviance and criminology/criminal justice. Forty-three of the 49 most-cited scholars (87.8%) in
criminology/criminal justice journals were classified as criminologists; only six
(12.2%) were classified outside criminology (all as sociologists of deviance,
including Akers, John Braithwaite, Francis T. Cullen, Lloyd E. Ohlin, Raymond
Paternoster, and Jock Young). Only one-half of the most-cited scholars in sociology of deviance publications were classified as sociologists of deviance; almost
nine-tenths of the most-cited scholars in recent criminology/criminal justice
articles/research notes were classified as criminologists. The difference be-
48
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
Table 1
The 67 Most-Cited Scholars in 263 Publications in the Sociology of Deviance, 1993-1999
Ranksa
Scholar
Incidence of Citationsb/
Prevalence of Citationsc
1/1
Travis Hirschi
364 / 54
2 / 47
Murray A. Straus
212 / 18
3/4
Howard S. Becker
195 / 38
4/6
Emile Durkheim
187 / 34
5/2
Michael R. Gottfredson.
186 / 44
6/5
Robert J. Sampson
183 (186) / 35 (37)
7/—
Richard J. Gelles
172 / 14
8 / 11
Ronald L. Akers
167 (185) / 30 (31)
9/3
Erving Goffman
157 / 43
10 / 7
Edwin H. Sutherland
128 / 33
11 / 21
John L. Hagan
125 (149) / 25 (31)
12 / —
Marshall B. Clinard
125 / 13 (14)
13 / 8
Robert J. Bursik, Jr.
121 / 31
14.5 / 14.5
Robert K. Merton
115 / 27
14.5 / 14.5
Charles R. Tittle
115 (120) / 27 (28)
16 / 13
Steven F. Messner
109 (118) / 28 (29)
17 / 28
Harold G. Grasmick
108 (111) / 22 (23)
18 / —
John H. Gagnon
104 / 12
19 / 23
Walter R. Gove
101 / 23
20 / —
Steven Stack
100 / 15
21 / 9
David Matza
97 / 31
22 / 37
Donald J. Black
95 / 19
23 / 16
Delbert S. Elliott
93 / 27
24 / 38
Erich Goode
93 (119) 19 (21)
25 / —
James A. Inciardi
93 / 17
26 / 10
William Julius Wilson
91 / 31
27 / —
Edwin M. Lemert
91 / 15
28 / 24
Jack P. Gibbs
90 / 23
29 / —
Jerald G. Bachman
89 (93) / 16 (17)
30 / 29
Marvin E. Wolfgang
86 / 22
31 / —
Douglas S. Massey
85 / 17
32 / —
John I. Kitsuse
85 / 15
33 / —
Lloyd D. Johnston
84 (86) / 13 (14)
34 / 48
Joel Best
83 / 18
35 / —
Patrick O’Malley
82 (84) / 13 (14)
36 / —
Richard Quinney
80 / 11
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
49
Ranksa
Scholar
Incidence of Citationsb/
Prevalence of Citationsc
37 / 39
Raymond Paternoster
78 / 19
38 / 30
Joseph R. Gusfield
74 / 22
39 / 33
Donald R. Cressey
74 / 20
40 / 18
Richard A. Cloward
72 / 26
41 / 40
Edwin M. Schur
72 / 19
42 / —
William J. Chambliss
72 (73) / 17 (18)
43 / 22
Lawrence E. Cohen
71 (86) / 24 (26)
44 / 25
Kenneth C. Land
70 / 23 (24)
45 / 34
Clifford R. Shaw
70 / 20
46 / —
John H. Laub
70 (77) / 17 (18)
47 / —
Craig Reinarman
70 / 16
48 / —
Kai T. Erikson
70 / 12
49 / 19
Marvin D. Krohn
50 / —
Robert F. Meier
69 (77) / 17 (18)
— / 12
Michael J. Hindelang
60 / 29
— / 17
Gresham M. Sykes
66 / 27
— / 20
James Q. Wilson
58 / 26
— / 26
John Braithwaite
66 / 23
— / 27
David Huizinga
63 / 23
— / 31
Peter M. Blau
60 / 21
— / 32
Judith R. Blau
43 / 21
— / 35
Douglas A. Smith
65 / 20
69 / 26
— / 36
Albert K. Cohen
— / 41
Darrell J. Steffensmeier
61 / 20
— / 42
Ross L. Matsueda
51 (74) / 19 (21)
— / 43
Suzanne S. Ageton
50 / 19
68 / 19
— / 44.5
Allen E. Liska
48 (49) / 19 (21)
— / 44.5
Robert Nash Parker
48 / 19
— / 46
Lloyd E. Ohlin
41 / 19
— / 49
Marcus Felson
53 / 18
— / 50
Henry D. McKay
52 / 18
a The first rank is by the total number of citations to the scholar (incidence); the second rank is by the total
number of articles/research notes citing the scholar (prevalence). In cases of ties in incidence of citations,
ranks were determined by prevalence of citations (and vice versa).
