Use when building the theoretical argument of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript into a field-level contribution. Criminology rewards an explicit mechanism, scope conditions, and observable implications over a bare crime correlation, whether the work tests, extends, or adjudicates a criminological theory. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill crim-theory-building --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Crim Theory Building?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-crim-theory-building)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: crim-theory-building
description: Use when building the theoretical argument of a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript into a field-level contribution. Criminology rewards an explicit mechanism, scope conditions, and observable implications over a bare crime correlation, whether the work tests, extends, or adjudicates a criminological theory. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.
---
# Theory & Argument Building (crim-theory-building)
At *Criminology* a result is not a contribution until it is attached to a **mechanism the field can use
elsewhere.** This skill turns crime findings into theory: explicit causal stories, scope conditions,
and observable implications drawn from (or pushing against) the field's theoretical traditions.
## When to trigger
- The empirics are strong but the "so what / why does crime behave this way" is thin
- A reviewer said the paper is "atheoretical," "ad hoc," or "just a finding"
- You need to state mechanisms, assumptions, and scope conditions explicitly
- You are extending or adjudicating between two criminological theories
## Build the argument
1. **Concept.** Define the key constructs precisely — offending vs. arrest, desistance vs. a lull,
victimization vs. reporting, legitimacy vs. compliance. Distinguish each from its neighbors.
2. **Mechanism.** The causal story: who does what, why, under what incentives, controls, opportunities,
or strains. Make it a *process*, not a regression coefficient.
3. **Observable implications.** What we should see if the mechanism operates — and what we should *not*
see. These become the tests in `crim-research-design` (e.g., a within-individual change in offending
following a turning point; displacement vs. diffusion around a hot spot).
4. **Scope conditions.** Where the argument holds and where it does not — by age, offense type,
developmental stage, place, or institutional context. Portability ≠ universality.
## Engage the theoretical tradition (the Criminology move)
- **Locate** the argument in a recognizable theory (control, social learning, strain/GST, routine
activity/opportunity, life-course/age-graded informal social control, labeling, deterrence,
procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy) — or say plainly how it revises one.
- **Adjudicate** where you can: state what your argument predicts that the leading rival theory does
not, so the test in `crim-research-design` can separate them.
- **Distinguish between- vs. within-person** logics explicitly — many criminology theories live or die
on whether the effect is a stable trait or a within-individual change.
## The "portability" test (Criminology-specific)
Ask: *Could a criminologist working on a different offense, age group, or setting import this
mechanism?* If yes, you have a field-level contribution. If it only works for your exact sample,
tighten it into a general logic or reframe (back to `crim-topic-selection`).
## Anti-patterns
- "Hypothesizing after results are known" (HARKing) — state theory before tests; preregister where possible
- Naming a theory in the intro but never deriving a testable implication from it
- Conflating between-person association with within-person change
- Universal claims with no scope conditions (e.g., "deterrence works") with no offense/context limits
- Burying the mechanism under the regression tables
## Output format
```
【Core claim】one sentence
【Tradition】theory engaged / extended / adjudicated
【Mechanism】the causal/behavioral story
【Observable implications】testable consequences (incl. within-person) → research-design
【Scope conditions】where it holds / fails (age, offense, place, context)
【Portability】who else in criminology can use this argument
【Next】crim-research-design
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — life-course and longitudinal data for testing mechanisms
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Criminology scope and theory-forward expectations
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!