There has been a recent shift of emphasis towards making social scientific investigation more policy relevant. University departments and funding bodies are increasingly using terms like âimpactâ, âdeliverablesâ and âoutputsâ and more frequently aim to identify the beneficiaries of research studies. There has also been an important and timely debate in the social sciences about developing a âpublic criminologyâ that is able to contribute to contemporary policy debates (Burawoy 2005; Currie 2007). Some leading criminologists have argued that the criminological industry is becoming increasingly socially and politically irrelevant and has little to contribute to the major debates on crime and justice (Austin 2003; Cullen 2011). Others have put the case for making criminology more policy oriented by asking âWhat is to be done?â (Burawoy 2005, 2008). This debate raises important questions about the role of the academic researcher.
In line with this renewed emphasis on linking theory to policy this collection aims to encourage academics, researchers and students at all levels to think about the policy implications of their work. Considering questions of policy, it is suggested, moves investigation from a purely descriptive or detached stance and encourages researchers to engage more directly with the issues that interest them. This often results in the production of more satisfying and useful forms of investigation and analysis.
Despite the recent shift in emphasis towards policy relevance there still remains a large body of professional criminologists who are reluctant to engage in the policy process, either because they feel it is not their role or they fear that their suggested reforms will fail and that this will compromise their credibility. The major barrier, however, to making a significant contribution the policy process comes not so much from a fear of failure or co-option but the reality that a great deal of criminological investigation is poorly conceived and researched. Indeed, there is a growing body of criminological material that has been described as 'So What?' criminology (Matthews 2009). This material tends to be theoretically weak, methodologically inadequate and has little or no policy relevance.
One of the most notable developments in criminology in recent years has been the demise of theory and an increase in weak forms of conceptualisation. Key terms are often taken at face value and are not disaggregated, with the consequence that concepts like âcrimeâ and âraceâ remain broad generic categories that lack specificity. Operating with these taken for granted, common sense categories results in the object of study remaining vague and undifferentiated with the consequence that it becomes difficult to formulate clear and detailed forms of analysis and, by implication, sound policy options. The main problem, however, is that weak forms of conceptualisation result in a lack of direction and focus to the research. In addition, the use of inconsistent and inappropriate categories serves to construct a blurred conceptual grid through which the social world is apprehended. Unfortunately, no amount of methodological manipulation can overcome these conceptual deficits (Sayer 2000). Thus there is a need to link theory, method and policy to produce forms of âjoined upâ criminology that can combine theoretical sophistication and methodological rigour with policy relevance.
There is also a significant body of self-styled âcriticalâ or âradicalâ criminology that does not feel it necessary to engage in detailed empirical investigation. Instead, evidence is used selectively and sparingly. This results, as Elliott Currie points out in Chap. 2 in this book, is a form of âliberal idealismâ that produces speculative forms of expose criminology and generally refuses to take crime and victimisation seriously (see also Zedner 2011). As Currie suggests we are, however, at a crossroads both socially and politically, as well as criminologically. If criminology is to have any purchase on pressing contemporary issues it needs to develop a global response that is able to address the structural roots of crime and associated forms of suffering. In particular, the continuing level of violence around the world, especially in its more hidden forms, continues to present a major challenge to criminologists.
Nicole Westmarland and Liz Kelly develop a similar theme in their examination of domestic violence. As the authors point out in Chap. 3 domestic violence is one of those hidden âprivateâ forms of violence which surveys repeatedly show is endemic and highly gendered. Despite the widespread nature of domestic violence the rate of prosecutions and convictions remains remarkably low. Moreover, the strategies that have been employed to date to address this issue have proved to have a limited effect. Westmarland and Kelly argue that there is a need to move beyond current conceptions and policies on domestic violence and focus greater attention on the perpetrators.
Another area of violent activity is gang rivalries. This form of interpersonal violence and intimidation often remains hidden but can have a significant impact on the quality of life of people living in affected neighbourhoods. As John Pitts argues there are liberal idealists who try to deny the existence of gangs or claim that the media somehow âconstructâ the notion of âthe gangâ. In contrast, Pitts suggests in Chap. 4 that gangs are a serious problem in certain areas and their activities impact disproportionately upon the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society. Addressing this issue, he argues, requires a multi-agency and multi-faced sustainable strategy.
