Literature Positioning (crim-literature-positioning)

A common reason criminology papers stall is that they read as "another dataset" rather than a move in a theoretical debate. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the paper where a general criminology audience can see the open question and your move on it.

When to trigger

• Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
• A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the theory"
• Your empirics are solid but the paper doesn't connect to a criminological debate
• You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers

How Criminology wants the literature engaged

1. Engage the debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question — e.g., is desistance driven by cognitive change or social bonds? do hot-spot effects displace or diffuse? does procedural justice cause compliance? Cite the works that define it.
2. Name the theoretical tradition. Locate the paper within (or against) a recognizable theory — social control, social learning, strain/GST, routine activity, life-course/age-graded informal control, labeling, deterrence, procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy.
3. Two audiences at once. Satisfy the specialists (you know the frontier) and the interdisciplinary readership (a developmental psychologist and a criminal-justice scholar both see why it matters).
4. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured, confounded, or untested, and why resolving it advances theory.
5. Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert; name the strongest rival mechanism and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to crim-research-design).

Cross-field engagement (a Criminology demand)

Anti-patterns

• A "literature dump" with no organizing theoretical debate
• Engaging only one discipline's literature when the journal is interdisciplinary
• Strawmanning prior theory, or hiding the closest competitor paper
• Self-citation that breaks anonymity (the main document is anonymized — see crim-submission)
• Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental

Positioning pass for Criminology

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crime/justice process, measurement validity, research design, and policy consequence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: criminology reviewers who expect theory-linked crime, justice, or harm mechanisms plus transparent measurement.

• Do the pass: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against Justice Quarterly for applied justice, Journal of Quantitative Criminology for methods focus, Social Problems for broader sociological framing; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Tradition】the theory the paper engages or challenges
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-field)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】crim-theory-building

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — data sources mapped to criminological literatures
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Criminology scope and contribution expectations