“Integration” has assumed a central role in criminological discourse. There are at least four types of integration – of theories (e.g., social learning and social control), methods (e.g., qualitative and quantitative), levels of analysis (e.g., neighborhood and individual), and disciplines (e.g., psychology and sociology). The majority of integrative efforts in criminology have aimed at the first type, the integration of theoretical models derived from classical schools of thought on the causes of crime – almost always sociological. Some oft-cited attempts at theoretical integration in this realm include Elliott, Ageton, & Canter (1979), Messner, Krohn, & Liska (1989), and Braithwaite (1989). In recent years the multi-level integration of data across levels of analysis has also come on strong, especially in the form of contextual analyses that purport to estimate “neighborhood effects” on individual behavior (for a review, see Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley 2002).

Despite the seeming consensus that integrative modes of inquiry are important, there is still no consensus approach and it is hard to identify concrete new discoveries or significant breakthroughs in criminology that have been made in the name of integration. Put simply, the benefits for knowledge remain largely a promissory note. Why is this so? A main reason, of course, is that the task is enormously difficult. Even in the so-called “hard sciences” integration is hard to come by – it takes lots of time and effort so there is no reason to expect a fast payoff.