b When incidence scores were adjusted because of self-citations, the unadjusted scores (that include selfcitations) are reported in parentheses.
c The first prevalence score excludes publications with self-citations; the second score (in parentheses)
includes these publications. Prevalence rankings were based on the scores that excluded self-citations.
50
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
Table 2
The 67 Most-Cited Scholars in the Sociology of Deviance, by Research Area
Area
Scholar
Criminology
(unless otherwise noted)
N = 34 (50.7%)
Suzanne S. Ageton, Jerald G. Bachman, Judith R. Blau (social
organization), Peter M. Blau (sociological theory), Robert J.
Bursik, Jr., Lawrence E. Cohen, Donald R. Cressey, Delbert S.
Elliott, Marcus Felson, Richard J. Gelles, Michael R. Gottfredson,
Harold G. Grasmick, John L. Hagan, Michael J. Hindelang, Travis
Hirschi, David Huizinga, James A. Inciardi, Lloyd D. Johnston,
Marvin D. Krohn, Kenneth C. Land, John H. Laub, Douglas S.
Massey (race and ethnic relations), Henry D. McKay, Robert K.
Merton (sociological theory), Patrick O’Malley, Robert J.
Sampson, Clifford R. Shaw, Douglas A. Smith, Darrell J.
Steffensmeier, Murray A. Straus, Edwin H. Sutherland, James Q.
Wilson, William Julius Wilson (race and ethnic relations), Marvin
E. Wolfgang
Sociology of Deviance
N = 33 (49.3%)
Ronald L. Akers, Howard S. Becker, Joel Best, Donald J. Black,
John Braithwaite, William J. Chambliss, Marshall B. Clinard,
Richard A. Cloward, Albert K. Cohen, Emile Durkheim, Kai T.
Erikson, John H. Gagnon, Jack P. Gibbs, Erving Goffman, Erich
Goode, Walter R. Gove, Joseph R. Gusfield, John I. Kitsuse, Edwin
M. Lemert, Allen E. Liska, Ross L. Matsueda, David Matza, Robert F.
Meier, Steven F. Messner, Lloyd E. Ohlin, Robert Nash Parker,
Raymond Paternoster, Richard Quinney, Craig Reinarman, Edwin
M. Schur, Steven Stack, Gresham M. Sykes, Charles R. Tittle
tween the two research areas is statistically significant (chi square = 18.58; df =
1; p < .001). Again, these data seem to confirm a general decline in research
interest in the sociology of deviance, at least when compared to criminology/
criminal justice.
Table 3, shown on pages 52-53, reports the most-cited works in the 263
publications that we examined. Again, to compile this list, we required works
to be cited a minimum of 20 times (incidence) in at least ten publications
(prevalence). Altogether, 31 works met this criterion. Table 3 ranks these works
by incidence and by prevalence.
Table 4, shown on page 54, categorizes the 31 most-cited works from Table
3 by research area. Fifteen of the most cited works (48.4%) were classified as
sociologies of deviance; the remaining 16 works (51.6%) were classified in
other research areas, primarily in criminology. This suggests that most of the
influential works in the sociology of deviance in recent years were published
outside the conventional area of deviance research.
