Sociology has been the primary focus of criminology since early in the 20th cent

ury. In the U.S, the primacy of sociological criminology was secured by research
begun in the early 20th century by Robert Ezra Park (1864-1944), Earnest W. Bur
gess (1886-1966) and their colleagues in the Sociology Department at the Univers
ity of Chicago. Known as Chicago School, these sociologists pioneered research w
ork on the early ecology of the city and inspired a generation of scholars to co
nclude that social forces operating in urban areas create criminal interactions;
some neighborhoods become “natural areas” for crime. These urban neighborhoods
maintain such a high level of poverty that critical social institutions, such as
the school and the family, break down. The resulting social disorganization red
uces the ability of social institutions to control behavior, and the outcome is
a high crime rate.
The Chicago school sociologists and their contemporaries focused on the function
s of social institutions and how their breakdown influences behavior. They pione
ered the ecological study of crime- crime as a function of where one lives.
The foundation of sociological criminology can be traced to the work of L. A. J
(Adlophe) Quetelet (1796- 1874) and Email Durkheim (1858 -1917).
L.A.J. QUETELET. Quetelet was a Belgian Mathematician who began (along with a Fr
enchman, Andre-Michel Guerry) what is known as the cartographic school of crimin
ology. Quetelet, who made use of statistics developed in France in the early 19t
h century, was one of the first social scientist to use objective mathematical t
echniques to investigate the influence of social factor, such as season, climate
, and age on the propensity to commit crime. Quetelet’s most important finding w
as the social forces were significantly correlated with the crime rates. In addi
tion to finding a strong influence of sex and age on crime, Quetelet also uncove
red evidence that season, climate, population composition, and poverty were also
related to criminality. More specifically, he found that crime rates in the sum
mer, in the southern areas, among heterogeneous population, and among the pore a
nd uneducated and were influenced by drinking habits. Quetelet was pioneer of so
ciological oriented criminology.
EMILE DURKHEIM. (David) Emile Dukheim (1858-1917) was one of the founders of soc
iology and significance contribution to criminology.
According to the Durkheim vision of social positivism, crime is a part of human
nature because it has existed in every age, in both poverty and prosperity. Crim
e is normal because it is virtually impossible to imagine a society in which cri
minal behavior is totally absent. The inevitability of crime is linked to the di
fferences within society. Because people are so different from one another and u
se such variety of methods and forms of behavior to meet their needs, it is not
surprising that some will resort to criminality. As long as a human difference e
xist, then, crime is inevitable and one of the fundamental condition of social l
ife.
The existence of crime implies that the social structure is not rigid or inflexi
ble. If crime did not exist, it would mean that everyone behaves the same way an
d agrees totally what is right or wrong. Such universal conformity would stifle
creativity and independent thinking. Durkheim offered the example of the Greek p
hilosopher Sorceries, who is considered as a criminal and put to death for the c
orrupting the moral of the youth, simply because he question the social order. I
n addition, Durkheim argued that crime is beneficial because it call attention t
o social ill. A rising crime rate can signal the need of social change and promo
te to variety of programs designed to relive the human suffering that may have c
aused crime. Durkheim’s research on suicide indicated that anomy societies maint
ain high suicide rates.
It has long been evident that varying patterns of criminal behavior exist within
the social structure. Some geographic areas are more prone to violence and seri
ous theft-related crimes than others. Criminologists have attempted to discover
why such patterns exist and how they can be eliminated.
Sociology is concerned with social change and dynamic aspects of human behavior.
It follows transformation in cultural norms and institutions and the subsequent
effect they have on individual and group behavior. These concepts are useful to
day because the changing structure of postmodern society continues to have a tre
mendous effect on intergroup and interpersonal relationships. A reduction in the
influence of the family has been accompanied by an increased emphasis on indivi
duality, independence and isolation. Weakened family ties have been linked to cr
ime and delinquency.
Branches of social structure theory
Considering the deprivations suffered by the lower class, it is not surprising t
hat a disadvantage economy class position has been viewed by many criminologists
as a primary cause of crime. This view is referred to here as social structure
theory. As a group, social structure theories suggest that forces operating in d
eteriorated lower class areas push many of their residence into criminal behavio
r pattern. These theories consider the existence of unsupervised teenage gang, h
igh crime rates, and social disorder in slum areas as major social problem.
