Criminal Group Dynamics and Network Methods

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620190000024006
• Date: 26 August 2019
• Published date: 26 August 2019
• Pages: 47-65
• Author: Marie Ouellet,Sadaf Hashimi

47

CHAPTER 3

CRIMINAL GROUP DYNAMICS

AND NETWORK METHODS

Marie Ouellet and Sadaf Hashimi

ABSTRACT

Purpose – Criminal groups have long been central to explanations of crime

and deviance. Yet, challenges in measuring their dynamic and transient nature

meant that group-level explanations were often displaced in favor of individual-

level ones. This chapter outlines how network methods provide a powerful tool

for modeling the dynamic nature of criminal groups.

Approach – The chapter starts by providing a brief introduction to social

network analysis, including key concepts and terminology. The chapter then

focuses on the types of relational data available to study criminal groups, and

how network methods can be used to delineate group boundaries. The chapter

concludes by presenting a framework for understanding group dynamics from a

network perspective, describing the contributions of network analysis to theo-

ries of group processes.

Findings – Network methods have provided meaningful advances to the study

of group dynamics, leading scholars to revisit assumptions about the impact of

group’ structure on delinquent behavior. Network studies of group dynamics

have primarily focused on the cohesion–delinquency link (within-group struc-

ture) and the social contagion of conict (between-group structure), high-

lighting important opportunities for the intersection of these two inquiries.

Value – Network methods provide a means to revisit and extend theories of crime

and delinquency with a focus on social structure. The unique afnity between group

dynamics and network methods highlights immense opportunities for expanding

the knowledge of collective trajectories.

Methods of Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 24, 47–65

Copyright © 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1521-6136/doi:10.1108/S1521-613620190000024006

48 MARIE OUELLET AND SADAF HASHIMI

Keywords: Network methods; group dynamics; relational data; group

boundaries; delinquency peer inuence

INTRODUCTION

The wide array of criminal groups has been well documented by decades of

research (e.g., Klein, 1971; Miller, 2001; Thrasher, 1927). There are groups that

seize to exist beyond a single crime incident, and others that survive for decades.

There are groups that maintain stable membership, and those that undergo high

turnover. There are groups that engage in episodic delinquent activity, and those

for which delinquency is a staple of their existence.

These variations create difculties for dening, delimiting, and measuring

criminal groups. Earlier explanations of criminal group processes often relied on

extensive eld research, spanning years of observations of group members and

their interactions. This research has yielded important insights about group pro-

cesses and delinquency, including the role of a group’s structural features in shap-

ing group processes. Indeed, this was the basic premise of Short and Strodtbeck’s

(1965) seminal piece on Chicago gangs. They observed that delinquent behavior

was directly related to social processes that emerged in the day-to-day of gang

members lives, including their interactions with one another and with other

groups. Similarly, Block’s (1979) work on organized crime in mid-century New

York City showed that criminal syndicates operated in “alliance networks” that

structured around the groups ability to maximize prots and evade sanctions.

Yet, despite many decades of research, group-level studies have been primarily

descriptive in nature, creating important gaps in explanatory accounts of group

dynamics.

The gaps in our knowledge are, in part, due to a lack of group-level

data. Although group dynamics were once central to explanations of crime,

advances in survey research during the 1970s shifted individual-based research

to the forefront of criminology (e.g., Bursik, 1998; Kreager, Rulison, & Moody,

2011). The shift allowed for important methodological and theoretical devel-

opments, including the ability to generate representative samples, a major cri-

tique ofearly eld research on criminal groups. However, it virtually displaced

group-level explanations of crime – a phenomenon that was observed across

the study of gangs (Pyrooz & Mitchell, 2015), criminal enterprises (Paoli,

2002), delinquent peer groups (Kreager et al., 2011), and terrorist organiza-

tions (Miller, 2012).

This chapter aims to outline how a network framework can be leveraged

to address these gaps and foster explanatory research. Network methods are

uniquely suited to measure the dynamic and transient nature of groups, mapping

out social relations, delineating group structure, and allowing for cross-compar-

isons across groups. Network methods have led to meaningful advances in the

structure of criminal operations1; however, a large proportion of these studies

have conventionally focused on the role that networks play in shaping individual