After arguing that studies addressing fear of crime lack shared conceptual, etiological, and operational consensus, leading to disagreements over the proper approach to studying criminological phenomena, the authors address the substantive concerns that Ralph Taylor raised in his critique of the authors’ earlier work. Contending that Taylor’s critique of the authors’ operationalization and measurements of social integration (SI) and collective efficacy (CE) is well taken, the authors argue that assessing the effects of SI and CE on fear of crime in an ordinary least-squares regression model indicated that the bivariate correlation of SI and CE is positive and statistically significant. Use of advanced confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) further demonstrated that SI and CE indicators fit a measurement structure that implies fewer latent variables, with CFA models showing mixed results for both a two and a one-factor solution. The authors maintain that constraining grammar and beta coefficients did not affect the interpretation of the significant effects on fear of crime in the cities the authors used in their original study. After discussing the limitations of many governing paradigms in the field of criminology, the authors hope their reactions to Taylor’s critique will enable fear of crime researchers to think more critically about how they conduct research. Figures, references, appendix