Table 4 also reports data on the publication dates of works. Thirteen (86.7%)
of the works classified in the area of the sociology of deviance were published
by 1975; only Braithwaite (1989) and Katz (1988) appeared after 1975. In
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
51
Table 3
The 31 Most-Cited Works in 263 Publications in the Sociology of Deviance, 1993-1999
Ranksa
Work
Incidence of Citationsb/
Prevalence of Citationsc
1/2
Howard S. Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the
Sociology of Deviance ([1963] 1973)
153 / 32d
2/1
Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (1969)
151 / 35
3/3
Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi,
A General Theory of Crime (1990)
113 / 29
4/7
Emile Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology ([1897] 1951)
102 / 23
5/4
William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged:
The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987)
63 / 27
6/5
Edwin H. Sutherland, Donald R. Cressey, and
David F. Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology ([1924] 1991)
63 / 25d /e
7 / 11
Ronald L. Akers, Deviant Behavior: A Social
Learning Approach ([1973] 1985)
61 (63) / 17 (18)d
8/6
Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the
Management of Spoiled Identity (1963)
58 / 24
9 / 12
Ruth Rosner Kornhauser, Social Sources of
Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models (1978)
54 / 17
10 / 29
Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and
Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors:
Violence in the American Family (1980)
54 (64) / 10 (11)
11 / 18
Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social
Structure ([1949] 1968)
50 / 14d
12 / 27
Kai T. Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study
in the Sociology of Deviance (1966)
46 / 11
13 / 22
Edwin M. Lemert, Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach
to the Study of Sociopathic Behavior (1951)
43 / 13
14 / 8
Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, “Techniques of
Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency” (1957)
42 / 21
15 / 14
Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile
Delinquency and Urban Areas ([1942] 1969)
42 / 15d
16 / 25
Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological
Method ([1895] 1964)
38 / 12
52
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
17 / 9
Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and
Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (1960)
37 / 19
18 / 23
Jack Katz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and
Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil (1988)
37 /13
19 / 28
Robert J. Bursik, Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick, Neighborhoods 37 / 11
and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control (1993)
20 / 10
Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The
Culture of the Gang (1955)
36 / 18
21 / 19
Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938)
36 / 14
22 / 13
Judith R. Blau and Peter M. Blau, “The Cost of Inequality:
Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime” (1982)
35 / 17
23 / 15
Joseph R. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics
and the American Temperance Movement (1963)
35 / 15
24 / 20
Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson,
“Social Change and Crime Rate Trends:
A Routine Activity Approach” (1979)
32 / 14 (15)
25 / 16
John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration (1989)
31 / 15
26 / 24
James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein,
Crime and Human Nature (1985)
30 / 13
27 / 30
Edwin L. Lemert, Human Deviance, Social
Problems, and Social Control ([1967] 1972)
30 / 10d
28 / 17
Delbert S. Elliott, David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton,
Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use (1985)
29 / 15
29 / 31
Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society ([1893] 1984)
28 / 10
30 / 21
Marvin E. Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti,
The Subculture of Violence ([1967] 1982)
27 / 14
31 / 26
Michael J. Hindelang, Travis Hirschi, and
Joseph G. Weis, Measuring Delinquency (1981)
20 / 12
a The first rank is by the total number of citations to the work (incidence); the second rank is by the total
number of publications citing the work (prevalence). In cases of ties in incidence of citations, ranks were
determined by prevalence of citations (and vice versa).
b When incidence scores were adjusted because of self-citations, the unadjusted scores (that include selfcitations) are reported in parentheses.
c The first prevalence score excludes publications with self-citations; the second score (in parentheses)
includes these publications. Prevalence rankings were based on the scores that excluded self-citations.
d Reports the total citations to all editions of books in multiple editions. These books were listed in Table
3 and in the References by most recent edition.
e David F. Luckenbill did not rank among the most-cited scholars in Table 1 because most citations to this
book were to earlier editions that he did not co-author.