Lower class crime is often the violent, destructive product of youth gang and ma
rginally employed young adult. Although members of the middle and upper classes
also engage in crime , social structure theorist view middle class crime or whit
e caller crime as being of relatively lower frequency, seriousness and danger to
the general public. The real crime problem is essentially a lower class phenome
non, beginning in youth and continuing into young adulthood.
Most social structure theorists focus on the violating behavior of youth. They s
uggest that the social forces that cause crime begin to affect people while they
are relatively young and continuing to influence them throughout their life.
Social structure theorist challenge those who would that crime are an expression
of psychological imbalance, biological traits, and insensitivity to social cont
rol, personal choice or any other individual level factor.
They argue that people living in equivalent social environment seen to behave in
a similar, predictable fashion. If the environment did not influence human beha
vior, crime rate would be distributed equally across the social structure, which
they are not. Because crime rates are higher in lower class urban centers than
in middle class suburbs, social forces must be operating in urban slums that inf
luence or control behavior.
There are three independent yet overlapping branches within the social structure
perspective: Social Disorganization Theory, Strain Theory and Cultural Deviance
Theory.
Figure 01: the three branches of Social Structure Theory

1. Social Disorganization Theory:

It focuses on the conditions within the urban environment that effect crime rate
s. A disorganized is one in which institutions of social control, such as the fa
mily, commercial establishments and schools have broken down and can no longer c
arry out their expected or stated functions. Indicators of social disorganizatio
n include high unemployment and school dropout rates, deteriorated housing, low
income levels and large number of single parent households. Residents in these a
reas experience conflict and despair and antisocial behavior flourishes.
Figure 02: Social Disorganization Theory
In sociology, the Social Disorganization Theory was one of the most important th
eories developed by the Chicago School, related to ecological theories. Social D
isorganization Theory linking (directly) high crime rates to neighborhood ecolog
ical characteristics, youths from disadvantaged neighborhoods were participants
in a subculture in which delinquency was approved behavior and that criminology
was acquired in a social and cultural setting through a process of interaction.
1.1. Robert Ezra Park and Ernest W. Burgess
Park and Burgess (1925) developed a theory of urban ecology which proposed that
cities are environments like those found in nature, governed by many of the same
forces of Darwinian evolution, i.e. competition that affects natural ecosystems
. When a city is formed and grows, people and their activities cluster in a part
icular area, i.e. the process of "concentration". Gradually, this central area b
ecomes highly populated, so there is a scattering of people and their activities
away from the central city to establish the suburbs, i.e. "dispersion". They su
ggested that, over time, the competition for land and other scarce urban resourc
es leads to the division of the urban space into distinctive ecological niches,
"natural areas" or zones in which people share similar social characteristics be
cause they are subject to the same ecological pressures. As a zone becomes more
prosperous and "desirable", property values and rents rise, and people and busin
esses migrate into that zone, usually moving outward from the city centre in a p
rocess Park and Burgess called "succession" (a term borrowed from plant ecology)
and new residents take their place. At both a micro and macro level, society wa
s thought to operate as a super organism, where change is a natural aspect of th
e process of growth and neither chaotic nor disorderly. Thus, an organized area
is invaded by new elements. This gives rise to local competition and there will
either be succession or an accommodation which results in a reorganization. But,
during the early stages of competition, there will always be some level of diso
rganization because there will be disruption to, or a breakdown in, the normativ
e structure of the community which may or may not lead to deviant behavior. Thus
, although a city was a physical organization, it also had also social and moral
structures that could be disorganized.
Their model, known as Concentric Zone Theory and first published in The City (19
25) predicted that, once fully grown, cities would take the form of five concent
ric rings with areas of social and physical deterioration concentrated near the
city centre and more prosperous areas located near the city s edge. This theory
seeks to explain the existence of social problems such as unemployment and crime
in specific Chicago districts, making extensive use of synchronic mapping to re
veal the spatial distribution of social problems and to permit comparison betwee
n areas. In the post-war period, the cartographic approach was criticized as sim
plistic in that it neglected the social and cultural dimensions of urban life, t
he political and economic impact of industrialization on urban geography, and th
e issues of class, race, gender, and ethnicity.
