CRJ 560 Criminological Theory Research Paper Assignment In order to allow you to demonstrate your grasp of theory and the applicability of theory to policy and future research, each of you will draft a 7-9 page research paper. The other purpose is for you to have the opportunity to engage with a theoretical perspective of interest to you in more detail. Finally, this project serves to advance your research, analytical, and writing skills. There are five components to the assignment. Discuss the points below in the order listed, and separate the sections using headings. You must pick a theory for which there is significant research testing it, or you will not be able to complete the assignment. Quotes are restricted in your paper to one short quote per page, i.e. four lines. Any quote included must only be something that is suitable to quoting. When explaining concepts, you must paraphrase, as I need to ensure that you understand the material. Be mindful of your audience. It is not me. Your audience might be policy makers or supervisors in a criminal justice agency or advocates who work with offenders to help them in their rehabilitation. 1. Introduction: Identify the theory and the theorist(s). Next, discuss the origins of the theory you chose (e.g., historical events, earlier theories that influenced its development, background of the theorist(s) that influenced its development). The information in this section means that you must pick a single theory (not a theoretical school) and that includes identifying the theorist(s). You cannot say that you focused on control theory when there is more than one control theory. Whose control theory is your focus, and what is the name of that theory? 2. Theoretical Provisions: Discuss the causal arguments of the theory you chose (i.e. what are the provisions used to explain crime?). 3. Theoretical Testing: Describe and analyze the empirical/scholarly/peer-reviewed studies that researchers used to test the causal arguments of your theory, and discuss your responses to the following questions. The bulk of your sources should be tests of your chosen theory, such that they allow you to address this section. All of those sources must be addressed in this section in a literature review format rather than a discussion of each source individually. a. What types of offenses did researchers testing your chosen theory examine? b. What conclusions did the authors draw about the ability of your chosen theory to explain, in whole or in part, the types of offenses examined? Specifically, did they find the theory offered a viable explanation for the commission of these offenses, or did they find the theory was ineffective in explaining the commission of these offenses? c. What was the basis of the conclusions that the researchers drew? d. What limitations did the researchers note about their studies, and what did you find to be limitations? e. Based on your assessment of the studies testing your chosen theor.

1. CRJ 560 Criminological Theory
Research Paper Assignment
In order to allow you to demonstrate your grasp of theory and
the applicability of theory to policy and future research, each of
you will draft a 7-9 page research paper. The other purpose is
for you to have the opportunity to engage with a theoretical
perspective of interest to you in more detail. Finally, this
project serves to advance your research, analytical, and writing
skills. There are five components to the assignment. Discuss
the points below in the order listed, and separate the sections
using headings. You must pick a theory for which there is
significant research testing it, or you will not be able to
complete the assignment. Quotes are restricted in your paper to
one short quote per page, i.e. four lines. Any quote included
must only be something that is suitable to quoting. When
explaining concepts, you must paraphrase, as I need to ensure
that you understand the material.
Be mindful of your audience. It is not me. Your audience might
be policy makers or supervisors in a criminal justice agency or
advocates who work with offenders to help them in their
rehabilitation.
1. Introduction: Identify the theory and the theorist(s). Next,
discuss the origins of the theory you chose (e.g., historical
events, earlier theories that influenced its development,
background of the theorist(s) that influenced its development).
The information in this section means that you must pick a
single theory (not a theoretical school) and that includes
identifying the theorist(s). You cannot say that you focused on
control theory when there is more than one control theory.
Whose control theory is your focus, and what is the name of
that theory?
2. Theoretical Provisions: Discuss the causal arguments of the
theory you chose (i.e. what are the provisions used to explain

2. crime?).
3. Theoretical Testing: Describe and analyze the
empirical/scholarly/peer-reviewed studies that researchers used
to test the causal arguments of your theory, and discuss your
responses to the following questions. The bulk of your sources
should be tests of your chosen theory, such that they allow you
to address this section. All of those sources must be addressed
in this section in a literature review format rather than a
discussion of each source individually.
a. What types of offenses did researchers testing your chosen
theory examine?
b. What conclusions did the authors draw about the ability of
your chosen theory to explain, in whole or in part, the types of
offenses examined? Specifically, did they find the theory
offered a viable explanation for the commission of these
offenses, or did they find the theory was ineffective in
explaining the commission of these offenses?
c. What was the basis of the conclusions that the researchers
drew?
d. What limitations did the researchers note about their studies,
and what did you find to be limitations?
e. Based on your assessment of the studies testing your chosen
theory, how valuable do you find your chosen theory for
explaining crime generally, a specific category of crime (e.g.,
violent/personal) or a specific type of crime (e.g., terrorism,
robbery, murder, theft)?
4. Future Research: Based on the points you raised in the
second content area, address what you see as general issues that
future research needs to examine. Address the following
questions in doing so.