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
53
Table 4
The 31 Most-Cited Works in the Sociology of Deviance,
by Research Area and Publication Date
Area
Publication Date
Sociology
of Deviance
N = 15
By 1975
N = 19
After 1975
N = 12
Akers ([1973] 1985); Becker ([1963] 1973);
Braithwaite (1989); Katz (1988)
Cloward and Ohlin (1960); Cohen (1955);
Durkheim ([1895] 1964); Durkheim
([1895] 1964); Durkheim ([1897] 1951);
Erikson (1966); Goffman (1963); Gusfield
(1963); Lemert (1951); Lemert ([1967] 1972);
Sykes and Matza (1957)
Criminology
(unless
otherwise
noted)
N = 16
Hirschi (1969); Merton (1938); Merton
([1949] 1968; sociological theory); Shaw
and McKay ([1942] 1969); Sutherland,
Cressey, and Luckenbill ([1924] 1991);
Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967)
Blau and Blau (1982); Bursik and
Grasmick (1993); Cohen and
Felson (1979); Elliott, Huizinga, and
Ageton (1985); Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990); Hindelang,
Hirschi, and Weis (1981),
Kornhauser (1978), Straus,
Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980);
Wilson and Herrnstein (1985);
Wilson (1987)
contrast, 10 of the 16 works (62.5%) classified outside the area of the sociology
of deviance were published after 1975. This seems to show a decline in sociology of deviance research after 1975, the year Sumner (1994) claimed that
deviance research “died.”
A comparison of the 31 most-cited works in our study with Cohn and
Farrington’s (1996) list of the 54 most-cited works in the criminology and criminal justice source journals indexed in the Social Science Citation Index from
1986 to 1993 again shows notable differences in the citation patterns between
the sociology of deviance and criminology/criminal justice.9 Forty-one of the
54 most-cited works (75.9%) in criminology/criminal justice were classified as
criminological; only 13 works (24.1%) were classified outside the area of criminology, all as sociologies of deviance.10 Ten of the works (71.4%) classified in
the area of the sociology of deviance were published by 1975; only Cohen
(1985), Foucault (1977), and Rothman (1980) appeared after 1975. By comparison, 21 (51.2%) of the works classified as criminological studies were published
after 1975.
Finally, we pooled the data from Table 4 with Cohn and Farrington’s (1996)
list of the most-cited works in criminology/criminal justice, deleting overlapping works.11 Here, we found that five of the 23 works (21.7%) classified in the
area of the sociology of deviance appeared after 1975, compared to 25 of the
54
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
47 works (53.2%) published in other areas. These differences were statistically
significant (chi square = 6.34; df = 1; p < .05). This shows that in the combined
sociology of deviance and criminology/criminal justice literatures, few influential works identified with the area of deviance appeared after 1975, once more
supporting Sumner’s (1994) arguments.
Summary and Implications
Sumner’s (1994) controversial review of the sociology of deviance asserted
that the area “died” in 1975. He claimed that all of the important developments
in the specialization had occurred by 1975; later influential research on normviolating behavior appeared only in the more specific area of criminology. We
subjected these arguments to empirical test through an analysis of the mostcited scholars and works in 263 recent publications appearing in the sociology
of deviance. This study found some support for Sumner’s claims: The majority
of the most-cited scholars in sociology of deviance today actually conduct studies in other areas, mostly in criminology. Furthermore, among the 31 most-cited
works in our analysis, 13 of 19 published by 1975—but only two of 12 published later—were classified as studies in the sociology of deviance.
Sumner (1994) attributes the “death” of the sociology of deviance to the
inability of scholars in the area to generate a core group of general theories that
could explain both legal and illegal norm-violating behavior. It is interesting to
note that a similar criticism and predicament once confronted sociological criminology. In the early 1930s, the Bureau of Social Hygiene in New York City
commissioned a study to evaluate the desirability of establishing a national
institute to train criminological researchers. Referred to as the “Michael-Adler
Report” ([1933] 1971), authors Jerome Michael and Mortimer J. Adler excoriated
existing criminological research for its failure to create abstract, general theories
that could explain all forms of criminal behavior.
Some of the most prominent criminologists of the day—including Thorsten J.
