Research Trajectories of Female Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Abstract

Other than through its ties to scholarship on the sociology of higher education, the topic of female scholar productivity appears to be timely in light of the gender transformation underway in criminology and criminal justice (e.g., the majority of CCJ graduate students are female, and the CCJ professorate will be majority female if admission patterns hold). Toward this end, the present study provides an examination of the employment patterns and publication trajectories of 88 female scholars who graduated between 1996 and 2006 from 18 North American doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice. In addition, the study employs a subset of career concepts (frequency, specialization, seriousness, and co‐offending) to the publication records of a group of 20 graduates we call “academic stars” to more fully explicate trends and issues related to the dissemination of knowledge in leading academic journals. Findings suggest that research productivity varies depending on the measure utilized (e.g., type of outlet; standardized or unstandardized by time‐in‐profession; weighted or unweighted by coauthorship patterns). Different measures of central tendency provide different snapshots of institutional output. Publication frequencies are found to be greater among scholars employed at Carnegie high‐research‐intensity universities. Regarding research type‐mix, the stars tend to be more eclectic than specialized. Future directions for research are also discussed.

Notes

1. For readability, the quotation marks have been removed from “stars” for the remainder of the manuscript.

2. The term “cohort” was used to designate the group of publication stars who graduated within a nine‐year period of one another (1988–1997) in the Cohn et al. (2000) study, not a cohort as defined by a close pattern of mutual experiences (as one would find in tracking PhD graduates from a single department, for example).

3. As follow‐up to Cohn et al. (2000), Rice et al. (2005) focused on the following scholars: David Barlow, Melissa H. Barlow, Katherine Bennett, Robert W. Brame, Steven G. Brandl, James Frank, Patrick Gartin, G. Roger Jarjoura, Victor Kappeler, Patrick Kinkade, Paul Knepper, Mark Lanier, Joan Petersilia, Alex R. Piquero, Katheryn K. Russell‐Brown, Jeffrey Senese, Jonathan R. Sorensen, Claire Souryal‐Shriver, Ruth Triplett, and Michael S. Vaughn.

4. American University, Arizona State University‐Tempe, City University of New York, Florida State University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, Sam Houston State University, Simon Fraser University, Temple University, University at Albany, University of California‐Irvine, University of Cincinnati, University of Delaware, University of Maryland, University of Missouri‐St. Louis, University of Montreal, University of Nebraska‐Omaha.

5. British Journal of Criminology, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Criminal Justice Review, Criminology, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Journal of Crime and Justice, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Social Justice, Women and Criminal Justice (note: ANZJOC and Law & Society Review have also been added to this list).

6. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, British Journal of Criminology, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Criminology, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Law & Society Review.

7. The research university categories have been collapsed in this manner as a rough proxy for the well‐known Carnegie “Research I,” “Research II,” etc., designations that were recently discontinued by the Carnegie Foundation (2007).

8. The data are presented descriptively. Due to the relatively small sample sizes and large standard deviations, small sample t‐tests failed to provide useful results.