False Starts, Wrong Turns and Dead Ends: Reflections on Recent Developments in Criminology

Matthews, Roger

doi:10.1007/s10612-017-9372-9

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ideological character of this critical corporate crime scholarship contrasts with the tenor of regulatory governance scholarship, which has itself been critiqued for tending to translate political issues into instrumental problems (Mascini ). Similar to critiques addressed to political science (Mead ; Flinders ) and “administrative” criminology (Matthews ), regulatory governance risks becoming overly policy‐oriented or even scholastic, rather than addressing deep structural causes. John Braithwaite, a social advocate and an outstanding academic, has argued for the combination of this commitment to social movements with a commitment to good science via research that integrates explanatory and normative theory (Braithwaite , p. x).…”

Section: The Role Of Power and Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar to distinctions between “critical” versus “professional” or “policy” sociology (Burawoy ) and political science (Flinders ), or “ hard left” and “hard right,” in Almond's (, pp. 832–835) terms, critical and interpretive (“populist,” Shover & Cullen ) corporate criminology can be differentiated from a more empirical and positivist (“mainstream:” Friedrichs , p. 552), “administrative” (Matthews ) or “patrician” (Shover & Cullen ) tradition. While the former aims to expose and critique the power relations and hidden assumptions that shape criminal justice, the latter seeks to generate insights grounded in observed practice, rather than critiquing the values underlying that practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Almond

Erp

2018

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to bridge the disciplinary gap between regulation and governance studies, and criminology. Based on a review of theoretical and empirical work on corporate crime, this paper argues that divergent approaches to questions of individual agency, localized variety, and political context, have drawn these two disciplines in different directions. Regulatory governance scholarship has thrived as a discipline, but has also narrowed its focus around these issues. Corporate criminology offers a means of broadening this focus by drawing attention to the normative theorizing behind the regulatory project. At the same time, however, insights drawn from regulatory governance scholarship can prompt corporate criminology to innovate by broadening the scope of its engagement beyond the sphere of traditional criminal justice. The paper argues for the development of a research agenda to sit at their intersection, to engage with the challenges that exist at the interface between criminal and regulatory law.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Power and Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Almond

Erp

2018

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Garland (2011) affirms criminology can best maintain its intellectual strength when it is integrated and in dialogue with its constitutive, parent disciplines of sociology, psychology and law. It is the ‘rendezvous’ character of the discipline that can prevent it being exclusively focused on policy-oriented criminal justice concerns, seen by some to predominate in the less highly ranked educational institutions (Matthews, 2017). Their emphasis on vocational utility can be regarded as troubling when it reflects what Hobbs (2012: 262) calls criminology’s ‘loss of its sociological soul’.…”

Section: Criminology’s Disciplinary Unconscious: Assume the Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dear British criminology: Where has all the race and racism gone?

Phillips

Earle

Parmar

et al. 2019

Theoretical Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we use Emirbayer and Desmond’s institutional reflexivity framework to critically examine the production of racial knowledge in British criminology. Identifying weakness, neglect and marginalization in theorizing race and racism, we focus principally on the disciplinary unconscious element of their three-tier framework, identifying and interrogating aspects of criminology’s ‘obligatory problematics’, ‘habits of thought’ and ‘position-taking’ as well as its institutional structure and social relations that combine to render the discipline ‘institutionally white’. We also consider, briefly, aspects of criminology’s relationship to race, racism and whiteness in the USA. The final part of the article makes the case for British criminology to engage in telling and narrating racisms, urging it to understand the complexities of race in our subject matter, avoid its reduction to class and inequality, and to pay particular attention to reflexivity, history, sociology and language, turning to face race with postcolonial tools and resolve.

show abstract

“…The academic movement of Southern criminology has been recognized as one of the most important theoretical advancements in recent times (see Friedrichs 2018;Matthews 2017). Critics, however, have warned that Southern criminology runs the risk of reproducing the colonial power structures that it aims to challenge by: (1) failing to provide and embed an adequate theorization of colonialism, in particular (Cunneen 2018);…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonizing Southern Criminology: What Can the “Decolonial Option” Tell Us About Challenging the Modern/Colonial Foundations of Criminology?

Dimou

2021

Crit Crim

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Southern criminology has been recognized as a leading theoretical development for attempting to overcome the perpetuation of colonial power relations reflected in the unequal flow of knowledge between the Global North and Global South. Critics, however, have pointed out that Southern criminology runs the risk of recreating epistemicide and colonial power structures by reproducing colonial epistemology and by being unable to disentangle itself from the hegemony of Western modern thought. This article introduces the approach of the “decolonial option,” which suggests that all our contemporary ways of being, interacting, knowing, perceiving, sensing, and understanding are fundamentally shaped by coloniality—long-standing patterns of power that emerged because of colonialism and that are still at play (Maldonado-Torres 2007; Quijano 1992). The “decolonial option” seeks ways of knowing and being that heal, resist, and transform these deeply harmful and embedded patterns of power. Drawing on the “decolonial option,” this article aims to provide a constructive critique of Southern criminology by facilitating a better understanding of “coloniality” and offering an epistemological shift that is necessary to move toward global and cognitive justice. The rupture and paradigm shift in criminological knowledge production offered by the “decolonial option” dismantles criminology’s Western universalist narratives and its logic of separation that lie in modernity. By doing so, it provides a different understanding of modernity that looks behind its universalizing narratives and designs (e.g., development, progress, salvation) to expose “coloniality”—modernity’s dark, destructive side. While the “decolonial option” does not entail a universalizing mission, it is an option—one of the many paths that one can select to undertake decolonial work—and this article argues that if Southern criminology were to incorporate the decolonial epistemological and conceptual framework, it could better insulate itself from certain consequences of “coloniality” that it risks embodying.

show abstract

False Starts, Wrong Turns and Dead Ends: Reflections on Recent Developments in Criminology

Cited by 15 publications

References 64 publications

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

Dear British criminology: Where has all the race and racism gone?

Decolonizing Southern Criminology: What Can the “Decolonial Option” Tell Us About Challenging the Modern/Colonial Foundations of Criminology?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About