(1) the historical context within which the theorist produced their ideas:

Discuss the historical, social and political environment in which the theorist developed their model(s). Pfohl is quite good at doing this in his chapters and could be used as a model for what needs to be discussed. However, you should not be relying upon this textbook for this, and find sources that cover social history and academic history.

Besides intellectual biographies of your theorist, social histories of the era, city or region, and/or university in which the theorist worked might prove valuable. For example, if you are discussing a conflict criminologist from the 1960s, Todd Gitlin's work on the 1960s would be quite useful to put things into context. Or, on the place of subcultural delinquency theory in the U.S. of the 1950s see Gilbert’s A Cycle of Outrage.

Include your full bibliography with this submission (and for all later sections).

See an acceptable example.

See another example. This one thoroughly integrates the theorist's academic biography with the social events of his era.

(2) a summary of their original theory:

Present a summary of the most important criminological points of the theorist's model(s). This should come from original sources written by the theorist(s) themselves rather than commentary. Be only as complex as necessary, but if the theorist's ideas changed over their career be sure to include discussion. If the theorist is not primarily a criminologist (psychologist, sociologist, etc.) focus only on aspects of their work which have direct criminological significance. You can't use the Pfohl textbook for this or remaining sections.

See an excellent example. The essay chooses 5 concepts which have driven the work of Wilson and show how these ideas evolved over his career writings.

(3) discussion of how the model has been critiqued and altered as new research has emerged:

Discuss the major criticisms of the theory. Review critical articles and books. The way to do this is to discuss the criticisms one at a time, then detail the critics who suggested them, rather than vice versa. Comprehensive critics should be discussed last. If the theory has been further developed as a result of response to criticism, discuss it.

Let me further elaborate on some of these sentences. I suggest a model here of grouping the criticisms by the "specific criticisms." For example, some critics might attack the population or sample a theorist used (e.g. Hirschi never included girls in his studies, so none of his work can apply to female delinquency). Others might attack a theorist's overgeneralizations or historical limitations. Pfohl can give you some excellent ideas for how each theorist has been critiqued, but you need to locate the work of critics yourself and cite their literature (not Pfohl). 

Some critics offer comprehensive criticisms rather than focusing on one aspect of a critic's work. I strongly suggest you discuss these last. Otherwise you will need to reference them for every subpoint on which they offered a criticism.

Another organizational tool that might prove useful would be to organize the criticisms chronologically. Certain criticisms might be made in one decade or era, while different criticisms emerge later.

Regardless, it is absolutely essential that you come up with a way to categorize the criticisms and clearly present your organizational structure as the outline for the first paragraph.

(4) the theory's current usage/popularity within criminology:

Secion 4 should contain three primary items (a) current popularity of the theorist based upon books and articles which employ their ideas (b) specific SOCIAL SCIENCE CITATION INDEX search for references to your theorist and (c) review of the popularity of your theorist and their tradition by paper and paper sessions presented at ASC and/or other criminology conferences.

(a) How popular is this theory in the last decade? Are there current criminologists using the theorist's model for research purposes?  Cite books and journal articles that employ ideas from your theorist and their theoretical tradition. What aspects of the author's ideas are focused upon today?

(b) A very specific way to gauge an author's reputation is through citation counts. For this project refer to the Social Science Citation Index (available through FSU Library databases. You must connect through FSU page) for citation counts. 

Note: Some students have difficulty using the Social Science Citation Index, claiming to come up with zero hits for their theorist. Once you get to the database, be sure to select "full search," select "Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)--1956-2004" only, specify the years to be searched, and choose CITED REF SEARCH (Search for articles that cite an author or article that you specify). When the next screen shows up, list the author by last name and first initial such as "Greek C"

You will get hits! Below is a sample output for the instructor:

 

Hits Cited Author Cited Work Volume Page Year ID 1 GREEK C ANN M AM SOC CRIM NO 1997 1 GREEK C DRUG CONTR ASS SEIZ 1999 1 GREEK C J CRIMINAL JUSTICE E 8 91 1997 3 GREEK C MEDIA PROCESS SOCIAL 265 1994 2 GREEK C RELIG ROOTS AM SOCIO 1992 2 GREEK C RELIGIOUS ROOTS AM S 1992

Note: It's OK to copy and paste the output chart into your paper.

(c) Another way to get an overview of a theorist's current popularity is by reviewing how many papers are presented on their work at scholarly conferences. ASC is the preeminent criminology conference in the United States. ASC maintains online records of past conferences.  Download the entire 2006 Program as a PDF file. Prior years abstracts for ASC are at: http://www.asc41.com/priorabs.html).  ACJS is the second major conference.  The 2006 program is available at: http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_668_12237.cfm

 See an example of a well researched and written part 4.
And a second example.