1.2. Concentric zone theory:
The Concentric ring model also known as the Burgess model is one of the earliest
theoretical models to explain urban social structures. It was created by sociol
ogist Ernest Burgess in 1925.
Based on human ecology theories done by Burgess and applied on Chicago, it was t
he first to give the explanation of distribution of social groups within urban a
reas. This concentric ring model depicts urban land use in concentric rings: the
Central Business District (or CBD) was in the middle of the model, and the city
expanded in rings with different land uses. It is effectively an urban version
of Von Thunen s regional land use model developed a century earlier. It contrast
s with Homer Hoyt s sector model and the multiple nuclei model.
Figure 03: Concentric zone model
Concentric zone model
Commuter zone
Residential zone
Working class zone
Zone of transition
Factory zone
CBD
The zones identified are:
1. The center was the CBD
2. The transition zone of mixed residential and commercial uses
3. Low-class residential homes (inner suburbs), in later decades called inn
er city
4. Better quality middle-class homes (Outer Suburbs)
5. Commuters zone
Burgess often observed that there was a correlation between the distance from th
e CBD and the wealth of the inhabited area; wealthier families tended to live mu
ch further away from the Central Business District. As the city grew, Burgess al
so observed that the CBD would cause it to expand outwards; this in turn forced
the other rings to expand outwards as well.
The model is more detailed than the traditional down-mid-uptown divide by which
downtown is the CBD, uptown the affluent residential outer ring, and midtown in
between.
Burgess s work is based on the bid rent curve. This theory states that the conce
ntric circles are based on the amount that people will pay for the land. This va
lue is based on the profits that are obtainable from maintaining a business on t
hat land. The center of the town will have the highest number of customers so it
is profitable for retail activities. Manufacturing will pay slightly less for t
he land as they are only interested in the accessibility for workers, goods in
and goods out . Residential land use will take the surrounding land.
Shaw and McKay’s statistical analysis confirmed their theoretical suspicions. Th
ey found that even though crime rates changed, the highest rates were always in
zone I or concentric zone (CBD) and zone II (transitional zone). The areas with
the highest crime rates retained high rates even when their ethnic composition c
hanged.
1.3. Criticism of Concentric zone theory:
Despite these noteworthy achievements, the validity of Shaw and McKay’s findings
has been subject to challenge. The most important criticism, however, concerns
their use of police records to calculate neighborhood crime rates. A zone’s high
crime rate may be a function of the level of local police surveillance and may
therefore obscure inter-zone crime rate differences. Numerous studies indicate t
hat police use extensive discretion when arresting people and that social status
is one factor that influences their decisions. It is likely that people in midd
le class neighborhoods commit many criminal acts that never show up in official
statistics, while people in lower class face a far greater chance of arrest and
court adjudication. Thus, the relationship between environment and crime rates m
ay be a reflection of police behavior and not criminal behavior.
2. Strain Theory:
It holds that crime is a function of the conflict between the goals people have
and the means they can use to legally obtain them. Strain theorists argue that w
hile social and economic goals are common to people in all economic strata, the
ability to obtain this goals is class dependent. Most people in the society desi
re wealth, material possessions, power, prestige and other life comforts. Member
s of the lower class are unable to achieve these symbols of success through conv
entional means. Consequently, they feel anger, frustration and resentment, which
is referred to as strain. Lower class citizen can either accept their condition
and live out their days as socially responsible, if unrewarded, citizens or the
y can choose an alternative means of achieving success, such as theft, violence
or drug trafficking.
Figure 04: The basic components of strain theory

In disorganized slum areas, however, strain occurs because legitimate avenues fo

r success are all about closed. To relieve strain, indigent people may be forced
to either use deviant methods to achieve their goals, such as theft, drug traff
icking or reject socially accepted goals outright and substitute other, more dev
iant goals, such as being tough and aggressive.
2.1. General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency:
It is a micro-level social psychological revision of Agnew’s strain theory. Acc
ording to this theory, criminal and deviant acts are one possible adaptation to
stress. The three major types of deviance-producing strain are: failure to achi
eve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and confronta
tion with negative stimuli. Deviance is most likely to occur when the response
of the individual to any of these stressors is anger. Factors such as peer asso
ciations, beliefs and attributions of causes, self-control, and self-efficacy wi
ll affect each individual’s reaction to stress.
