Conversations in a Crowded Room: An Assessment of the Contribution of Historical Research to Criminology

Abstract

The relationship between history and social science generally, as well as history and criminology specifically, has long been considered problematic. But, since the likes of Burke (1992) and King (1999) spoke of a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, crime history has rapidly expanded and, more latterly, historical criminology has begun to emerge. This article reappraises the relationship of the subject areas by considering the impact that historical research has had on criminology. Although the impact is found to be somewhat patchy, the article identifies positive signs within the two fields that might point towards a more mutually‐enriching future.

Renewing Historical Criminology: Scope, Significance, and Future Directions

“…In current scholarship, historical criminology tends to refer to the idea of an interdisciplinary synthesis of criminology and history, or, more exactly, of sociological studies in criminology and criminal justice history. For some years, scholars have pondered (typically with regret) the failure of criminologists and historians to establish a sustained and productive dialogue across disciplinary divides (see Bleakley & Kehoe 2021, Lawrence 2012, Pratt 1996, Yeomans et al 2020. Discussions of historical criminology have accompanied claims for the increasing convergence of criminology and history (Godfrey et al 2008, pp.…”

The past is prologue: Towards a historico-narrative approach at the intersection of historical criminology and narrative criminology

“…In recent years, historical criminology has transformed from an area of research treated ‘with reticence’ (Lawrence, 2019) into a recognised subarea of mainstream criminology, formalised with the creation of various networks and divisions of academic societies which have essentially ‘organised’ the field to a greater extent, such as the British Society of Criminology’s Historical Criminology Network, the Australia and New Zealand Historical Criminology Network, the European Society of Criminology’s Historical Criminology Working Group and the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Historical Criminology. The result is a state of disciplinary discourse that is Yeomans et al. (2020: 253) refer to as ‘conversations in a crowded room .…”

“…in which groups of people (established subgroups and subdisciplines) noisily converse, each on their own terms’ to the point that meaningful interchange is often lost. They assert that one of the only ways that historical criminology can achieve its potential to make an impact on the field is to actively pursue ‘mutually-enriching exchanges between disciplines’ (Yeomans et al., 2020: 254), and in doing so prevent sub disciplinary siloing – something Maruna and Liem (2021) also warned about in their discussion of narrative criminology’s own challenges. For Churchill et al.…”

Renewing Historical Criminology: Scope, Significance, and Future Directions

“…In current scholarship, 'historical criminology' tends to refer to the idea of an interdisciplinary synthesis of criminology and historyor, more exactly, of sociological studies in criminology and criminal justice history. For some years, scholars have pondered (typically with regret) the failure of criminologists and historians to establish sustained and productive dialogue across disciplinary divides (see Pratt 1996, Lawrence 2012, Yeomans et al 2020, Bleakley & Kehoe 2021.…”