Sellin and Edwin H. Sutherland—were deeply stung by these criticisms, but
privately acknowledged that they had some merit (Cohen, Lindesmith, and
Schuessler 1956; Gaylord and Galliher 1988). What followed was a veritable
explosion in the development of general sociological explanations of criminal
behavior, with the appearance of anomie theory (Merton 1938), culture conflict
theory (Sellin 1938), differential association theory (Sutherland 1939), and social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay 1942). Regardless of whether
these perspectives owed some debt to the Michael-Adler Report or emerged
despite it, they inspired researchers for decades, building the foundation for
modern sociological criminology.
Once a new sociological research specialization develops, it appears that it
must soon generate a cluster of general theories to guide empirical research, or
face the prospect of decline. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, such luminaries
as Robert K. Merton, Thorsten J. Sellin, Clifford R. Shaw, Henry D. McKay, and
Edwin H. Sutherland were able to advance sociological criminology through
their prodigious theoretical efforts. After savage attacks devastated the labeling
perspective some 30 years later (Gouldner 1968; Liazos 1972; Thio 1973),
however, sociologists of deviance failed to offer alternative theories. This re-
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
55
sulted in the decline of the specialty, as documented by our study. Undoubtedly, similar dynamics have affected the fortunes of other research specializations in sociology.
Despite the findings of our analysis, we believe that it is an exaggeration to
say that the sociology of deviance is “dead.” Clearly, the textbooks and courses
devoted to the area stubbornly rebut Sumner’s “obituary.” Furthermore, the
social constructionist view so integral to the deviance perspective continues to
stimulate thinking in various ways, through its diffusion into the analysis of
multiple social problems (Spector and Kitsuse 1987), its revival in criminological theory (Braithwaite 1989; Paternoster and Iovanni 1989), and its integration
into critical feminism and postmodernism (Pfohl 1994). The rapid rise of criminal justice as a practitioner-oriented discipline has probably also taken some toll
on research and theory in the sociology of deviance by: (1) making it easier to
market objectivist, quantitative studies to funding agencies and to leading journals, (2) depleting the number of scholars willing to specialize in deviance, and
(3) increasing the number of scholars conducting criminological and criminal
justice studies.
Notwithstanding these qualifications, it still is fair to say that the sociology of
deviance has lost much of the momentum, vitality, and luster that it possessed
in the 1960s. We see Sumner’s “obituary” and our empirical findings as a
challenge for sociologists to revive the study of deviance, once more struggling
to articulate general theories that explain both legal and illegal norm-violating
behaviors.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
56
Only textbooks published in the United States were included in the study. Readers/anthologies used in deviance courses were excluded to prevent analyzing overlapping publications.
When more than one edition of a sociology of deviance textbook appeared from 1993 to
1999, only the most recent edition was included in the analysis. Our list of textbooks was
adapted from Bader, Becker, and Desmond (1996).
To date, citation analysts have made no attempt to evaluate the relative prestige of the
journals that are examined in their studies. Given that citations in some journals are more
prestigious than citations in others, readers must be cautioned that our analysis does not
rank journals and weight citations in this fashion.
In these journals, we examined all the articles and research notes dealing with any form of
norm violating conduct, including studies analyzing alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, mental illness, movements of political and religious protest, sexual deviance, streetcrime, suicide, and white-collar crime.
Other publications to appear in the journals (e.g., book reviews, comments, and announcements) were excluded from our study.
To take one hypothetical example, say that Professor X cites himself/herself 150 times in ten
publications, and is cited 30 additional times in 15 other publications. The adjusted citation
score (50) probably better estimates his/her impact on scholarship than either the extreme
number of total citations when self-citations are counted (180), or the modest number of
citations received in the publications that he/she didn’t write.
The textbooks contained far more citations than the articles and research notes, so we
calculated adjusted citation scores separately for these publications. For readers who wish to
re-rank the most-cited scholars in our study by their unadjusted scores, we also report the
data including self-citations in Tables 1 and 3.
Works that endorsed a constructionist perspective or that employed ethnographic methods
were classified in the sociology of deviance even if they examined only illegal behaviors.
This is why John Braithwaite, Richard A. Cloward, Lloyd E. Ohlin, and Raymond Paternoster
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
were classified as “sociologists of deviance” and Braithwaite (1989) and Cloward and Ohlin
(1960) were classified as “sociologies of deviance” (see Tables 2 and 4). Braithwaite (1989)
and Paternoster and Iovanni (1989) have embraced neo-labeling/constructionist perspectives in their analyses of justice system responses to criminal and delinquent behavior, while
Cloward and Ohlin (1960) are well-known for their use of ethnographic methods.