2.2. Anomie theory:
Merton’s Anomie Theory is such version of anomie theory which looks at American
society and what happens when an individual realizes that not everyone can achie
ve the American dream of equal opportunity for economic success. When this happ
ens, one of five adaptations will occur.
• The conformist accepts the goals of society, and the means for achieving
them: the college student.
• The innovator accepts the goals of society, but rejects the means of ach
ieving them: the drug dealer.
• The mode of rebellion refers to one who rejects both the goals and means
of society, and wants to replace them with new goals and means: the militia mem
ber.
• The retreatist gives up on both the goals and means, and withdraws from
society: the alcoholic.
• Finally, the ritualist rejects the goals, and accepts the means: this pe
rson has given up on the promotion, nice car, etc., and simply punches the time
clock to keep what they have.
Merton s theory on deviance stems from his 1938 analysis of the relationship bet
ween culture, structure and anomie. Merton defines culture as an "organized set
of normative values governing behavior which is common to members of a designate
d society or group." Social structures are the "organized set of social relation
ships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated." Anomie
, state of normlessness, then occurs when there is "an acute disjunction between
the cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of members
of the group to act in accord with them." In his theory, Merton links anomie wit
h deviance and argues that the discontinuity between culture and structure have
the dysfunctional consequence of leading to deviance within society.
Table 01: Merton s Paradigm of Deviant Behavior
Attitude to Goals Attitude to Means Modes of adaptation
accept accept Conformity
accept reject Innovation
reject accept Ritualism
reject reject Retreatism
accept / reject Accept/ reject Rebellion

Figure 05: Robert K. Marton’s Deviance Typology

2.3. Criticism of Anomie theory:

A number of questions are left unanswered by anomie theory. Marton did not expla
in why people differ in their choice of criminal behavior. Why does one anomie p
erson become a mugger, while another deals drugs? Anomie may be used to explain
differences in crime rates, but it cannot explain why most young criminals desis
t, from crime as adults.
Critics have also suggested that people pursue a number of different goals, incl
uding educational, athletic and social success. Juveniles may be more interested
in immediate goals, such as having an active social life or being a good athlet
e, than long term ‘ideal’ achievements, such as monetary success. Achieving thes
e goals is not a matter of social class alone; other factors, including athletic
ability, intelligence, personality and family life, can either hinder or assist
goal attainment. Anomie theory also assumes that all people share the same goal
s and values, which is false.
Because of these and other criticisms, the theory of anomie, along with other st
ructural theories, fell into a period of decline for almost 20 years.
3. Cultural Deviance Theory:
The third variation of structural theory combines elements of both strain and so
cial disorganization. According to this view, because of strain and social isola
tion, unique lower class cultural develops in disorganized neighborhoods. These
independent subcultures maintain a unique set of values and a belief that are in
conflict are in conventional social norms. Criminal behavior is an expression o
f conformity to lower class subculture values and tradition and not a rebellion
against conventional society. Subculture values are handling down from one gener
ation to next in a process called cultural transmission.
The third branch of social structure theory combines the effects of social disor
ganization and strain to explain how people living in deteriorated neighborhoods
react to social isolation and economic deprivation because their life style is
draining, frustrating, and dispiriting, member of the lower class create an inde
pendent subculture with its own set of rules and values. While middle class cult
ural stresses hard work, delayed gratification, formal education, and being caut
ious, the lower class subculture stress excitement, toughness, risk taking, fear
less, immediate gratification, and “street smarts” the lower class subculture is
an attractive alternative because the urban poor find it impossible to meet the
behavioral demands of middle class society. Unfortunately sub cultural norms of
ten clash with conventional values. Slum dwellers are forced to violate the law
because they obey the rules of the deviant culture with which they are in close
and immediate contact.
Figure 06: Elements of cultural deviance theory

In criminology, subcultural theory emerged from the work of the Chicago School o
n gangs and developed through the symbolic interactionism school into a set of t
heories arguing that certain groups or subcultures in society have values and at
titudes that are conducive to crime and violence. The primary focus is on juveni
le delinquency because theorists believe that if this pattern of offending can b
e understood and controlled, it will break the transition from teenage offender
into habitual criminal. Some of the theories are functionalist assuming that cri
minal activity is motivated by economic needs, while others posit a social class
rationale for deviance.
