Apply the Theory SOC 3333 · Crime Lab · Midwestern State University

Applying a theory is not the same as naming one. Most Part 4 drafts name a theory, restate what it says, assert that it fits, and move on. That is a label, not an application. An application derives something from the theory that could turn out to be false about your offense, checks it against what you found in Parts 2 and 3, and reports the result even when the result is inconvenient. This page is practice at that, on other people's offenses, so you can do it on yours. Nothing here is recorded and nothing is graded.

Every explanatory theory in the course, and what each one predicts

Each entry gives the core claim and then the thing that matters most for Part 4: what the theory predicts you would see if it were true of your offense. A theory that predicts nothing specific cannot be applied and cannot be evaluated.

Pick two that disagree. The single best decision you can make in Part 4 is choosing two theories that predict different things about your offense. Two theories that both fit comfortably give you nothing to evaluate, and the evaluation is worth more than either application. Look down the prediction lines and find two that pull apart.

Ten findings. Which theory explains each one best?

Every finding here is real and every one appeared in this course. Best is doing a lot of work in that question, because more than one theory can usually accommodate a finding. Pick the theory that predicted it rather than the one that can absorb it.

You matched 0 of 10.
Notice how often a second theory also fits. That is not a flaw in the exercise, it is the actual condition of the field. Several theories can accommodate most findings after the fact. The ones worth writing about are the findings a theory called in advance, or the findings that one theory predicted and another got wrong. Those are what the next two tabs are about.

A worked application, on an offense that is not yours

Here is the Part 4 task done once, at full length, on residential burglary. Read it as a template. The offense does not matter. The five moves do.

Count the moves. State the theory in one sentence. Derive a prediction that could fail. Check it against what you actually found. Say what fits and what does not. Then do the same for the second theory and compare. Five moves, twice, plus a comparison. That is the whole of Part 4 and it is why the sheet asks for two theories rather than four.
The move students skip is the second one. Deriving a prediction that could fail is what separates an application from a summary. If you cannot imagine a finding that would embarrass your theory, you have not applied it yet, and no amount of additional description will fix that.

Now judge between them

This is the part worth the most points and the part most drafts hurry. Five pairs of competing predictions, each with the evidence that bears on it. For each one, decide what the evidence actually supports.

You judged 0 of 5.
Three verdicts are allowed, and the third is the one nobody uses. The evidence can favor one theory, favor the other, or fail to separate them. That last verdict is a real finding and it is often the honest one. A Part 4 that says the evidence does not currently distinguish these two explanations, and here is the study that would, is stronger than one that declares a winner the literature has not declared.
Where your evidence comes from. Parts 2 and 3 are your evidence base. The measurement work told you what the numbers can and cannot support. The pattern work gave you the things a theory has to explain. You do not need new sources for Part 4. You need to use the ones you have as tests rather than as decoration.

Six ways a theory application goes wrong

These are the failures that cost points, in rough order of how often they appear.

One. The label. The paper names a theory, restates it in the theorist's words, asserts that it explains the offense, and stops. Nothing was derived and nothing was tested. This is the most common failure and it is usually invisible to the writer, because the paragraph reads fluently.

Two. The unfalsifiable fit. The theory is stated so loosely that no finding could contradict it. If low self-control explains both the impulsive offense and the carefully planned one, the concept has stopped doing work. Say what the theory rules out, not only what it allows.

Three. The cherry pick. The paper reports the two findings that fit and passes over the one that does not. Graders read the same literature you do. Reporting the awkward finding and explaining what you make of it is worth more than hiding it, and it is the difference between an argument and an advertisement.

Four. The level error. A theory about neighborhoods is used to explain why one person offended, or a theory about individuals is used to explain why a rate differs between cities. Social disorganization explains places. Self-control explains people. Mixing the levels produces a claim neither theory made.

Five. The pattern restated as an explanation. Part 3 was about this and it returns here. Saying that offending peaks in the late teens because young people offend more is a circle. The theory has to say something the pattern did not already say.

Six. The tie that was never contested. Two theories are chosen that agree about everything, so the evaluation section has nothing to do and becomes a summary of both. Choose theories that disagree about your offense. The disagreement is the assignment.

A quick self-test before you submit. Find the sentence in your draft where a theory makes a prediction that could have been wrong. If you cannot find one, the evaluation section has nothing to stand on, and that section is worth more than either application.

Before you submit Part 4

Work down this list with your draft open. Click a line when it is true. Nothing here is recorded.

0 of 12 checked
That is the list. Part 5 asks you to weave Parts 1 through 4 into one review. The evaluation you write here becomes the spine of that review, because it is the only section of the project where you argue rather than report.