Introduction: 200 words or so
\nTell me what you are going to argue. Introduce the theory that you are going to be addressing and tell us where that theory comes from and, very briefly, why it’s important in academic debate. For example, if you\u2019re writing about the idea we live in a \u2018risk society\u2019 (Beck 1992), tell us that it was a theory created by Ulrich Beck 1992 in the 1980s and that it has gone on to be influential in the work of [name some other scholars]. Finish your conclusion with a clear statement of your argument (e.g. this theory is \/ isn’t useful in understanding risk because… it explains\u2026 or it fails to explain\u2026 etc). In this section I\u2019d expect to see you cite the main theorist themselves and, if relevant, any other scholars you mention. All of the sources cited here should be from academics \/ professional scholars, in academic books and articles.<\/p>\n
Body text: 800 words or so
\nSummarise the evidence that supports your argument. In this section you are going to start out simply by explaining the theory. In this section I\u2019d expect to see you referring directly to the author(s) that you\u2019re focusing on, but also perhaps to some of the more general contextual work (surveys on risk and crime, e.g. Mythen, Kemshall and O\u2019Malley: these are useful for setting the scene). This might take you a few paragraphs.
\nStart off with a simple descriptive account of what the author actually says, the key terms they use, and the go on to explore what they are trying to argue with their theory. When you\u2019re thinking about what the authors are trying to do with their theory, let us know what kind of theory it is: is it an instrumental theory, trying to help us manage risk better, or perhaps reduce crime; or is it a critical theory that is making a comment about how risk management has changed our society? In other words, what are the authors you are writing about trying to achieve with their theory?
\nYou might then want to think about what kind of evidence and argument they use to make their case, and its connections to (or differences from) other theories. For example, is it a Marxist theory, or a different kind of materialist theory, or is it trying to provide an alternative to such theories? Or is it a cultural theory, one that assumes that social change is driven by changes in meaning and belief, not underlying economic or socio-technical structures? In other words, what are the drivers of change in the theory? (You have various options here, you could easily compare your core theory to the others, e.g. Beck to Furedi etc.)
\nThen you need to move on to the reception of this theory. Why does this matter for criminologists (and perhaps other social scientists)? How has the theory been influential \/ on whom? How has the theory been developed, or criticised and by whom? On what basis? What kind of evidence do the critics (or supporters) mobilise to support their arguments? One easy way to think about this is to think about connecting back to some of the literature we looked at in the first half of the term. If you look back at that work you\u2019ll often see these more general theories referenced in the introduction to these pieces.
\nSome examples:
\nBeck\u2019s \u2018risk society\u2019 has obviously influenced people like Ericson and Haggerty, Policing the Risk Society, amongst many others, and has also been criticised by Curran, Rigakos etc.
\nFoucault\u2019s work on governmentality has influenced people like Jonathan Simon (actuarial governance), David Garland, Pat O\u2019Malley and many others.
\nFuredi\u2019s work has been less directly obviously influential in criminology, but it\u2019s often cited by criminologists and could be compared \/ contrasted to moral panic, to Garland\u2019s work, or to Beck, or Douglas\u2019s work.
\nLianos and Douglas, you could do the reverse of the above. It\u2019s already a criminological theory so that\u2019s easy.
\nLikewise edgework started out as a sociological theory but Lyng himself extended it into criminology and you could also compare and contrast it to the wider literature on cultural criminology.
\nIf you aren\u2019t sure, you can pick up hints about how these have been important and who \/ which debates they have influenced in the general reading (O\u2019Malley, Kemshall, Mythen).
\nWhen you\u2019re comparing and contrasting the different arguments made about the theory, think about: what do they think risk is? Is it something real that can be measured, and which is greater or lesser at some times \/ places, or is it something culturally constructed, more about our cultural attitudes to various threats \/ dangers?
\nBuilding on this, why do they think we are so concerned with risk? Is this a new thing? If so, is it because the level of risk has increased, our understanding of risk has improved \/ changed, or because some people (e.g. the media, governments, moral entrepreneurs) are highlighting particular risks for some reason? If so, what reason(s)?
\nOverall, based on all this, has the theory been influential, has it been positively received, and do you find its arguments convincing, or are you more convinced by the critics? Give reasons for your judgement, not just a statement of opinion.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: 200 words or so
\nSummarise your argument and how the evidence you have provided supports it. Here you just need to summarise your arguments and the reasons you have made them. Don\u2019t introduce any new material or ideas in the conclusion that have not appeared in the piece elsewhere.
\n2<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction: 200 words or so Tell me what you are going to argue. Introduce the theory that you are going to be addressing and tell us where that theory comes from and, very briefly, why it’s important in academic debate. For example, if you\u2019re writing about the idea we live in a \u2018risk society\u2019 (Beck […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[34],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/9997"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/9997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=9997"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=9997"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=9997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}