3. a. What offense(s) would you study if you conducted a study
testing this theory? Consider what you noted in section 3e.
b. What would you hypothesize about the offense(s) given the
provisions of your chosen theory?
5. Conclusion: Summarize the main points and then discuss at
least one policy recommendation that you would advocate to
address the offense(s) you discussed in section 3e. Remember
that you must ground the recommendation(s) in the provisions
of your chosen theory.
You need to use a minimum of eight sources. Preferably, all of
the sources should involve a test of your chosen theory, but at
minimum, six of the sources must be a test of the theory. If you
cannot find that many sources for your paper that meet that
requirement, then you need to pick a new theory that allows you
to meet this requirement. You should obtain academic research
articles like those assigned for the course and if the theorists
wrote a book solely on the theory, you can use that book in your
research [e.g. Travis Hirschi’s Causes of Crime; Steven Messner
and Richard Rosenfeld’s Crime and the American Dream; John
Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming]. No textbook is an
acceptable source. All in-text citations and reference list
citations, as usual must be in APA format. Use the library
website to find appropriate sources. Sources must be from 2000-
the present unless a source is a landmark document. Check with
me if you are unsure about whether you have a landmark source.
Formatting
· Use a minimum of eight approved sources, and any additional
sources also meet the source restrictions
· The paper meets the minimum length required and does not
exceed the maximum length permitted
· 12-point Font

4. · Times New Roman Font
· Page numbers included in the header of the paper (in the
proper location for APA format)
· Maintains double-spacing throughout the paper (title page
through references), even between paragraphs, sections, and
lines
· References start on a separate page at the end of the paper
· Uses headings (in APA format) to separate sections
· Includes a title page with the required information for APA
format
Be sure to follow all instructions exactly. You will be
submitting this assignment as a turnitin.com assignment to
assess it for plagiarism. If you are unsure of what constitutes
plagiarism, please see the Writing Skills document I assigned
and check the Hacker and Sommers book assigned for this
course.
CRJ 560 Criminological Theory
Research Paper Rubric
36 points (convert to percentage)
Category
Excellent [3 points]
Good [2 points]
Fair [1 point]
Poor [0 points]
Introduction
The introduction engages the reader. It provides an accurate
identification of the theory and theorist(s) who developed it
along with a substantive discussion of the origins of the theory.

5. The introduction provides an accurate identification of the
theory and theorist(s) who developed it, along with a discussion
of the origins of the theory. However, a gap exists in the
discussion of the origins of the theory.
The introduction provides an accurate identification of the
theory and the theorists, but multiple gaps exist in the
discussion of the origins of the theory.
The introduction attempts to identify the theory and the
theorist(s) but has some inaccuracy and it fails to cover the
origins of the theory. OR The introduction attempts to identify
the theory and the theorist(s) but has some inaccuracy, and the
information regarding the origins of the theory are minimal,
inaccurate or unclear.
Theoretical Provisions
The author provides a comprehensive and accurate discussion of
the causal arguments of the theory.
The author provides a discussion of the causal arguments of the
theory, but one point is inaccurate or there is a gap in the
discussion.
The author provides some discussion of the causal arguments of
the theory, but some gaps or inaccuracies exist.
The author attempts to provide a discussion of the causal
arguments of the theory, but the points are inaccurate or
unclear. OR The author fails to provide a discussion of the
causal arguments of the theory.
Theoretical Testing
The author integrates the information from most or all of the
sources to discuss the results of empirical tests of the theory
comprehensively and accurately in a literature review format.
The author addresses all of the questions posed.
The author integrates information from most or all of the
sources to discuss the results of empirical tests of the theory in
a literature review format. While the information is accurate,
the author fails to answer one of the questions posed.
The author relies on a literature review organizational structure
for most of the discussion in response to the questions, but has

