Reflexivity in Criminological Research

Experiences with the Powerful and the Powerless

Aaron Winter, K. Lumsden

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137379399
• eBook ISBN: 9781137379405
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This comprehensive collection contributes to, advances and consolidates discussions of the range of research methods in criminology through the presentation of diverse international case studies in which contributors reflect upon their experiences with powerless and powerful individuals or groups.

1

Reflexivity in Criminological Research

Karen Lumsden and Aaron Winter

The discipline of criminology can and often does involve doing research for the powerful, those social control agents and organisations responsible for the creation and maintenance of definitions, labels and boundaries of crime and markers of criminality. According to Barbara Hudson (2000, 177),

[o]f all the applied social sciences, criminology has the most dangerous relationship to power: the categories and classifications, the labels and diagnoses and the images of the criminal produced by criminologists are stigmatizing and pejorative. The strategies of control and punishment which utilize those conceptions have implications for the life-chances, for the opportunities freely to move around our cities, and for the rights and liberties, of those to whom they are applied.

Hence, a reliance on ‘state and legally defined conceptions of crime’ is ‘perhaps the biggest hurdle to be faced in the search for a series of self-reflexive replacement discourses in which transgression might be understood without reference to crime, harm reduced without recourse to criminalisation and social justice achieved without recourse to criminal law’ (Muncie 2000, 7). Jock Young (2011, 180–81), a pioneer in the development of critical criminology founded in the 1970s–1980s as a challenge to the dominance of positivist and normative criminology, also conveys this sentiment in his call for a ‘criminological imagination’, claiming that

[t]here are two criminologies: one grants meaning to crime and deviance, one that takes it away; one which uses an optic which envisages the wide spectrum of human experience: the crime and law-abiding, the deviant and the supposedly normal – the whole round of human life, the other a lens that can only focus on the negative, the predatory, the supposedly pathological.

For Young (2004, 13), we are confronted with an ‘orthodox criminology which is denatured and desiccated. Its actors inhabit an arid planet where they are either driven into crime by social and psychological deficits or make opportunistic choices in the criminal marketplace’. Loïc Wacquant is also critical of the ‘science-politics nexus in criminology’, which he claims is forged through the

hierarchical articulation of the academic field, of which the criminological domain is a sector, the bureaucratic field, the political field and the journalistic field – in short, by the changing location and uses of justice scholarship in the patterned space of struggles over instruments of rule that Bourdieu calls the field of power.

(2011a, 441–42 original emphasis, see also Bourdieu 1990)

The current criminological context involves a renewed and growing dominance of and push for positivist and normative criminology and crime science, and the related push for applied and evidence-based research, which further includes increased professionalisation, use of metrics¹ and the impact agenda in the United Kingdom, the pursuit of knowledge transfer opportunities, enterprise activities and funding. This is within the wider societal context of a return of conservative law and order politics in several countries during the recession, as well as growth areas such as security and terrorism studies post-9/11 and 7/7, which have provided state/system supportive research and consultancy opportunities and funding for criminologists. It is within this context that the contributors to this collection reflect on their experiences of ‘doing’ criminological research with powerful and/or powerless groups. We argue that evidence-based research and engagement with the criminal justice system or other powerful institutions must be done in a tempered, critical and reflexive manner, as the chapters in this collection shall demonstrate. Reflexivity in social research draws our attention to the ways in which knowledge is produced not just by the academic, but in collaboration (and often conflict) with the researched and those in positions of power who grant us access to, or seek research on, various ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’ groups and also often fund criminological research thus having a vested interest in our results and in their application. Reflexivity not only provides an extra layer of critical distance and engagement – one that ironically promotes subjectivity as a way of interrogating the un-interrogated hidden biases, conflicts of interest and assumptions of so-called objective scientific research – but is a process, permeating all aspects of the research from selection of the research topic, search for funding, access to and engagement with participants and settings, data collection, analysis, interpretation, dissemination, application of findings and our theoretical and methodological location in the disciplinary field of criminology itself. As Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000, 6) argue

The research process constitutes a (re)construction of the social reality in which researchers both interact with the agents researched and, actively interpreting, continually create images for themselves and for others: images which selectively highlight certain claims as to how conditions and processes – experiences, situations, relations – can be understood, thus suppressing alternative interpretations.

