In academia, trying to address a problem often starts with a literature review to establish what is already known. In reflecting on the teaching and learning of criminological theory in higher education, a critical narrative literature review of recent scholarship reveals surprising limitations in the existing empirically based scholarship. Despite the length of time in which criminological theory has been a key component of criminology programmes in higher education, there is a very small number of studies on how it is taught. Extensive literature searches identified only seven peer-reviewed articles between 2000 and 2022 about teaching criminological theory in higher education that used empirical studies and were written in English. These articles do suggest approaches to try in the higher education classroom, which will be explored in this article. However, the dearth of scholarship in this area is itself of interest.
Understanding the current state of empirical scholarship on teaching criminological theory is valuable to addressing the goal of a maturing scholarship of learning and teaching in Criminology but is relevant to other Social Sciences too. Lecturers teaching criminological theory can learn from scholarship in related disciplines, although there are discipline-specific factors that need to be considered, which make a discipline-specific scholarship of teaching and learning important. To increase the scholarship of teaching and learning in a discipline it is often necessary to review the current empirical base.
In many parts of the world, higher education institutions are expanding their provision of criminology teaching and seeing commensurate increases in student enrolments to criminology programmes. In the United States, the number of students studying criminal justice and criminology-related courses has grown since the 1960s (Cunningham Stringer and Murphy 2020). Darren Palmer describes the growth in tertiary courses in Australia as ‘seismic’ (2020a: 1). Criminology is also a popular subject in higher education in the UK, with 164 institutions offering a total of 1,184 undergraduate criminology-related courses and 237 courses available at postgraduate level (UCAS 2021). As far back as 2011, Mary Bosworth and Carolyn Hoyle said, ‘criminology is booming’ (p. 1), and the trend continues, especially, Palmer (2020b) suggests, in English-speaking countries. It is therefore timely to consider existing scholarship about effective teaching of the theoretical perspectives that form part of these programmes.
In the UK, criminology is an interdisciplinary social science subject, often taught by staff from a range of faculties and departments, typically including law, sociology, psychology and social work. Increasingly, as the UK police force and prison service seek to professionalise, students are attracted to criminology degrees in order to meet entry requirements for these occupations (Nixon 2020). Other students are attracted to study criminology by media docudramas and crime dramas on television (Anderson et al. 2009) or because of their past experiences, existing interests, or desire to help others (Trebilcock and Griffiths 2022). Whatever their reason for choosing a criminology course, students will find criminology, as with other social sciences, is a theoretical discipline and that they are expected to critically engage with theory (Treadwell 2006). However, criminological theory is often approached by students with trepidation (Hinds-Aldrich 2012) or taught by relatively inexperienced lecturers (Lamphere et al. 2015). The centrality of criminological theory to criminology-related programmes makes it important to understand what enhances student learning in this area. Appropriate pedagogical approaches can assist lecturers in criminology and related disciplines and lead to improved outcomes for students. Reviewing the existing literature of empirical research on the teaching and learning of criminological theory potentially provides an opportunity to garner new ideas that could enhance pedagogical practice.
This article aims to address the need for a literature review which analyses existing empirical scholarship on enhancing student learning of criminological theory. It begins by demonstrating the need for a synthesis of research on teaching criminological theory by highlighting the current challenges. After describing the methodology used for this literature review, the key findings are presented in order to address the research questions stated earlier. Taking a thematic approach, striking similarities emerge which show a trend for using popular culture to engage students in criminological theory. There are, however, some concerns about the limitations of the available scholarship which will be discussed in the latter part of this article. The article contextualises the lack of breadth in recent scholarship in this area and concludes that while criminology lecturers can learn from how other social science disciplines teach theory, more empirical research specific to the teaching and learning of criminological theory is needed.
Background
Raymond Paternoster and Ronet Bachman (2001) suggest that criminological theory is one of the most difficult topics to teach on criminology, criminal justice and sociology programmes. They suggest the problem arises not from a lack of subject matter but from students’ perception of the topic: ‘criminological theory is problematic primarily because to many students it is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant things are difficult to focus on’ (Paternoster and Bachman 2001). They go on to explain why criminological theory is relevant to the real world, but not to address the harder question of how to convince students of this relevance. Other authors similarly claim that the challenges of teaching criminological theory originate in students’ perceptions of criminological theory. Nicole Rafter and Michelle Brown (2011) argue students find theory dry and difficult to relate to practice. Sherri DioGuardi (2017) say students have preconceived ideas about why people commit crime and what should be done about it, which serve as barriers to their willingness to learn about criminological theory.
The challenge of teaching and learning criminological theory is also associated with the theories themselves, and magnified by the interdisciplinary nature of the subject. Criminology is, according to Keith Hayward and Wayne Morrison, ‘a vast, sprawling subject that straddles more than two centuries of intellectual thought and a range of academic disciplines’ (2013: 65). Similarly, Angela West (2005) regards teaching criminological theory as challenging because it originates in more generalised theories of behaviour from across a range of disciplines, all of which the lecturer needs to have cognisance of. Furthermore, criminological theory is by its nature abstract, and as such, DioGuardi (2017) says students find it hard to understand theoretical concepts and to grasp the complex relationships between them. They need assistance to do this in order to integrate criminological theory with their experiences of the real world (West 2005). Abstract thinking is often intimidating (West 2005) and Hinds-Aldrich (2012) suggests that students approach studying criminological theory with ‘theory-anxiety’ which may be matched by the lecturer's own anxiety.