6. some deviation from this requirement. While most of the
information is accurate, some of the information discussed is
inaccurate.
The author fails to discuss most or all of the sources in this
section or the author fails to discuss the sources in a literature
review format. The author neglects to address two or more of
the questions posed or the author addresses all of the questions
posed but the information is unclear or inaccurate.
Future Research
The author comprehensively, clearly offers a discussion of what
future research needs to address. The author links the discussion
to points raised in section 3e of the content requirements.
The author offers a discussion of what future research needs to
address, but the author fails to address one of the questions
posed.
The author offers a discussion of what future research needs to
address but the information is inconsistent with points raised in
section 2e or the information is unclear.
The author fails to discuss what future research needs to address
or the author attempts to address this information but it is
unclear.
Conclusion
The author clearly summarizes the main points of the paper
without stating them verbatim. The author provides a clear
discussion of a policy recommendation grounded in the chosen
theory.
The author summarizes the main points of the paper. The author
provides a discussion of a policy recommendation grounded in
the chosen theory, but some aspect of the discussion is unclear.
The author summarizes the main points of the paper and a
policy recommendation grounded in the chosen theory, but the
discussion in one of the sections is unclear.
The author provides a summary of the main points of the paper
or a policy recommendation grounded in the theory, but not
both. OR The author provides a discussion of the main points of
the paper and a policy recommendation grounded in the theory,

7. but the information is unclear. OR The author fails to provide a
conclusion.
Organization
The author demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas through
well-developed paragraphs that connect to topic sentences and
each other in the section in which they fall and regarding the
central focus of the paper.
For the most part, the paper demonstrates logical sequencing of
ideas, but some transitions are weak between paragraphs, within
sections, and in relation to the central focus of the paper.
The paper has significant disjointedness in transitions internal
to and between paragraphs, which affect coherence. The paper
shows limited connection to the central focus of the paper.
The paper has no clear organization of ideas. Headings are
insufficient, as the material contained within the sections does
not clearly relate to the relevant topic of the heading or to the
central focus of the paper.
Originality
All information appears in the author’s words. The presentation
of information demonstrates a high level of comprehension and
ability to apply concepts.
Most of the information appears in the author’s words. The use
of quotations does not exceed quotation restrictions imposed
and the material quoted is suitable for quoting rather than
paraphrasing. The author demonstrates a good understanding
and ability to apply concepts.
The author exceeds the quotation restrictions by 1-2 instances.
The author demonstrates some weakness in understanding and
applying concepts.
The author exceeds the quotation restrictions by three or more
instances, thus demonstrating limited comprehension and ability
to apply concepts.
Source Types
The author meets the requirements for the types of sources
permitted.
The author meets the requirements for the types of sources

8. permitted in most cases (i.e., more than half).
The author meets the requirement for the types of sources
permitted in some cases, but not most.
The author fails to meet the requirements for the types of
sources permitted.
Citations
Correctly cites all sources in the text and in the references in
APA format
Correctly cites most sources in the text and in the references in
APA format (i.e., more than half)
Correctly cites some sources in the text and in the references,
but not most
Cites none of the sources in APA format.
Mechanics (Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling)
Mechanics and style errors are absent or so minimal that they do
not affect the clarity of the author's ideas. Extensive
proofreading and editing is evident.
Mechanics and style errors appear occasionally, but they do not
disrupt the overall clarity of the author's ideas. A moderate
level of proofreading and editing is present.
Mechanics and style errors are frequent and cause the reader to
have to reread part of the author's work. However, while it is a
struggle to grasp the author's ideas it is not impossible to
ascertain most, if not all, of the author's ideas. Minimal
evidence of proofreading and editing is present.
Mechanics and style errors are extensive and impair the reader's
ability to understand the author's ideas. Evidence of
proofreading and editing is absent.
Style
Sentence structure is varied in format, yet focused and
organized to retain the reader’s interest; uses formal language
(no jargon, clichés, slang, colloquialisms, euphemisms or
contractions); has 0-10% passive voice; no redundancy or
wordiness; the paper is mindful of the audience. The paper
provides a clear recitation of your ideas. Extensive proofreading
and editing are evident.

9. Sentence structure is varied in format, but occasional use of
informal language occurs. Has 11-19% passive voice. The
problems do not affect the overall clarity of the author’s ideas.
A moderate level of proofreading and editing are evident.
Significant use of informal language; limited variation in
sentence structure. Has 20-28% passive voice. However, while
it is a struggle to grasp the author's ideas it is not impossible to
ascertain most, if not all, of the author's ideas. Minimal
evidence of proofreading and editing are present.
Excessive use of informal language, such that the paper does
not meet the standard of professional writing. Has 29% or more
passive voice. The problems impede the reader’s ability to
ascertain most if not all of the author’s ideas. Evidence of
proofreading and editing are absent.
Formatting
All formatting requirements are met.
Most formatting requirements are met (i.e., > 50%).
Some formatting requirements are met, but not most.
No formatting requirements are met.