ABSTRACT
Criminologists working from conflict or radical perspectives have emphasized the point that definitions of criminality are meaningful only in reference to the sociolegal contexts in which they are created, interpreted, negotiated, and imposed. Misleadingly dubbed “conflict sociology,” the efforts of Marxians and Weberians until recently were devoted mainly to the critique of functionalism and empiricism, secondarily to formulating alternative conceptions and research programs. Of the many issues that have been debated, there are five of particular methodological import: the meaning of “value-free”; the significance of the quantitative-qualitative distinction; how to do comparative research; the proper uses of history; and the nature of dialectical analysis. Marxian comparative researchers face the same basic problem as everyone else: finding the optimal balance between appropriateness and equivalence. For casuists and scientists, the issue is not how to do historical research but how to use it for their respective purposes.