Further challenges arise from the way in which criminological theory is approached in textbooks and by lecturers. Matthew Scheider (2002) identifies that the way criminological theory is presented in textbooks varies; there are different taxonomies which are not always clearly articulated. West argues the attempts of some lecturers to neatly categorise theory for their students are too concerned to ‘place theories neatly into cubbyholes based on some sort of common theoretical underpinning’ (2005: 341). Classification is difficult and contested and clear distinctions are not always possible, making such approaches to pedagogy futile (Scheider 2002; West 2005). West (2005) reports that students often experience problems distinguishing between theories. DioGuardi (2017) suggests that lecturers’ attempts to quantify theory have led to it losing its essence and consequently not being seen by students as exciting. Jon Frauley (2010) sees the difficulties as resulting from a ‘history of ideas’ model dominating pedagogical understandings of criminological theory. He blames the ontological assumptions inherent in this approach for limiting students’ understanding of the practice of crafting theory, which they would arguably find more interesting. James Quinn and colleagues (1992) also recognise the historical development of ideas as one of the approaches taken to teaching criminological theory. Furthermore, they criticise approaches dependant on discussing scholarly research, which they argue make it harder for students to focus on criminological theory while trying to graps issues of validity which they may not have the methodological awareness to sufficiently understand.
These issues are not unique to criminology and are also experienced by other social sciences. For example, when teaching political theory, Weidenfeld and Fernandez (2017) acknowledge the difficulties of getting students to engage with abstract ideas. In economics, Brian O'Roark and William Grant (2018) regard students as finding game theory overwhelmingly complex. Similarly, Michael Burawoy (2013) is as critical of some textbook approaches to sociological theory as Scheider (2002) and West (2005) are of how textbooks handle criminological theory. Kathleen Lowney also writes about student anxiety when facing courses teaching sociological theory, urging us not to ‘reify this concept of theory anxiety’ (1998: 69) but suggesting most lecturers recognise that students experience some trepidation when studying theory. Jennifer Elkins and colleagues (2015) discuss the difficulties of making the connection between theory and practice. Janice McCabe (2013) emphasises the need to help students understand the relevance of theory to their own values and beliefs and with regard to social work training. These similarities in the difficulties faced in teaching theory across the social sciences suggest there might be opportunities to adopt pedagogical strategies from other related disciplines.
Methodology
In relation to criminology, some authors (see DioGuardi 2017; West 2005), having established why the teaching and learning of criminological theory is so challenging, then set out proposals to remedy the situation, often drawing on their own experiences of lecturing. There is, however, no known integrative or interpretive literature review synthesising existing empirical research about what enhances student learning on courses teaching criminological theory. This is the gap this narrative review of the literature seeks to address. In doing this, it pays particular attention to three questions:
What is known about realistic learning outcomes for such courses?
How are learning outcomes assessed?
How are students engaged in the subject matter?
Relevant existing scholarly literature was identified using keyword searches based on the research questions. To overcome the limitations of credible individual databases (Gaspayan et al. 2011) four were used (ERIC, JSTOR, Scopus and Web of Science). Scopus was included for of its wider coverage (Gasparyan et al. 2011). Boolean database searches included truncations and keywords such as ‘criminology’, ‘theory’, ‘pedagogy’, ‘teaching’, ‘learning outcomes’ and ‘assessment’. To limit selection bias, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established in advance (Nightingale 2009). Filters limited results to published peer-reviewed articles written in English and focused initially on articles published between 2010 and 2020. Hand searches were conducted to increase the sample size, based on the references cited in the retrieved articles. A paucity of initial articles led to the time frame twice being increased in five-year steps, so that the final review considered articles published between 2000 and 2020, with a further article published in 2022 subsequently added to the sample.
The searches retrieved 1,315 articles, including many duplicates, and articles not related to criminological theory or higher education. These were excluded, based on the article title and the relevance of keywords in the abstracts, leaving 35 articles for further attention. The abstracts of these were carefully considered, and where their relevance was uncertain, the articles were read in full. Articles which were not based on empirical evidence were manually excluded from the review. The remaining seven articles met the criteria for inclusion in the study in that they were empirical, peer-reviewed articles, about teaching criminological theory in higher education, published between 2000 and 2022 and written in English. Table 1 provides an overview of these articles.
