Criminology for Sale: Institutional Change and Intellectual Field

Representing Theory and Theorising in Criminal Justice Studies: Practising Theory Considered

“…If social science can be considered a craft and vocation engaged in an ongoing agonistic relationship with a pervasive and resilient technocratic rationality (see Rhoades and Slaughter 1997;Drakich et al 2002;Kurasawa 2002), this poses serious questions about the status of criminal justice studies. Much has been made of this within criminology and criminal justice studies (McMullan and Ratner 1982;Halsted 1985;Ratner 1985;Farrell and Koch 1995;Walters and Presdee 1999;White 2001;Whyte 2002, 2003;Walters 2003) and recent debate (Curtis and Weir 2002;DeFlem 2002;Hemmens 2002;OÕMalley and Hunt 2003) suggests that this continues to be an important and contentious issue.…”

Rethinking Criminology(ies) through the Inclusion of Political Violence and Armed Conflict as Legitimate Objects of Inquiry

“…This reflection is influenced by and dependent on the ideological and political preferences of criminologists. In fact, the ideological and political dispositions of criminologists become apparent through their diverse ways of conceptualizing the nature of the state, society, crime, and crime control (White 2002). Thus criminology is ''politicised explorations of the role of crime and crime control in society'' (Anthony and Cunneen 2008: 2).…”

“…The political nature of criminology is apparent in the process of defining what is considered criminal or non-criminal, in the power relations involved in the production of knowledge (funding, access to the field, publication, etc. ), in the value judgements implicit in the conceptualization of the criminological object, and in the production of criminological knowledge (including the theories, concepts, and methodologies that are mobilized) as well as the use or consequences of the knowledge produced (Becker 1967;Bottoms 2000;Hammersley 1995;Hudson 2000;Morgan and Hough 2000;Noaks and Wincup 2004;Piron 2005;Presdee and Walters 1998;White 2002). Whether mainstream or alternative, doing criminology always entails reflecting on questions of order, justice, authority, and legitimacy as well as on the institutional arrangements surrounding them (Stubbs 2008).…”

“…The intellectual history of criminology shows that academic work in the field is shaped by an institutional power base: Those who are institutionally privileged come, over time, to influence by their actions (gate-keeping roles in funding and publishing) and inactions (ignoring voices or contributions from the fringes) what is considered to be legitimate or good criminology (White 2002). It follows that the official criminology is in a better position to promote what it considers to be the legitimate object, theories, and methods of the discipline.…”

“…Hence, what is at stake in the debates within criminology is the political and normative character of the discipline, whether in its mainstream or its alternative form. Mainstream criminology is considered to be embedded in the dominant relations of power and knowledge (White 2002), while alternative criminology ''seeks to advance a progressive agenda favouring disprivileged peoples'' (Schwartz and Friedrichs 1994: 221).…”