Culture represents the norms, customs and values which both guide behavior and a
ct as a framework from which behavior is judged by the majority. It is transmitt
ed socially rather than biologically. A subculture is a distinctive culture with
in a culture, so its norms and values differ from the majority culture but do no
t necessarily represent a culture deemed deviant by the majority. A subculture i
s distinguished from a counterculture which operates in direct opposition to the
majority culture. Cultural Transmission Theory and Social Disorganization Theor
y posit that, in the poorest zones of a city, certain forms of behavior become t
he cultural norm transmitted from one generation to the next, as part of the nor
mal socialization process. Successful criminals are role models for the young, d
emonstrating both the possibilities of success through crime, and its normality.
See Shaw (1930) who describes the social pressure to engage in criminality. Sub
cultural Theory proposes that those living in an urban setting are able to find
ways of creating a sense of community despite the prevailing alienation and anon
ymity. The cultural structure is dominated by the majority norms, which forces i
ndividuals to form communities in new and different ways. More recently, Fischer
(1995) proposed that the size, population, and heterogeneity of cities actually
strengthens social groups, and encourages the formation of subcultures, which a
re much more diverse in nature compared to the general culture. Fischer defines
a subculture as, "...a large set of people who share a defining trait, associate
with one another, are members of institutions associated with their defining tr
ait, adhere to a distinct set of values, share a set of cultural tools and take
part in a common way of life" (Fischer: 544). In less densely populated and less
diverse environments, the creation of such subcultures would be nearly impossib
le. But ethnic minorities, professionals, the artistic avant-garde, displaced ag
ricultural families, etc. come to live in cities and their lifestyles come to ty
pify cities.
3.1. Albert K. Cohen:
Albert K. Cohen (1955) did not look at the economically oriented career criminal
, but looked at the delinquency subculture, focusing on gang delinquency among w
orking class youth in slum areas which developed a distinctive culture as a resp
onse to their perceived lack of economic and social opportunity within U.S. soci
ety. He was a student of Edwin Sutherland (Differential Association Theory and S
ocial Transmission Theory) and Merton s (Strain Theory). The features of this su
bculture were:
• Anti-utilitarian: in many cases, there was no profit motive in thefts or
other crimes. The main intention was to foster peer bonding through sharing the
experience of breaking the laws.
• Collective reaction formation: the gang inverted the values of the major
ity culture, deliberately pursuing the mirror image of the American Dream.
• Malice: many acts of vandalism and property damage were motivated by spi
te, contempt, and personal intention to injure.
• Short-termism: the gang lived for the moment, looking for instant gratif
ication.
• Group autonomy: everything was aimed at consolidating group loyalty.
Cohen (1958) explained this in terms similar to Strain Theory, (i.e. as a form o
f rebellion) in that education taught the young to strive for social status thro
ugh academic achievement but, when most of the working class failed, this promot
ed "status frustration" or reaction formation, inverting middle-class values to
strike back at the system that had let them down. Middle class values stress ind
ependence, success, academic achievement, delayed gratification, control of aggr
ession, and respect for property. Lower class parents encourage different values
in their children (i.e. different socialization). In lower class families ambit
ion and planning must give way to pressing issues of the moment. They depend mor
e on others, and have more of a group orientation, “watching each other’s backs”
.
3.2. Theory of delinquent subculture:
Cohen’s central position was that the delinquent behavior of lower-class youth w
as actually a protest against the norms and values of the middle-class U.S cultu
re. Because social condition makes them incapable of achieving success legitimat
ely, lower class youth experience a form of cultural conflict that Cohen labels
status frustration. As a result, many of them join in gangs and engage in behav
ior that is ‘’nolnutilitarian, malicious and negativistic.’’
According to Cohen, the development of delinquent subculture is a consequence of
socialization practices found in the ghetto or slum environment. Deficient soci
alization renders lower –class kids unable to achieve conventional success. Cohe
n suggests that lower-class parents are incapable of teaching children the neces
sary techniques for entering dominant middle-class culture. Developmental handic
aps suffered by lower-class kids include lack of education, poor speech and comm
unication skills and inability to delay the gratification.
4. Evaluation of Social Structure Theory:
Its core concepts seem to be valid in view to be valid in view of the high crime
and delinquency rates and gang activity occurring in the deteriorated inner-cit
y slum areas of the nation’s largest cities. The public’s images of the slum inc
ludes roaming bands of violent teenage gangs, drug users, prostitutes, muggers a
nd similar frightening examples of criminality. All of these are present today a
re urban ghetto areas.