Summary of articles reviewed
| Author | Date | Title | Empirical basis | Relevance to teaching criminological theory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atherton | 2013 | Teaching through film: Utilizing popular criminology in the classroom | Experience of teaching on undergraduate course ‘Crime, Films and Society’ at California State University, San Marcos, USA; data includes results of student questionnaire | Uses films portraying crime to provide students with an understanding of criminological theory |
| Burruss | 2009 | Mapping Criminological Theory | Experience of using concept maps to teach criminological theory on a university-level juvenile justice course, with examples of student work | Uses concept maps as a teaching and evaluation tool when teaching criminological theory |
| Hinds-Aldrich | 2012 | Teaching theory analogically: using music to explain criminological theory | Experience of including a targeted lecture in team-taught undergraduate criminological theory course in UK. Evaluation based on observation and student comments | Describes taking a pedagogical approach that uses an understanding of music genres as an analogy for criminological theories to address the question ‘what is theory?’ and explain the development of various theories and how to identify theory |
| Irish et al. | 2022 | Targaryen thought experiments: do science fiction and fantasy examples aid or obfuscate student learning? | Two experiments, teaching international relations and criminological theory, with students assigned to groups using either science ficton/fantasy films or documentary film. Evaluation for criminological theory based on surveys and interviews with students | Uses film versus documentary as basis for a discussion, starting with what theories students coud identify in the film |
| Lamphere et al. | 2015 | Topping the classroom charts: Teaching criminological theory using popular music | Experience of teaching on an introduction to criminological theory course, a required course in a mid-sized SE US University | Uses popular music to teach criminological theory to undergraduate students |
| Lenning | 2012 | Discovering the theorist in Tupac: how to engage your students with popular music | Experience of teaching criminological theory as part of a media and crime course. Data includes student feedback | Describes using creative approaches (especially linked to popular music) to make theory-driven disciplines more exciting for students and to help students identify theory |
| Rothe & Collins | 2013 | Teaching criminological theory: the power of film and music | Experience of teaching criminological theory to criminal justice majors and minors typically at junior/senior level. Data includes student feedback on class material and learning achieved | Describes using film combined with music to enhance students’ understanding of basic criminological theory and as a tool for exams |
Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes in the selected articles and to assist in synthesising their contents. Thematic analysis offers a useful approach to qualitative research (Braun and Clarke 2006). By identifying codes from the data, the researcher can connect the data to the research focus (Bryman 2015). Indexing in this way allows the researcher to define what the data, in this case the retrieved articles, is about (Gibbs 2007). Each of the articles was read several times. A broad approach to coding was taken, and since thematic analysis can be time-consuming, NVivo 20 was used to assist the association of extracts from the selected articles with the emerging themes. As David Silverman (2010) states, using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software in this way can assist with the speed and accuracy of coding. Eight potential themes were identified, two of which reflected the particular areas of interest for this literature review: learning outcomes and assessment. The third area of initial interest, student engagement, was found to be related to a broader theme which encompassed other descriptions of delivering teaching. These themes are discussed more fully next.
Findings
All the articles reviewed provide suggestions for how to teach criminological theory, with four of them specifically addressing student engagement. Similarly, all the articles discuss realistic learning outcomes, which is the second theme discussed in this article, although this is only a minor concern of some of the articles (see Irish et al. 2022). Less attention is paid by these articles to the question of how learning outcomes are assessed, with only four of the articles explicitly considering this aspect of teaching criminological theory.
How to teach criminological theory
It is very striking that six of the articles (Atherton 2013; Hinds-Aldrich 2012; Irish et al. 2022; Lamphere et al. 2015; Lenning 2012; Rothe and Collins 2013) use popular culture (either film or music or both) as a medium or a metaphor to teach criminological theory. These articles collectively posit this as a way of both encouraging student engagement and enabling students to make connections between criminological theory and contemporary society, at least as it is portrayed in popular culture. The remaining article, by George Buruss (2009), uses constructivist pedagogical philosophy to suggest higher-level learning can be supported by encouraging students to engage in creative activities, in this case concept maps. Creative outputs and creative expression, whether produced by the student or not, are therefore seen as key to enhancing student learning of criminological theory.
Matthew Atherton (2013), Dawn Rothe and Victoria Collins (2013) and Adam Irish and colleagues (2022) discuss film as a teaching tool, with Rothe and Collins combining films with music, and Irish and colleagues (2022) comparing film and documentary. Atherton argues that ‘implemented in a thoughtful way, films influence student learning by reinforcing themes found in course readings, connecting theoretical issues within the films to issues in society’ (2013: 77). Choosing contemporary films from a range of genres, he aims to encourage students to apply their knowledge of criminological theory to the ideas presented by the film. Irish and colleagues (2022) discuss using science fiction and fantasy (the 1997 film, Gattaca) in teaching a criminological theory course, setting up control groups to help assess the effectiveness of teaching using popular culture as opposed to documentaries. Rothe and Collins (2013) argue using popular culture can enhance the ability of students to understand criminological theory and relate it to their everyday lives. For them, film can additionally assist students who are visual learners and can enhance information provided in other formats. The approach of Rothe and Collins (2013), as with Atherton (2013) and Irish et al. (2022) is to use film as a tool for teaching other content, rather than, for example, Kadleck and Holsinger (2018), where the film is the primary content of the criminology course. Teaching using film did, however, require the students to be provided with guidance on how to view films as criminologists, something Atherton (2013) built into early learning activities on the course.
Four articles, including Rothe and Collins (2013), discuss using music as a teaching tool. Lamphere and colleagues (2015) recommend linking lyrics to theoretical concepts, either by asking students to interpret lyrics provided by the instructor or by asking students to identify songs that relate to particular theories. The emphasis, they say, should be on popular music since that is more likely to be familiar to students than classical music. Lenning (2012) also suggests music can be used to demonstrate that criminological theory is present in students’ everyday lives and to illustrate how the assumptions of criminological theory are reflected in popular culture. Rothe and Collins (2013) find students were able to make links between lyrics and theory, including identifying how one song could apply to several different criminological theories. This, they argue, enabled students to see how one form of behaviour could be explained by several different theories. As with film, students may need some support to use music in their learning. Lamphere and colleagues (2015) suggest the music should be directly intergrated into the lecture or classroom discussion, perhaps with lyrics provided on slides, to indicate the material is intended for educational purposes and not as entertainment.
Rather than using individual songs to illustrate particular criminological theories, Hinds-Aldrich (2012) reports on using music genres analogically to foster an understanding of the nature of criminological theory. The focus is on helping students understand the question ‘what is theory’ through one lecture, delivered as part of a two-semester, team-taught module on criminological theory. Presuming that students are more familiar with music genres than criminological theory, he draws comparisons to help students better understand the ontology of criminological theory. The intention is that students will gain confidence in understanding theory by exploring how music genres develop and change, relate to particular politics or can be identified through contextual clues, all of which he sees as analogous to criminological theory. Hinds-Aldrich (2012) suggests 10 ways in which this analogy can be beneficial, including discouraging students to think normatively about theories as neatly bundled, or as having developed in a coherent linear progression, and encouraging them to think about how theories might be received.
