Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

"Becoming a football hooligan: Applying the Differential Association Theory in a new way" (by Petter Ingemarsson): Review 3

Published onApr 03, 2024
"Becoming a football hooligan: Applying the Differential Association Theory in a new way" (by Petter Ingemarsson): Review 3

Vote: Publish pending major changes

Please explain your vote.

  • Explain: This paper is competently executed, has interesting data, and presents good ideas, but it relies too heavily on differential association theory instead of exploring multiple theoretical angles thereby leaving the interpretation of data a little one-dimensional and leaving out important insights from other more contemporary criminological theories.

  • The review of literature on hooliganism is well executed and interesting and frames the study well, but in the review of DA I suggest less detail (e.g. to drop the list of thesis on p. 5) and instead open up for a review of how insights from DA has moved into other research traditions, or how similar observations can be found there.

  • This would give readers a short glimpse into the history and legacy of DA in criminology – and also how this framework relates to other traditions. It is beyond my role as a reviewer to list the possible framework that could be included, and this can very much be up to the author and their interests, but some that comes to mind are social network analysis, the subculture of violence tradition, symbolic interactional work on violence, as well as more general insights from criminological ethnography, and cultural criminology.

  • Such a review would open for a broader more varied analysis of data in the result section on violence, sense of community, and status – making this less of a “checking” of DA thesis and more genuinely qualitative explorations of the these interesting results from this project.

  • Such a shift of focus could also, in the final parts of the paper, open for a much-warranted discussion of DA’s status today and its relationship to other research frameworks and tradition. I realize that there are limits to how far such a discussion can go in a journal article, but in my opinion, moving the whole emphasis in the paper from ‘strict’ DA to multiple possible interpretations and frameworks, is the only way to make this paper relevant for a contemporary criminological audience.

No comments here
Why not start the discussion?