8. We did not use independent coders to check the reliability of our categorizations because
coders would not possess the detailed familiarity with many different publications needed to
complete the classification process. This was another reason why we chose the strategy of
over-identifying scholars/works with the sociology of deviance.
9. All recent citation studies in criminology/criminal justice except Cohn and Farrington (1996)
report the most-cited works of selected most-cited scholars—rather than the most citedworks of all scholars—in the publications that are analyzed (for example, see Cohn,
Farrington, and Wright 1998; Wright 2000). This is why we chose the former study for
our comparisons.
10. These 13 works were Akers ([1973] 1985), Becker ([1963] 1973), Cloward and Ohlin (1960),
Cohen (1955), Cohen (1985), Foucault (1977), Goffman (1961), Lemert ([1967] 1972), Matza
(1964), Rothman (1971, 1980), Sykes and Matza (1957), and Whyte ([1943] 1955).
11. Given the small number of most-cited works identified in our study (31), it was necessary to
combine our data with Cohn and Farrington’s (1996) list of the 54 most-cited works in
criminology/criminal justice to calculate a statistical test of significance.
References
Akers, Ronald L. [1973] 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Allen, Michael P. 1990. “The Quality of Journals in Sociology Reconsidered: Objective Measures
of Journal Influence,” American Sociological Association Footnotes 18 (September): 4-5.
American Sociological Association. 1989. Guide to Graduate Departments of Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
American Sociological Association. 1990. Biographical Directory of Members. Washington, DC:
American Sociological Association.
Bader, Chris, Paul J. Becker, and Scott Desmond. 1996. “Reclaiming Deviance as a Unique Course
from Criminology,” Teaching Sociology 24: 316-320.
Becker, Howard S. [1963] 1973. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (Rev. ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Blau, Judith R. and Peter M. Blau. 1982. “The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and
Violent Crime,” American Sociological Review 47: 114-29.
Bott, David M. and Lowell L. Hargens. 1991. “Are Sociologists’ Publications Uncited? Citation
Rates of Journal Articles, Chapters, and Books,” The American Sociologist 22: 147-58.
Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bursik, Robert J., Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of
Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington.
Clinard, Marshall B. and Robert F. Meier. 1998. Sociology of Deviant Behavior (10th ed.). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Albert K., Alfred Lindesmith, and Karl Schuessler, eds. 1956. The Sutherland Papers.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine
Activity Approach,” American Sociological Review 44: 588-608.
Cohen, Stanley. 1985. Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification. Cambridge,
England: Polity.
Cohn, Ellen G. and David P. Farrington. 1996. “Crime and Justice and the Criminology and
Criminal Justice Literature.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 20, eds. Michael
Tonry and Norval Morris, pp. 265-300. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
57
Cohn, Ellen G. and David P. Farrington. 1998a. “Assessing the Quality of American Doctoral
Program Faculty in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1991-1995,” Journal of Criminal J u s tice Education 9: 187-210.
Cohn, Ellen G. and David P. Farrington. 1998b. “Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars in Major
American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals Between 1986-1990 and 19911995,”
Journal of Criminal Justice 26: 99-116.
Cohn, Ellen G., David P. Farrington, and Richard A. Wright. 1998. Evaluating Criminology and
Criminal Justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Cole, Jonathan R. and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Curra, John. 1994. Understanding Social Deviance: From the Near Side to the Outer Limits. N e w
York: HarperCollins.
Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. [1895] 1964. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton. 1985. Explaining Delinquency and
Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Erikson, Kai T. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Macmillan.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
Gaylord, Mark S. and John F. Galliher. 1988. The Criminology of Edwin Sutherland. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books.
Glenn, Norval. 1971. “American Sociologists’ Evaluations of Sixty-Three Journals,” The American
Sociologist 6: 298-303.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor (Doubleday).
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Spectrum (Prentice-Hall).