For most of the authors using popular culture to teach criminological theory, their approach is advocated in order to enhance student engagement and improve the credibility of teaching in ways that catch the attention of students. Lenning (2012) says her students regard her lectures as more valid when they can see similarities with Tupac's words. Hinds-Aldrich (2012) argues audio and visual media can lead to students engaging with criminological theory more deeply. Rothe and Collins (2013) argue their approach responds to the needs of the ‘net generation’. Approaches using popular culture as a teaching tool are also regarded by these authors as retaining students’ attention by offering fun and novelty.
One recurring theme is that student engagement is improved if students are required to actively participate. In most of the articles, there is an emphasis on active learning. Lenning encourages student engagement using what she calls her ‘MUY’ method ‘I demonstrate the task first (Me), then we do it as a group (Us) and, finally, I require them to do it on their own (You)’ (2012: 259). Formative assessments also provide an opportunity for active learning, with Atherton (2013) requiring students to submit weekly formative assessments to answer questions related to the pre-class reading, using effort-based marking to avoid penalising students new to the theory being explored via that week's film. Atherton also expected a weekly reaction paper from students, applying theory to the film they had watched. In another example of improving student engagement by expecting active participation, Buruss (2009) describes teaching students to use concept maps. The students then produced concept maps of given theories, with an opportunity to discuss these with the instructor in order to improve their marks. From a constructivist perspective on learning, Buruss argues that actively creating a concept map helps students grasp the abstract concepts of criminological theory.
Considerable detail is provided on how to deliver learning material. In addition to Lenning's (2012) ‘MUY method’, several authors suggest specific films or songs that can be linked to criminological theory. Irish et al. (2022) emphasise the lecturer's role in preparing and debriefing students, ensuring they understand why they are being asked to watch a film as part of their studies. Irish et al. (2022) also suggest lecturers need to gauge the familiarity of students with the fictional world examples to be used, and having asked them to identify criminological theory from the chosen film or documentary, ensure that they have made the expected connections in discussion afterwards. Buruss (2009) provides a tailored plan of how to use concept maps, together with a summary of some free concept mapping software, CMAP Tools.
While proposing new ways of teaching criminological theory, however, the authors also rely to a considerable extent on existing teaching methodologies. Atherton (2013), Buruss (2009), Lenning (2012) and Rothe and Collins (2013) all emphasise the importance of introductory lectures outlining the assumptions and implications of the individual theories being taught. For Lenning (2012) lectures are an important activity because they meet a preferred learning style for some students. Similarly, pre-reading is seen as a core part of learning and is specified in the approaches taken by Lenning (2012) and Atherton (2013). Rothe and Collins (2013) and Irish et al. (2022) provide lecture notes of the theories illustrated by the documentary and film in their class.
Realistic learning outcomes
All authors describe courses that seek to improve students’ understanding of criminological theory. Several of the articles describe pedagogical approaches intended to link theory with real-world examples (Atherton 2013; Lenning 2012; Rothe and Collins 2013; Lamphere et al. 2015). Some authors also felt it was important that students developed an understanding of criminological theory as dynamic (Hinds-Aldrich 2012; Atherton 2013) and complex (Buruss 2009; Rothe and Collins 2013). Critical thinking is also an important skill sought amongst the learning outcomes, especially in terms of thinking about criminological issues beyond theory (Atherton 2013). Other theory-specific skills these courses sought to develop included the ability to see the philosophical underpinnings of theory (Hinds-Aldrich 2012) and to deconstruct assumptions about crime and social behaviour (Lenning 2012). More generally, courses sought to develop students’ ability to synthesise material (Lenning 2012), to produce concept maps (Buruss 2009), and to critically evaluate film (Atherton 2013). Many of the approaches discussed aimed to move students away from rote learning and towards higher-level understanding, with Irish et al. (2022) expressing the hope that a new learning experience would motivate further self-study. More prosaically, Lenning (2012) also reports that students said their recollection of primary assumptions underpinning theory was facilitated by using music as a teaching tool.
Assessing learning outcomes
Not all the articles discussed assessment. Where forms of assessment were described, they related to the learning outcomes described earlier. For those courses using popular culture to teach criminological theory, the assessments took various forms. Lamphere et al. (2015) report setting an extra credit assessment asking students to apply criminological theory to a song in the US Billboard charts. Rothe and Collins (2013) used film and music as part of assessments, arguing that students can use non-traditional assessment methods to show their understanding of course material. They required students to write six assignments in addition to two exams. The mid-term exam provided students with a film, shown over the course of two classes, and required them to identify and describe aspects that reflected core concepts of their chosen criminological theory. The final term exam asked them to do something similar for music by choosing any genre of music and demonstrating how it related to the core concepts of 12 different criminological theories. Similarly, Atherton (2013) expected students to demonstrate the connections between criminological theory and film in assessed papers, restricting students to only submitting assignments on films they had viewed in class as a means of encouraging attendance. Interestingly, Rothe and Collins (2013) provide a rubric for grades, suggesting how students’ performances in mid-term and final exams using music and film might be assessed, and what should be demonstrated in order to achieve a high grade.
