One important implication of the findings from this research is that social
disorganization and conflict theories by themselves do not fully account for the social
and cultural dynamics that explain varying crime levels of rural communities.
Instead, the two theories complement each other. Social disorganization theory
should remind proponents of conflict theory that sources of segmented social
structures are multiple, not merely based on economy and social class. Conflict
theory should caution proponents of social disorganization theory that there are
specific processes or mechanisms for expressions of segmented social structures,
especially those expressed through social class, ethnic/race and other inter-group
divisions.
Another important observation is that triangulating data from three sources
provided a fuller understanding of local context. Equally important, it was possible to
test two important theories of crime, both of which were found to be relevant for
understanding the variability of crime that can occur in rural communities (Weisheit
and Donnermeyer, 2000).
Towns with high proportions of Aboriginal People generally have more crime
(Cunneen, 2001). However, Hillnest indicated that a biracial town can be relatively
free of conflict, and, consequently, have low crime, even though, in this case, the lack
of conflict was due to the relative assimilation of the Aboriginal community into
white, mainstream Australian culture and, accompanied by a strict form of informal
social control. The point is that speaking of ‘Aboriginal’ people and ‘non-Aboriginal’
people is simplistic and erroneous without reference the context of place. These
findings should remind all sociologists who examine the structural characteristics of
communities, both rural and urban, of Robinson’s (1950) concept of the ecological
fallacy. Not all small communities are alike, even though it can be argued they have
more similar social structural compositions when compared to large urban centers.
28
Convention