Hence, this book provides examples of the multiple ways in which knowledge is created with the researched and the influence of the researcher’s social background and location, including gender, race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality, embodiment and other sites and positions of power and privilege or lack thereof, on the research process, relationships with respondents and thus the interpretation and representation of the social worlds in question. We argue that criminologists must openly acknowledge, reflect upon and share their experiences of research in various settings, crucially highlighting instances where internal or external power dynamics are at play and problematising such relations and knowledge production. It is crucial that as criminologists we reflect upon the research we do, whom we do it for and to what purpose it will be used. Chan (2000, 131–32) claims that the task for criminologists is to

relentlessly contest inappropriate performance indicators or evaluative criteria. The proliferation of contract research and the rise of criminologists in the private sector must be subject to close scrutiny, because, more than anything else, there is a distinct danger that the acceleration of these trends will spell the end of critical – reflexive – criminology.

Doing criminological research with the powerful and the powerless

Foundational studies of crime and deviance such as William Whyte’s (1943) Street Corner Society, Ned Polsky’s (1967) Hustlers, Beats and Others, Laud Humphrey’s (1970) Tearoom Trade, Ken Pryce’s (1979) Endless Pressure, Patricia Adler’s (1985) Wheeling and Dealing, Howard Becker’s (1963) Outsiders, Dick Hobbs’ (1988) Doing the Business, Jock Young’s (1971) The Drugtakers and Elijah Anderson’s Code of the Street (1999) and A Place on the Corner (2003) (to name just a few) provide valuable insights into the challenges the authors faced in the course of their research. Doing research with criminals or deviants has inspired much academic reflection among sociologists of crime and deviance, particularly those using ethnographic methods. These accounts highlight the risks and dangers which researchers may face in these contexts, as well as the host of ethical, legal and moral dilemmas they provoke. This is also reflected in the work of sociologist Stephen Lyng (2005) and cultural criminologists such as Mike Presdee (2001), Keith Hayward, Jeff Ferrell and Stephen Hamm (see Ferrell and Hamm 1998; Parnell and Kane 2003; Vaaranen 2004; Ferrell and Hayward 2011), who suggest that ethnographers engage in ‘edgework’, which involves experientially immersing themselves in the risky activities and behaviours of the culture in question. Weber’s notion of Verstehen is adopted within the context of criminological research to denote ‘a process of subjective interpretation on the part of the social researcher, a degree of sympathetic understanding between social researcher and subjects of study’ (Ferrell 1998, 27).

These works mainly focus on research with those perceived or labelled as ‘deviant’, who are often already marginalised subjects based on their lack of power (socially, economically, politically or in terms of youth, class, race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality), or, to put it more bluntly, those groups who are powerless – the ‘underdogs’ (Gouldner 1973), in the face of the criminal justice system and state authorities. Thus, it is imperative that criminologists and sociologists working in the area of crime reflect on the relationship between ‘deviance’ not only as a label, but also as it relates to wider issues of social power, particularly when such research requires – as it often does – engagement with and the involvement of institutions and participants identified as powerful: institutional mechanisms of control, regulation and surveillance (including prisons, courts, police, security services and social work settings). This can present three main issues or challenges, particularly if that research is being done for or on behalf of the powerful.

The first of these is the issue of becoming (or not becoming) complicit in the mechanism of power and the construction and application of such labels and, by effect, the further stigmatisation and marginalisation of powerless subjects. The second issue is that of trust and access to the powerless. In that, if such subjects belong to a group or subculture that has historically been labelled as ‘deviant’ and/or criminalised (such as black youths or the Muslim community), are involved in criminal activity or stigmatised social, cultural or sexual practices, have negative experience with the law enforcement and the wider criminal justice system or have fears about contact with it, they may not trust the researcher who is doing work for or with agencies within that system and may withhold participation or be less than candid. It is worth noting that the relationship between ‘deviant’ or criminalised research participants and the criminal justice system may not only affect the research in terms of a lack of trust and participation by the researched, but if the researcher is conducting research on a politically charged topic such as extremism and terrorism, he/she may find themselves coming under scrutiny from the police or security services for meeting with members of a ‘suspect community’ or group or under scrutiny by that community or group if conducting research for the state. The level of scrutiny, access and trust from either party may also be contingent on the race, ethnicity or religion of the researcher in relation to the community or group in question. The third issue is that of access to the powerful and autonomy. Researchers investigating topics under the remit of criminology which engage with or involve the powerful have tended to remain quiet regarding their experiences (see Ashworth 1995; Richards 2011). In many cases this is because such research is on the ‘deviant’ or criminal/crime and not the system or agency, merely using the latter as a source of expertise and data, thus leaving it unexamined or even hidden behind a normative blind spot. It could also be posited that explicitly reflecting on experiences when conducting research in these politically controlled and sensitive contexts is more problematic, as access to certain settings and participants could be restricted, denied or curtailed, and the research might be funded by governments or official bodies with a vested interest in how findings are publicly disseminated. This may particularly be the case when the agency or body involved is – although in a position of power – under great political and public scrutiny like the police or deals with issues of national security.