Buruss (2009) provides students with concepts related to social bonding theory that they were required to use on a concept map, alongside relevant examples. These were then compared with the ‘expert map’ (2009: 7) and students, following discussion with the instructor, had the opportunity to redraw the map to potentially improve their grade. Buruss recognises the difficulty of identifying a suitable ‘expert map’. The instructor may be regarded as the expert, but there is no definitive concept map for the criminological theory being taught. He acknowledges too that there are limited studies on the validity of concept maps as a tool for assessment.
Discussion
Paternoster and Bachman (2001) suggest students disengage from studying criminological theory because they find it irrelevant. It is therefore interesting that a number of the selected articles focus on connecting criminological theory to real-world examples as both a desired learning outcome and a method for improving student engagement. Lenning (2012), Atherton (2013) and Lamphere et al. (2015) all argue popular culture provides a meaningful connection between theoretical ideas and real-world applications. This emphasis on persuading students of the relevance of criminological theory is not new; Quinn and colleagues (1992) advocated the use of case studies to illustrate theory and its applicability to the real world two decades previously. Linking criminological theory to the real world is part of making its relevance clear to students.
Many of the approaches described by the retrieved articles are supported by other scholarship. In particular, active learning in which students have to do something, rather than passively receive a traditional lecture, is widely acknowledged as highly effective (Bonwell and Eison 1991). Barbara Rockell (2009) suggests a range of ways in which active learning approaches have been successfully deployed in the closely related field of criminal justice pedagogy. Matthew Robinson (2000) suggests 25 approaches using active learning in the criminal justice classroom, arguing these enhance knowledge retention and make learning more fun. The approaches described in the articles retrieved advocate for active learning approaches, and this may be the key, other scholarship suggests, to enhancing student learning of criminological theory. Active learning is an important unifier between the articles and arguably more enduring than pop culture. Mechanisms such as Buruss's (2009) concept maps and Lenning's (2012) ‘MUY’ method serve to both check students’ knowledge and facilitate active learning.
Similarly, where assessments are discussed, the retrieved articles demonstrate approaches characteristic of constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang 2011) in which the desired learning outcomes are clearly identified and teaching and learning activities are designed to help students achieve these outcomes, with assessments measuring whether this has been the case (see Burruss 2009; Rothe and Collins 2013; Atherton 2013; Lamphere et al. 2015). If the use of popular culture is effective in teaching criminological theory, it may again be because the approach being taken is grounded in sound, well-researched pedagogical practice, rather than because of the use of popular culture per se.
While reflecting recognised good practice, the articles do not address some of the criticisms of the pedadogical approaches they suggest that were present in scholarship at the time. Five of the articles emphasise the importance of lectures alongside some element of active learning, but there is no engagement with literature that critiques the traditional use of lectures in teaching (for example, Bonwell 1996; Chickering and Gamson 1987) or which suggests pre-requisites in the approach taken to lecturing in order for students to learn effectively (deWinstanley and Bjork 2002). Subsequent studies, such as William Cerbin and colleagues (2018) further cast doubt on the effectiveness of traditional lectures in which students are passive recipients of presentations. Rothe and Collins (2013) and Lenning (2012), who justify their approaches as ones that will address varying learning styles, similarly do not engage with scholarship that disputes the existence of such styles (for example Reynolds 1997; Rohrer and Pashler 2012).
There are also problems with the use of popular culture described in the retrieved articles, which makes it unwise to change pedagogical practice in the teaching of criminological theory based on these articles alone. Rothe and Collins (2013), Lenning (2012) and Lamphere et al. (2015) all assume a homogenous student group, especially when it comes to tastes in popular culture, and do not explore the potential impact on student learning of exposure to forms of popular culture that may be gendered or exclusionary. The choices of genres or specific cultural products can serve to alienate or exclude some students. Lamphere et al. (2015) themselves recognise that music can ‘date’ and the connection with theory can quickly seem less relevant. Hinds-Aldrich (2012) and Irish et al. (2022) recognise that teaching using popular culture may alienate some students and confuse others, with personal music or film preferences affecting engagement. Irish et al. caution that using science ficton and fantasy films in teaching may create a barrier to learning and advise extensive student preparation and debriefing: ‘in that space between fiction and reality lurks the potential for misunderstanding and misapplication’ (2002: 3). Their reflexivity is welcomed. Music and film preferences can be culturally specific, carrying different meanings in different cultural contexts. Particular songs may be overladen with memories or meaning for individual students that impede their usefulness as intended by the lecturer. Actors and artists can become unpopular or be subject to controversies that may spill over into the classroom. Furthermore, as Irish et al. (2022) identify, using fictional world examples creates two ‘gaps’: one between the example and the concept, and another between the fictional and real worlds. Fictional worlds, in whatever medium, risk misrepresenting real-world criminal processes.
Irish and colleagues’ (2022) contribution mirrors scholarship in other academic disciplines in higher education where popular culture has been mobilised as a teaching tool, but where some of the difficulties have been highlighted. Erin Hannah and Rorden Wilkinson (2016), writing about using zombie-related themes in the teaching of International Relations, argue popular culture should be used to enhance critical thinking skills, not just to help students learn about existing theories. They emphasise the importance of considering the theoretical range being addressed via popular culture, and whether the chosen popular culture privileges certain cultures over others. Hannah and Wilkinson caution against over-extending popular culture metaphors ‘in our rush to excite students, we need to make sure we do not restrict our capacity to lead them into real world terrain that needs our urgent attention.’ (2016: 14). Similarly, Tigist Shewarega Hussen and Sisa Ngabaza (2018) write about the difficulties as lecturers of getting students to focus on the aspects of popular culture they wish to forefround in their attempt to use hip-hop in feminist pedagogy.