Goode, Erich. 1997. Deviant Behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1966. “The Sociologist as Partisan: Sociology and the Welfare State,” The
American Sociologist 3: 103-116.
Gusfield, Joseph R. 1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis. 1981. Measuring Delinquency. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil. New York:
Basic. Books.
Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lemert, Edwin M. 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic
Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lemert, Edwin M. [1967] 1972. Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Liazos, Alexander. 1972. “The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts,”
Social Problems 20: 103-120.
Matza, David. 1964. Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley
Matza, David. 1969. Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCaghy, Charles H. and Timothy A. Capron. 1997. Deviant Behavior: Crime, Conflict, and
Interest Groups. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3: 672-82.
Merton, Robert K. [1949] 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure (enlarged ed.). New York: Free
Press.
Michael, Jerome and Mortimer J. Adler. [1933] 1971. Crime, Law, and Social Science. Montclair, NJ:
Patterson Smith.
Paternoster, Raymond and LeeAnn Iovanni. 1989. “The Labeling Perspective and Delinquency:
An Elaboration of the Theory and Assessment of the Evidence,” Justice Quarterly 6: 359-394.
58
The American Sociologist / Fall 2001
Pfohl, Stephen. 1994. Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roche, Thomas and David L. Smith. 1978. “Frequency of Citations as Criterion for the Ranking of
Departments, Journals, and Individuals,” Sociological Inquiry 48: 49-57.
Rothman, David J. 1971. The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New
Republic. Boston: Little, Brown.
Rothman, David J. 1980. Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in P r o gressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.
Sellin, Thorsten J. 1938. Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. [1942] 1969. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (Rev.
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spector, Malcolm and John I. Kitsuse. 1987. Constructing Social Problems. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Straus, Murray A., Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. 1980. Behind Closed Doors:
Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.
Sumner, Colin. 1994. The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary. New York: Continuum.
Sutherland, Edwin H. 1939. Principles of Criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
Sutherland, Edwin H., Donald R. Cressey, and David F. Luckenbill. [1924] 1992. Principles of
Criminology (11th ed.). Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.
Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” American Sociological Review 22: 664-70.
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young. 1973. The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of
Deviance. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, eds. 1975. Critical Criminology. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Thio, Alex. 1973. “Class Bias in the Sociology of Deviance,” The American Sociologist 8: 1-12.
Thio, Alex. 1998. Deviant Behavior (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ward, David A., Timothy J. Carter, and Robin D. Perrin. 1994. Social Deviance: Being, Behaving,
and Branding. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Whyte, William Foote. [1943] 1955. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, James Q. and Richard J. Herrnstein. 1985. Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public
Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. and Franco Ferracuti. [1967] 1982. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Terence P. Thornberry. 1978. Evaluating Criminology.
New York: Elsevier.
Wright, Richard A. 1995a. “The Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology: A Comparison of Textbooks
and Journals,” Journal of Criminal Justice 23: 303-11.
Wright, Richard A. 1995b. “Was There a “Golden Past” for the Introductory Sociology Textbook?
A Citation Analysis of Leading Journals,” The American Sociologist 26: 41-48.
Wright, Richard A. 1998. “From Luminary to Lesser-Known: The Declining Influence of Criminology Textbook Authors on Scholarship,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education9: 59-70.
Wright, Richard A. 2000. “Recent Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology: A Comparison of Textbooks and Journals,” Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 117-128.
Wright, Richard A. and Kelly Carroll. 1994. “From Vanguard to Vanished: The Declining Influence
of Criminology Textbooks on Scholarship,” Journal of Criminal Justice 22:
559-567.
Wright, Richard A. and David O. Friedrichs. 1998. “The Most-Cited Scholars and Works in C r i t i cal Criminology,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 9: 211-231.
Wright, Richard A. and J. Mitchell Miller. 1998. “The Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Police
Studies.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21: 240-54.
Wright, Richard A. and Cindy Sheridan. 1997. “The Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Women and
Crime Publications,” Women & Criminal Justice 9: 41-60.
Wright, Richard A. and Collette Soma. 1995. “The Declining Influence of Dissertations on
Sociological Research,” American Sociological Association Footnotes 23 (January): 8.
Miller, Wright, and Dannels
59