Hence, as criminologists, how can we openly and honestly reflect on research which is being done for and on behalf of the powerful without compromising valuable relationship and resources? And what do we do when our research questions and agendas involve the voices of both powerful and powerless groups and potential conflicts arise? How do we navigate, negotiate and reflexively approach the ways in which these scenarios affect the research, access to research participants and data, funding, credibility, integrity, ethics, dissemination and impact?

The chapters herein contribute to this gap in social methods’ reflections on criminologists’ experiences with the powerful, while highlighting the benefit of adopting a reflexive approach overall in criminological research. In the social sciences, the question is no longer whether we should ‘be’ reflexive, but how do we go about ‘doing’ or practising reflexivity (Finlay 2002), while crucially avoiding reducing this to mere navel-gazing whereby our reflections centre solely or primarily on us as the researcher? We must remember that knowledge is co-produced with the researched, who can have an influence on it not only through who they are and the information they provide, but also through how they affect funding and allow or limit access, and thus the role of the researched must be included in our accounts and reflections. Moreover, as noted above, often those in powerful positions have their own agendas and ideas about how this knowledge should be constructed, disseminated and applied in the ‘real world’. This highlights the problematic nature of positivist criminological research and the growing impetus in criminology towards crime science and the evidence base. Crucially, in addition, power relations and dynamics between the researcher and the researched (whether powerful or powerless) are fluid, contextual and often unpredictable, challenging and shaping our identities and resulting in the co-production of knowledge and findings. As a result, reflexivity is an essential tool for aiding how we ‘do’ criminological research and furthering awareness of how we situate ourselves, and our methods practices, within the disciplinary field of criminology.

Reflexivity in criminological research

Reflection can be viewed as ‘interpretation of interpretation’ (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000, 6). Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992; see also Wacquant 1989; Bourdieu 1990) highlight different varieties of reflexivity including ethnomethodological ethnography as text, social scientific studies of the sciences, post-modern sociology, critical phenomenology and double hermeneutics. These

different uses of reflexivity or reflection . . . typically draw attention to the complex relationship between processes of knowledge production and the various contexts of such processes as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer.

(Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000, 5)

‘Reflective research’ has two basic characteristics which include consideration of the importance of interpretation and reflection, turning attention ‘inwards’ ‘towards the person of the researcher, the relevant research community, society as a whole, intellectual and cultural traditions, and the central importance, as well as problematic nature, of language and narrative (the form of presentation) in the research context’ (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000, 5–6). The reflexive turn in the social sciences draws attention to the researcher as part of the world being studied and to the ways in which the research process constitutes what it investigates (Taylor 2001, 3). It reminds us that those individuals involved in our research are ‘subjects’, not ‘objects’, and hence ‘they should not be treated as would a chemist treat a chemical substance or a geologist would treat a rock. The objects of criminological inquiry are not inanimate’ (Jupp 1989, 130). For Michel Foucault (1976), the products of social research reflect its social character, rather than representing some world that is independent of it. Therefore, different ‘r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Reflexivity in Criminological Research
• Part I: Research Relationships: Editors’ Introduction
• Part II: Researcher Identities, Subjectivities and Intersectionalities: Gender and Class: Editors’ Introduction
• Part III: Researcher Identities, Subjectivities and Intersectionalities: Race and Ethnicity: Editors’ Introduction
• Part IV: Risk, Ethics and Researcher Safety: Editors’ Introduction
• Part V: Power, Partisanship and Bias: Editors’ Introduction
• Part VI: Reflexivity and Innovation: New Contexts, Challenges and Possibilities: Editors’ Introduction
• Index