There are also some problems with the empirical basis of some of the retrieved articles. More information is needed about the educational contexts of the courses they describe. There is frequently a lack of clarity about the level of students enrolled on the course, or the duration of the course, and only Hinds-Aldrich (2012) and Lamphere et al. (2015) specify in which countries the approaches were tried. Without further background information, it is hard to judge the applicability of the approaches to other settings. Some of the approaches seem unrealistic for contexts where the size of cohorts and staff:student ratios make the one-to-one teaching suggested by Buruss (2009) unfeasible, or where the number of assessments set by Rothe and Collins (2013) would be unacceptable to students.
Furthermore, despite the retrieved articles having an empirical approach, few of the pedagogical approaches suggested are fully evaluated by the articles’ authors. To an extent, this is unavoidable, especialy in higher education cultures, such as in the UK, where student tests cannot be arbitarily introduced but must be approved by committees as relevant to the stated module aims and learning outcomes (Hinds-Aldrich 2012). Perhaps as a result, many of the authors (Buruss 2009; Hinds-Aldrich 2012; Lamphere et al. 2015; Lenning 2012) rely to some extent on their own experiences as instructors to evaluate the effectiveness of the pedagogical approach taken. Lenning (2012) reports positive student feedback about the experience of using music lyrics to understand criminological theory. Buruss (2009) provides examples of students’ work, but acknowledges more rigour is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching criminological theory using concept maps, and that in the future students should be asked about their experiences of learning in this way. Rothe and Collins (2013) compare course grades with previous cohorts where film and music had not been incorporated into learning materials, although they recognise that variations between cohorts limit the usefulness of this measure.
Where evaluation of the approaches taken is attempted, it often relies on student feedback from relatively small samples. Atherton (2013) uses a one-off questionnaire with open-ended questions, completed by 21 undergraduates, and suggests a larger sample is needed in order to develop a better understanding of how students experience learning using films. Rothe and Collins (2013) do something similar, using a university-wide, anonymous and voluntary evaluation system to elicit feedback from 31 students. Irish et al. (2022) have 11 interviews and 9 surveys from a group of 40 students asked to respond (the size of the initial cohort is not stated). These surveys offer insightful qualitative data about the students’ experiences, but not their academic performance. Without more rigorous evaluation, it is difficult to know whether the enthusiasm of instructors for the pedagogical tools they used is matched by students’ learning. This provides a further reason for hesitancy in implementing the changes to teaching criminological theory described in the articles.
It is striking, given the limited number of empirically based articles on teaching and learning in criminological theory, that six of the articles retrieved relate to using popular culture as a pedagogical tool. These articles seem to reflect a pedagogical fashion of the 2010s, which was not limited to criminology (see also Elkins et al. 2015; O'Roark and Grant 2018). Within criminology, film in this period was used as a tool for teaching topics and issues, as well as criminological theory (Atherton 2013). The particular influence of Rafter and Brown's 2011 publication, Criminology goes to the Movies, on lecturers in criminology is acknowledged in some of the articles retreived (see Atherton 2013). Rafter and Brown (2011) explored the ways in which popular culture and academic criminology were connected and examined how certain films could illustrate specific criminological theory. They concluded: ‘when criminology goes to the movies, the theories students love to hate become more accessible, and we hope, more meaningful to them’ (Rafter and Brown 2011: 186). However, James Anderson and colleagues (2009) argue this interest in using films in particular may be in response to students being attracted to study criminology because of the unrealistic portrayal of criminal justice careers in Hollywood. Using film in teaching criminology, they argue, connects students to one of their motivations for studying the subject.
Having reviewed the empirically based literature, there remains the concern that so little scholarship of the teaching of criminological theory exists, and that it is so narrow in its focus. One potential explanation for this is provided by Palmer (2020b). In a study intended to establish whether generic peer-reviewed journals in criminology publish articles on the scholarship of teaching and learning, he found that between 2014 and 2018, the leading discipline journals for criminology in Australia, the UK and Canada each published only one article on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Moreover, he argues that the research excellence frameworks developed internationally in recent years mitigate against criminologists publishing in education journals. Evidence-based learning and teaching developments are, Palmer argues, relatively new in higher education since it is only recently that promotion has been linked to teaching performance.
Given the limited number of articles on teaching criminology, the shortage of literature on teaching criminological theory becomes less surprising and the gaps in coverage of what scholarship is available more understandable. With regard to the retrieved articles, the overlaps they contain present opportunities for a more considered development of teaching criminological theory using popular culture, but their similarities result in only a narrow range of proposals. No empirical studies considering the content of criminological theory courses, challenging the canon or existing curricula, seem to exist. Nightingale (2009) suggests that to avoid bias, reviewers should be unaware at the start of the review how much literature is available, but to a new lecturer looking for ideas for how to enhance student learning of criminological theory, the limited nature of these findings is disappointing. Palmer (2020b) offers an explanation for this situation but little hope for improvement.
One possible approach for the lecturer in criminology keen to enhance student learning on criminological theory courses would be to consider scholarship around the teaching and learning of theory in other social sciences disciplines. For example, Lamphere et al. (2015) list many examples of the use of non-traditional teaching methods in sociology to convey key concepts. Teachers of sociological theory in particular face some of the same challenges as those of criminological theory in terms of the complexity of ideas, student anxiety and student engagement (Ahlkvist 2001; Conner and Baxter 2022; Lowney 1998; Pelton 2013). A synthesis of research on the teaching of sociological theory may offer insights to enhance the teaching of criminological theory.