A consistent theme that runs through the chapters in this book is that positive and progressive reforms are not only possible but that there are numerous examples of specific reforms being beneficial in the past. In pursuing this theme Nick Tilley argues we should acknowledge that, in relation to crime prevention, there have been a number of ethical and effective gains in recent years. A key element in developing effective crime control policies, he suggests in Chap. 5 following Robert Merton (1949), is to develop middle range theories. That is, move away from a preoccupation with finding the root causes of crime to forms of explanation involving lower-level forms of theorising that can be tested through empirical research. This form of âradical realismâ challenges many of our preconceptions about the nature of theorising and also the relation between theory and policy formation.
For many the immediate response to crime and interpersonal violence is to summon the police. However, in recent years the role of the police and their effectiveness has been increasingly called into question. Some commentators see the police as part of the problem rather than the solution. Benjamin Bowling, Shruti Iyer, Robert Reiner and James Sheptycki ask the critical questions of what exactly do the police do and what type of police force do we want. In a world in which the uniformed police are only part of the wider policing process the authors argue in Chap. 6 that: the remit of the uniformed public police should be broader than crime control; their powers should be restricted in terms of the use of force and intrusive surveillance; and that the police need to develop new technologies, more transparent modes of accountability, improved data gathering techniques and more sophisticated forms of intelligence-led policing.
Alongside the police most people think about imprisonment as a ânaturalâ response to serious crime. However, the problems facing the prison system are such that it is increasingly seen as being in a state of âcrisisâ. Hundreds, if not thousands, of publications over the years have pointed to the detrimental effects of imprisonment, on prisoners, their families, their neighbourhoods and society in general. In fact, it is difficult these days to find anyone defending incarceration. However, there is a real paucity of studies that seriously discuss penal reform. For those who do engage in penal reform there is call amongst liberal idealists for the abolition of prisons and the suggestion that they should be replaced by community-based penalties, although researchers have shown that these options are equally ineffective in reducing recidivism and costs. Unfortunately, the alternatives which are suggested by the abolitionists to deal with serious and persistent offenders are not seen as appropriate in the eyes of the general public, while criminologists warn about the dangers of ânet wideningâ. Thus, in contrast to this apparently âradicalâ approach, Francis Cullen, Daniel Mears, Cheryl Jonson and Angela Thielo argue in Chap. 7 that a range of realistic and practical steps can be taken to make prisons less damaging and improve the quality of outcomes. With over two million people incarcerated in the USA and the steady increase in the prison population in the UK the time has come for a serious rethink of the use and purpose of imprisonment.
One of the most difficult issues in relation to policy development has been that of drugs. In fact, the drugs debate appears to be bogged down by hyperbole and an apparently endless stream of circular arguments. The rhetoric of the âwar on drugsâ is now wearing thin and, as Caroline Chatwin argues in Chap. 8, there is an urgent need to broaden the debate and take into account harm minimisation strategies, while upholding human rights and giving public health a more prominent role in the formation of policy.
An equally challenging issue, which has received limited attention from criminologists over the years, is developing a consistent and effective response to white-collar and corporate crime. In addressing this issue in Chap. 9 Fiona Haines notes that the harms caused by white-collar and corporate crime have to be considered in a context in which these activities are embedded in a system of material and ideological benefits that condition the way in which both governments and the general public view these transgressions. Consequently, she suggests that there are three basic options to consider when addressing the issue of white-collar and corporate crime. The first involves better regulation of activities, such as introducing anti-trust measures. Second, the development of forms of responsive regulation and problem solving. Third, the development of a more fundamental reordering of how businesses ply their trade and a corresponding shift in the modes of regulation.
In many respects the criminological landscape appears to be changing. As some forms of recorded crime are decreasing in some locations new forms of transgression are becoming more prominent. In Chap. 10 Mike McGuire, like Fiona Haines, identifies a range of responses that are available for limiting the extent and impact of cyber crime. This can involve technical responses, criminal justice interventions and the development of a more informed and engaged public. However, McGuire argues that the game is changing and a more connected and increasingly intelligent network of operators are emerging, such that the provisions that have been put in place to date are looking increasingly inadequate. The response to this changing situation requires, he argues, more than a technical fix and he calls for a more nuanced social and political strategy that holds transgressors to account.
Finally, Helen Johnson and Roger Matthews address the deeply divided issue of prostitution or âsex workâ. They argue that there is an identifiable link between the form of conceptualisation of this issue and the policy choices. On one side the âabolitionistsâ support the Nordic model that criminalises buyers and decriminalises the women involved in prostitution, who are seen as victims. This policy position follows from the premise that prostitution is a form of violence against women. The liberal âsex-workâ lobby, on the other hand, favours a policy of decriminalisat...
