How Do They ‘End Up Together’? A Social Network Analysis of Self-Control,Homophily, and Adolescent Relationships

Self-control theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990) argues that individuals with similar attributes tend to ‘end up together’ (i.e., homophily) because of the tendency to select friends based on self-control. Studies documenting homophily in peer groups interpret the correlation between self-control, peer delinquency, and self-reported delinquency as evidence that self-control is an influential factor in friendship formation. However, past studies are limited because they do not directly test the hypothesis that self-control influences friendship selection, nor do they account for other mechanisms that may influence decisions. As a result, it is unclear whether the correlation between individual and peer behavior is the result of selection based on self-control or alternative mechanisms. To address this gap in the literature this study employs exponential random graph modeling to test hypotheses derived from self-control theory using approximately 63,000 respondents from 59 schools from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health). In contrast to the predictions made by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), and the conclusions drawn from prior research, there is little evidence that self-control influences friendship selection. The findings are embedded in past work on the relationship between self-control and peer relationships, and implications for future research are discussed.     

Estimating the Impact of Classification Error on the “Statistical Accuracy” of Uniform Crime Reports

This paper offers a methodological approach for estimating classification error in police records then determining the statistical accuracy of official crime statistics reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Classification error refers to the mistakes in UCR statistics caused by the misclassification of criminal offenses, for example recording a crime as aggravated assault when it should have been simple assault. Statistical accuracy refers to the estimated true total of each crime type based on cancelling effect of undercounting and overcounting crime due to misclassifications. The population for the study consists of the 12 largest municipal police agencies in a mostly rural southeastern state. Based on a sample of 2,663 records, the authors illustrate the impact of classification error on the total population of reported offenses. Misclassifications result in overcounting and undercounting certain crimes. The true number of each crime type, as well as the aggregate Index Crime, Violent Crime, and Property Crime totals, is estimated based the evaluation of offsetting misclassifications. The findings show that certain UCR crime categories are greatly undercounted while others are overcounted. The index crime and violent crime totals are also significantly undercounted; however, when simple assault is added to the index and violent crime categories, the error in these aggregate numbers is reduced to less than 1%. The results provide a benchmark for assessing the statistical accuracy of the UCR data.     

Can Situational and Structural Factors Differentiate Between Intimate Partner and “Other” Homicide?

A large body of research has identified strong and consistent correlates of aggregated intimate homicide incidents; however, the bulk of these studies focuses on the influence of either case or neighborhood characteristics on homicide types, but not both. This study examines data collected from 739 homicides in two distinct metropolitan cities to determine which factors differentiate intimate and non-intimate homicide. Findings reveal that intimate partner homicides (IPH) are more likely to involve females both as victims and offenders when compared to non-IPH incidents. In addition, IPH homicides are more likely to be committed with weapons than non-IPH, but this finding only appears in Indianapolis homicides. Indeed, one of the stark contrasts between Indianapolis and Newark was the much greater prevalence of firearms involved in IPH homicides in Indianapolis. This suggests the need for future research that sorts out patterns of household gun possession, factors influencing community levels of household gun possession, and the use of legally- or illegally-possessed firearms in IPH homicide.     

Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration

This paper examines the role of the federal government in shaping the relationship between academics scientists and industry. There exists a potential conflict between government policies encouraging collaboration within academia and the policies encouraging collaboration between academia and industry. To test and model these potential conflicts, this paper uses data collected in a 2004–2005 survey by the Research Valuing Mapping Project (a project based at Georgia Tech and led by Barry Bozeman) of more than 2000 academically based research scientists and engineers. The major finding in this paper shows that academic scientists working with industry collaborate more (with all types of collaborators) than those that do not collaborate with industry. However, when examining only those scientist that collaborate with industry, the results reveal a negative relationship between the amount of time spent collaborating with industry and the number of collaborators; implying that increasing collaboration with industry leads to less academic–academic collaboration.     

An autoethnography of hunting

To better understand why we do harm by killing and eating nonhuman animals, we engaged in autoethnography. We used reflections on our harmful behavior to understand harmful behavior more generally. Our method first and foremost was to be as honest as we know how to be. The process of reflecting on our behavior had us moving through a series of questions that organize the essay. We also referred to scholarly literature on violence and on hunting to challenge our thoughts. In this way we arrived at insights on aspects of doing harm, including the role of positioning the target in a certain way; not thinking about the harm and the institutional supports for not thinking; the particular lure of power through killing; and the problematic indictment of hunting by meat-eaters.     

The Problem of Emergency in the American Supreme Court

Sixty years before Carl Schmitt wrote his Political Theology, and more than a 100 years before President Bush announced a ‘war on terrorism’ the American Supreme Court grappled with the difficult issue of emergency powers in connection with issues arising out of the American Civil War (1861–1865). The question confronting the Court in a set of cases named the Prize Cases was whether President Lincoln’s decision to respond to acts of aggression by the secessionist Southern states with measures of war was lawful. The legal problem was that Lincoln had made this decision unilaterally although the American Constitution specifically allocates the power to declare war to Congress. The Court solved the dilemma by arguing that in cases where no war has been declared, the decision whether the country is in a state of war is ultimately ‘a question to be decided by him [the President], and [the Supreme] Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted’ (Prize, p. 669). The precedent, which the Court thereby laid down, has since played out as an important leverage for the Bush government’s legal arguments in connection with the war on terrorism. This article engages the theoretical framework of Locke, Schmitt and Agamben in order to come to a better understanding of this important set of cases.