There are, however, differences between disciplines that may limit the utility of empirical research on teaching theory in other social sciences. The unique position of crime in popular culture and media representations means students approach the discipline with preconceived ideas about the causes of crime. They have imbued explanations for criminal behaviour from a range of creative outputs (crime dramas, film, music and fiction) as well as the news media, before they are introduced to criminological theory in their degree programme. Criminology and criminal justice students are also increasingly attracted to studying criminology by the prospect of a future career in the criminal justice system, as discussed earlier. Consequently they are perhaps more likely to approach course content with an eye to its relevance and utility to their future work, and have a heightened tendency to dismiss theory as ‘irrelevant’.
Moreover, if we accept the concept of ‘signature pedagogies’ (Gurung et al. 2009), we need to recognise that there are discipline-specific epistemologies that mean what it is to learn in the criminology classroom is different to other disciplines, even other social sciences. Ruth Neumann (2001) also argues that there are disciplinary differences in teaching, and that teaching in higher education is not generic but connected to a disciplinary community. As a result, the pedagogical approaches needed may differ between academic disciplines. The teaching of criminological theory needs to reflect the character of criminology and socialisation into the discipline of criminology.
Instead of relying on other social science disciplines, therefore, the ideal must be for more, high quality, contemporary, empirical research on the effectiveness of a range of pedagogical approaches being trialled and implemented in the teaching of criminological theory in higher education. This objective is not without its challenges. Although interest in the scholarship of teaching and learning seems to be increasing, as Palmer (2020b) points out, discipline-based journals are often reluctant to publish on the scholarship of teaching and learning, and research excellence frameworks disincentivise research-active lecturers from prioritising discipline-based scholarship.
Conclusion
Reviewing the literature makes it possible to synthesise suggestions for enhancing student learning on courses teaching criminological theory. However, the retrieved articles primarily relate to the use of popular culture to engage students and help them make connections between theory and the real world. Omissions and weaknesses in the scholarship of these articles raise doubts about the applicability of the suggested pedagogical approaches to other settings. Richard Torraco (2016) suggests that when a topic is new or still emerging, a synthesis of the literature can be beneficial but is likely to be only an initial or preliminary stage. Despite the length of time in which teaching criminological theory has been significant, it appears best to characterise the scholarship of teaching and learning of criminological theory as still emerging.
Given this lack of scholarly literature on the teaching of criminological theory, and the narrow scope of what literature does exist, there is ample opportunity for further empirical research on what pedagogical approaches enhance student learning on courses teaching criminological theory. Future work should reflect the ‘signature pedagogies’ that arise from the discipline-specific epistemologies of criminology. It needs to address the specific challenges associated with learning and teaching criminological theory and draw on empirical studies and pedagogical approaches that have been rigorously evaluated in criminology and criminology-related programmes. This research needs to sit alongside developing critiques of the content of criminological theory courses and broader progress in the scholarship of teaching and learning in criminology.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to colleagues in the University of York's Academic Practice team for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.
References
Ahlkvist, J. A. (2001), ‘Sound and vision: Using progressive rock to teach social theory’, Teaching Sociology 29, no. 4: 471–482. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318948.
Anderson, J. F., N. J. Mangels and A. H. Langsam (2009), ‘The challenges of teaching criminological theory: Can academia deliver what the media promises?’, Criminal Justice Studies 22, no. 2: 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010902975523.
Atherton, M. C. (2013), ‘Teaching through film: Utilizing popular criminology in the classroom’, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 24, no. 2: 77–99. https://celt.miamioh.edu/ojs/index.php/JECT/article/view/503.
Biggs, J. and C. Tang (2011), Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education).
Bonwell C. C. (1996), ‘Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 67: 31–44.
Bonwell, C. C. and J. A. Eison (1991), Active learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom (Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports).
Bosworth, M. and C. Hoyle (2011), What is Criminology? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Braun, V. and V. Clarke (2006), ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bryman, A. (2015), Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Burawoy, M. (2013), ‘Living theory’, Contemporary Sociology 42, no. 6: 779–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306113506852.
Buruss, G. W. (2009), ‘Mapping criminological theory’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 20, no. 1: 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802477853.
Cerbin, W., R. A. Gurung and R. E. Landrum (2018), ‘Improving student learning from lectures’, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology 4, no. 3: 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000113.
Chickering, A. W. and Z. F. Gamson (1987), ‘Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education’, AAHE Bulletin 3, no. 7: 2–6.
Conner, C.T. and N. M. Baxter (2022), ‘Are you a werewolf? Teaching symbolic interaction theory through game play’, Teaching Sociology 50, no. 1: 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X211053375.
Cunningham Stringer, E. and J. Murphy (2020),’Major decisions and career attractiveness among criminal justice students’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 31, no. 4: 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1814829.
deWinstanley, P. A. and R.A. Bjork (2002), ‘Successful lecturing: presenting information in ways that engage effective processing’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 89: 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.44.
DioGuardi, S. (2017), ‘Teaching criminological theory: Using a Piaget platform to support higher level learning’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 28, no. 3: 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2017.132488.
Elkins, J., S. Miller, H. Briggs and S. Skinner (2015), ‘Teaching with Tupac: Building a solid grounding in theory across the social work education continuum’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35, no. 5: 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2015.1085484.
Frauley, J. (2010), ‘The fictional reality and criminology: an ontology of theory and exemplary pedagogical practice’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 21, no. 3: 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2010.12035859.
