Crim Literature Positioning

---
name: crim-literature-positioning
description: Use when positioning a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to the field's live debates, not a citation pile. Criminology readers expect engagement with the relevant theoretical tradition and the closest prior empirical work across the field's many disciplines. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
---

# Literature Positioning (crim-literature-positioning)

A common reason criminology papers stall is that they read as "another dataset" rather than a move in a
**theoretical debate**. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the paper where a
general criminology audience can see the open question and your move on it.

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the theory"
- Your empirics are solid but the paper doesn't connect to a criminological debate
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers

## How Criminology wants the literature engaged

1. **Engage the debate, not a pile of citations.** Identify the live disagreement or open question —
   e.g., is desistance driven by cognitive change or social bonds? do hot-spot effects displace or
   diffuse? does procedural justice cause compliance? Cite the works that *define* it.
2. **Name the theoretical tradition.** Locate the paper within (or against) a recognizable theory —
   social control, social learning, strain/GST, routine activity, life-course/age-graded informal
   control, labeling, deterrence, procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy.
3. **Two audiences at once.** Satisfy the specialists (you know the frontier) *and* the
   interdisciplinary readership (a developmental psychologist and a criminal-justice scholar both see
   why it matters).
4. **Name the gap precisely.** Not "little is known" — say what is **contested, mismeasured,
   confounded, or untested**, and why resolving it advances theory.
5. **Pre-empt the obvious objection.** Reviewers are expert; name the strongest rival mechanism and say
   how your design adjudicates it (hand off to `crim-research-design`).

## Cross-field engagement (a Criminology demand)

| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|-------------------|--------------|
| a developmental/life-course study | the criminal-career and desistance debates, not just psychology |
| a neighborhoods-and-crime study | social disorganization / collective-efficacy theory and spatial work |
| an experiment on policing or courts | deterrence and procedural-justice/legitimacy theory |
| a measurement contribution | the substantive theories that will use the measure |

## Anti-patterns

- A "literature dump" with no organizing theoretical debate
- Engaging only one discipline's literature when the journal is interdisciplinary
- Strawmanning prior theory, or hiding the closest competitor paper
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (the main document is anonymized — see `crim-submission`)
- Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental

## Output format

```
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Tradition】the theory the paper engages or challenges
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-field)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】crim-theory-building
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — data sources mapped to criminological literatures
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Criminology scope and contribution expectations