Whose Voices are Prioritised in Criminology, and Why Does it Matter?

Abstract

This paper presents in-depth research into the reading lists used by a new criminology Bachelor of Arts degree programme at a post-92 English University. Previous research into structural inequalities in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender that exist within academia in relation to scholarly outlets, and that have focussed on scholarly influence, have charted the most cited or most significant texts in the field or explored gender and race discrepancies within elements of the publication process. In this paper we explore how scholarly work is included in our teaching practice and the impact reading lists have on the student experience of criminology. We highlight a distinct lack of representation and diversity within the authorship of texts in the context of both core and recommended reading for students. We found reading lists to be overwhelmingly white and male. Work by women and people of colour only tended to feature on distinct modules which focussed on gender or ethnicity, race, and crime. Voices from the global majority are excluded from fundamental concepts and criminological theory modules. This paper will discuss our research findings in depth, highlighting where Black and female voices are neglected, marginalised, and excluded in the criminology curriculum.

Anti-racism in Criminology: An Oxymoron or the way Forward?

“…Without actual, resource-backed commitments and actions to make changes within our departments, our classrooms, our syllabi, our policies and practices, our mentoring, our admissions practices, our promotion practices, and our service allocation practices, we will continue to maintain the status quo to our detriment (Blount -Hill, et al, 2022;Carter & Craig, 2022;Casellas Connors & McCoy, 2022;Hattery, et al, 2022;León, 2021;McCoy, 2021;Montgomery, 2020;Parmar, et al, 2022a;Russell-Brown, 2021;Stockdale & Sweeney, 2022;Sykes, 2021;Taylor Greene, et al, 2018)…”

“…How are we intentionally incorporating policies and practices to retain who we admit to our graduate programs? How are we training the next generation of researchers to consider how racism – and other manifestations of oppression – affect what we decide to study, how we conduct our research, who are considered experts, how we interpret our findings, and how we disseminate our research? How are we combatting implicit and explicit biases that white faculty possess toward Black students/colleagues and other students/colleagues of color? In what ways are we unnecessarily “gatekeeping” instead of “groundskeeping” in academic mentorship? (see Montgomery, 2020) To what extent is invisible service of minoritized faculty made visible, or how can service load allocation be more equitable for minoritized faculty in your department? How are we allocating resources to back up any university or departmental statements with promises to make changes toward anti-racist practice? How are we disrupting and addressing hostile environments for students and faculty of color? Without actual, resource-backed commitments and actions to make changes within our departments, our classrooms, our syllabi, our policies and practices, our mentoring, our admissions practices, our promotion practices, and our service allocation practices, we will continue to maintain the status quo to our detriment (Blount-Hill, et al, 2022; Carter & Craig, 2022; Casellas Connors & McCoy, 2022; Hattery, et al, 2022; León, 2021; McCoy, 2021; Montgomery, 2020; Parmar, et al, 2022a; Russell-Brown, 2021; Stockdale & Sweeney, 2022; Sykes, 2021; Taylor Greene, et al, 2018). It is up to us to make a new status quo, where it is clear - and not questioned – whether Black Lives Matter in our discipline (Russell-Brown, 2021).…”

Teaching Activist Criminology in the Neoliberal University

“…2) New forms of knowledge shaped between university, private business and state demands being prioritised that moves away from serving the public good to serving the needs of business (Heller, 2016) 3) This form of knowledge receiving greater access to research funding 4) This form of knowledge demanding the same metrics from other disciplines across the social sciences, arts and humanities (Heller, 2016) 5) A hierarchy of staff with a casualised temporary precariat at the bottom that accompanies an internalisation of these new norms and competition with colleagues as opposed to resistance 6) An increased workload to meet these metrics with often much overtime going unacknowledged (Bottrell and Manathunga, 2019). 7) An increase in student tuition fees and student debt and increasing the need to demonstrate employability outcomes for graduates (Heller, 2016) The HE sector in the UK is just as subject to these changes as the USA or Australia with Higher Education subsumed under the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (Stockdale and Sweeney, 2022).…”

Baseball and Science: What Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays Can Teach Us About Measuring Scholarly Impact

“…And while these criticisms of citation-based measures of scholarly impact are important in their own right, there is another concern that needs to be taken just as seriously: such measures fail to capture the wider spectrum of the ways in which scholars can make a difference in the world with their work (Aguinis et al, 2012; Stockdale & Sweeney, 2022). Publications and citations are nice, but what about all of the other things that faculty are called upon to do that can make a meaningful difference to people’s lives?…”