Gasparyan, A. Y., L. Ayvazyan, H. Blackmore and G. Kitas (2011), ‘Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors’, Rheumatology international 31, no. 11: 1409–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3.
Gibbs, G. (2007), Analysing Qualitative Data (London: Sage Publications).
Gurung, R. A. R., N. L. Chick and A. Haynie (2009), ‘From generic to signature pedagogies’, in R. A. R. Gurung, N. L. Chick, and A. Haynie (eds), Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind (Sterling, VA: Stylus), 1–18.
Hannah, E. and R. Wilkinson (2016), ‘Zombies and IR: A critical reading’, Politics 36, no. 1: 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12077.
Hayward, K. and W. Morrison (2013), ‘Theoretical criminology: A starting point’, in C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin and W. Wincop (eds), Criminology, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 65–97.
Hinds-Aldrich, M. (2012), ‘Teaching theory analogically: Using music to explain criminological theory’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 23, no. 4: 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.665934.
Hussen, T. S. and S. Ngabaza (2018), ‘“We don't really see a problem in music because that s**t makes you want to dance”: Reflections on possibilities and challenges of teaching gender through hip-hop’, Agenda 32, no. 2: 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2018.1445605.
Irish, A., N. Sherman and L. Watts (2022), ‘Targaryen thought experiments: Do science fiction and fantasy examples aid or obfuscate student learning?’, International Studies Perspectives 24, no. 1: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekab016.
Lamphere, R. D., N. M. Shumpert and S. L. Clevenger (2015), ‘Topping the classroom charts: Teaching criminological theory using popular music’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 26, no. 4: 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1064981.
Lenning, E. (2012), ‘Discovering the theorist in Tupac: How to engage your students with popular music’. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24, no. 2: 257–263. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ996271.pdf.
Lowney, K. S. (1998), ‘Reducing “theory anxiety” through puzzles’, Teaching Sociology 26: 69–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318682.
McCabe, J. (2013), ‘Making theory relevant: The gender attitude and belief inventory’, Teaching Sociology 41, no. 3: 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13480153.
Neumann, R. (2001), ‘Disciplinary differences and university teaching’, Studies in Higher Education 26, no. 2: 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071.
Nightingale, A. (2009), ‘A guide to systematic literature reviews’, Surgery 27, no. 9: 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2009.07.005.
Nixon, S. (2020), ‘Using desistance narratives as a pedagogical resource in Criminology teaching’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 31, no. 4: 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1802496.
O'Roark, B. and W. Grant (2018), ‘Games superheroes play: Teaching game theory with comic book favorites’, The Journal of Economic Education 49, no. 2: 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2018.1438861.
Palmer, D. (2020a), ‘The five “troubling” developments in criminology’, in D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 1–17.
Palmer, D. (2020b), ‘Meta review of recent scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology’, in D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 133–140.
Paternoster, R. and R. Bachman (2001), ‘The structure and relevance of theory in criminology’, in R. Paternoster and R. Bachman (eds), Explaining Criminals and Crime (Los Angeles: Roxbury), 1–10.
Pelton, J. A. (2013), ‘“Seeing the theory is believing”: Writing about film to reduce theory anxiety’, Teaching Sociology 41, no. 1: 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12462142.
Quinn, J. F., J. E. Holman and P. M. Tobolowsky (1992), ‘A case study method for teaching theoretical criminology’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 3, no. 1: 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259200082521.
Rafter, N. H. and M. Brown (2011), Criminology Goes to the Movies: Crime Theory and Popular Culture (New York: New York University).
Reynolds, M. (1997), ‘Learning styles: a critique’, Management Learning 28, no. 2: 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507697282002.
Robinson, M. B. (2000), ‘Using active learning in criminal justice: Twenty-five examples’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11, no. 1: 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250000084761.
Rockell, B. A. (2009), ‘Challenging what they all know: Integrating the real/reel world into criminal justice pedagogy’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 20, no. 1: 75–92. https://doi:10.1080/10511250802680373.
Rohrer, D. and H. Pashler (2012), ‘Learning styles: Where's the evidence?’, Medical Education 46, no. 7: 634–635. https:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x.
Rothe, D. L. and V. E. Collins (2013), ‘Teaching criminological theory: The power of film and music’, Critical Criminology 21, no. 2: 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9178-3.
Scheider, M. (2002), ‘Teaching criminological theory: Presentation according to the dependent variable’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 13, no. 2: 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250200085541.
Silverman, D. A. (2010), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 3rd ed. (London: Sage Publications).
Torraco, R. J. (2016), ‘Writing integrative literature reviews’, Human Resource Development Review 15, no. 4: 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606.
Treadwell, J. (2006), Criminology (London: Sage Publications Ltd).
Trebilcock, J. and C. Griffiths (2022), ‘Student motivations for studying criminology: A narrative inquiry’, Criminology & Criminal Justice 22, no. 3: 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895821993843.
UCAS (2021), ‘Courses’, 14 May,https://digital.ucas.com/coursedisplay/results/providers?destination=Undergraduate&searchTerm=Criminology.
Weidenfeld, M. C., and K. E. Fernandez (2017), ‘Does reacting to the past increase student engagement? An empirical evaluation of the use of historical simulations in teaching political theory’, Journal of Political Science Education 13, no. 1: 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.11759.
West, A. D. (2005), ‘Horton the elephant is a criminal: Using Dr. Seuss to teach social process, conflict, and labelling theory’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education 16, no. 2: 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250500082302.