Factors that cause strain, such lack of access to legitimate economic opportunit
ies and economic inequality, also produce social disorganization. Stress leads t
o alcohol abuse and unprotected sex outside of marriage, causing an increase in
impaired households, dysfunctional families, urban hostility and the deteriorati
on of informal social control.
4.1. Criticism
Critics of the approach charge that we cannot be sure that it is lower-class cul
ture itself that promotes crime and not some other force operating in society. C
ritics of this approach deny that residence in urban area is alone sufficient to
cause people to violate the law. They counter with the charge that lower-class
crime rates may be an artifact of bias in the criminal justice system. A lower-c
lass area seems to have higher crime rates because residents are arrested and pr
osecuted by agents of the justice system who, as a member of the middle class, e
xhibit class bias. Class bias is often coupled with discrimination against minor
ity-group members, who have long suffered at the hand of the justice system.
Even if the higher crime rates recorded in lower-class areas are valid, it is st
ill true that most members of the lower class are not criminal. The discovery of
the chronic offenders indicate that a significant majority of the people living
in lower-class environment are not criminals and that a relatively small propor
tion of the population commit most crime.
It is also questionable whether a distinct lower class culture actually exists.
Several researchers have found that gang members and other delinquent youth seem
s to value middle-class concepts, such as sharing, earning money, respecting the
law, as highly middle class youth. Criminologist contends that lower class yout
h value education as middle class students do. Opinion polls can use as evidence
that a majority of lower class citizens maintains middle class value. National
surveys find that people in the lowest income brackets want tougher drug laws, m
ore police protection and greater control over criminals. These opinions seem si
milar to conventional middle class values rather than representatives of indepen
dent subculture.
Table 02: A brief overview on Social Structure Theory
THEORY MAJOR PREMISE STRENGTHS
Social Disorganization Theory
Shaw and McKay’s Concentric Zone Theory Crime is a product of transnational neig
hborhoods that manifests social disorganization and value conflict. Identifi
es why crime rates are highest in slum areas. Points out the factors that produc
e crime. Suggests programs to help reduce crime.
Social Ecology Theory The conflicts and problems of urban social life and comm
unities, including fear, unemployment, deterioration & siege mentality, influenc
e crime rates. Accounts for urban crime rates and trends.
Strain Theory
General Strain Theory Strain has a variety of sources. Strain causes crime in
the absence of adequate coping mechanisms. Identifies the complexities of s
train in modern society. Expands on anomie theory. Shows the influence of social
events on behavior over the life course.
Anomie Theory People who adopt the goals of society but lack the means to atta
in them seek alternatives, such as crime. Points out competition for succe
ss create conflict and crime. Suggests that social conditions and not personalit
y can account for crime. Can explain middle and upper class crime.
Cultural Deviance Theory
Cohen’s Theory of Delinquent Gangs or Subculture Status frustration of lo
wer class boy, created by their failure to achieve middle class success, causes
them to join gangs. Shows how the conditions of lower class life produce cri
me. Explains violence and destructive acts. Identifies conflict of lower class w
ith middle class.
5. Notable Individuals
Agnew, Robert: Sociologist who proposed the general strain theory to account for
criminal behavior.
Burgess, Ernest: (1886-1966) Helped form the “Chicago School,” collaborated with
Sutherland and Park.
Cloward, Richard: Collaborated with Lloyd Ohlin to form a theory of differential
 opportunity, co-authored Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Ohlin.
Cohen, Albert K.: Criminologist who developed the perspective of delinquent subc
ulture.
Durkheim, Emile: (1858-1917) French sociologist who wrote Suicide (1893).
McKay, Henry D.: Sociologist who collaborated with Shaw on the social disorganiz
ation theory.
Merton, Robert K.: Focused on anomie and strain theory, wrote Social Theory and
Social Structure (1957).
Miller, Walter: Criminologist who focused on gang delinquency as a result of low
er-class values.
Park, Robert Ezra: (1864-1944) Associated with the “Chicago School,” collaborate
d with Sutherland and Burgess.
Shaw, Clifford R.: Sociologist who collaborated with McKay on the social disorga
nization theory.