Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Understanding Criminology A Level One Unit Manchester Metropolitan University B.A. (Hons) Criminology B.A./BSc (Hons) Criminology in Combined Honours 2008/09 Unit Tutor: Dan Ellingworth Room 403 Geoffrey Manton Building Email: [email protected] Other Teaching Staff Chris Fox GM411 [email protected] Andrew Hope GM454 [email protected] Suzanne Vaughan GM118 Unit Wiki: http://understandingcriminology.pbwiki.com -1- Contents Introduction to the Unit ………………………………………………………………………. P3 Lecture Outline ………..……………………………………………………………………………. P4 Learning and Teaching Strategy …………………………………………………………..P5 Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………..P7 General Reading List ………………………………………………………………………………… P8 Useful Online Material……………………………………………………………………………….P11 Seminar One: Introduction………………. …………………………………………………….P14 Seminar Two: Assessing Criminological Arguments…..……………………… P15 Seminar Three: What is Going On?……………. …………..………………….…… P16 Seminar Four: Classical Criminology …………………………………… …………..… P17 Seminar Five: Positivist Criminology………………………………………………….... P18 Seminar Six: Anomie and Strain Theory.…….……… ……………………..….. P19 Seminar Seven: Social Disorganization Theory ………….………………..… P20 Seminar Eight: Cultural Criminology………………………………………….………... P21 Seminar Nine: Labelling and Interactionist Criminology ……………... P22 Seminar Ten: Feminist Criminology……………………………………………………. P24 Seminar Eleven: Political Debates in Criminology…………………………... P29 Appendix: Department of Sociology Referencing Guide ………………...P35 -2- Introduction to the Unit This unit provides you with an opportunity to consider the various aspects to the academic study of crime and deviance. The core question ‘Why do people break rules, or not?’ is one of the key questions of social science, and you could, therefore, consider the concerns criminology to be as old as social science itself: conventionally, Cesare Beccaria’s “Of Crime and Punishment”, published in 1764, is seen as the first academic text relating to crime. However, criminology as a distinct academic discipline did not emerge in Britain until quite a bit later. Professionals working within the prison system and psychiatric professions began to identify themselves as “criminologists” towards the end of the 19th century. In 1921, the first university lectures in criminology were delivered (at the University of Birmingham), but it was not until 1961 that a course in criminology was established: a postgraduate course at the University of Cambridge. Since then, the academic discipline has become more and more mainstream, and is currently one of the most popular subjects for undergraduate social scientists, with undergraduate criminology degrees being set up across Britain. Criminology is a multi-disciplinary subject: it combines a range of approaches that share the focus of crime and rule-breaking, but you will find that you will need to combine aspects of sociology, history, psychology, cultural studies, economics, politics and indeed aspects of most of the social sciences in coming to an appreciation of the subject of criminology. While this may sound a little daunting, it ensures, we hope, that the subject will remain vibrant and interesting, and allow you to identify approaches and sub-areas of the discipline that you find personally of most interest. -3- Semester One: Criminological Theory 29th September 6th October 13th October 20th October 27th October 3rd November 10th November 17th November 24th November 1st December 8th December 15th December Lecture Seminar Introduction Introduction Assessing Criminological Arguments Making sense of crime What is Going On? The picture of crime Classical Criminology Deterrence Positivist Criminology The Criminal Other Reading Week No Lecture Or Seminar This Week Anomie and Strain Theory Driven to Crime Social Disorganization Informal Control Subcultural theory The appeal of crime Labelling Theory The Process of Becoming Deviant Feminist Criminology The gendered nature of crime Political Debates in Criminology Help or Punish Semester Two: Issues in Crime, Criminology and Criminal Justice 12th Jan 19th Jan 26th Jan 2nd Feb 9th Feb 16th Feb 23rd Feb 2nd March 9th March 16th March The Social Construction of Crime – Politics, the Media and Public Opinion Criminals: mad, bad or calculating? The Economics of Crime – How can deprivation be used to explain criminality? Are young people out of control? The meanings ascribed to crime Why people obey the law The interplay between crime and the economy Risky or at Risk: young people and social control Reading Week No Lecture or Seminar This Week Situational Crime Prevention Criminogenic Opportunities How important is drug use in explaining Tripping up? Myths and crime? realities of drug and crime links Crimes of the Powerful Suite crimes How is politics and society changing in What is going on? relation to ‘law and order’? Revision and Coursework Advice Advice Session -4- Learning and Teaching Strategy Lectures The aim of the lectures is to provide you with a framework to structure your own learning. The lectures will be in large groups (approaching 200), so the opportunities for open discussion will be, unfortunately extremely limited. I will aim, however, to provide a short amount of time each lecture to answer any questions. With such a large group, though, it is important that you play your role! Please get to the lectures on time, and if you are late, enter the room quietly, and sit in the nearest available seat. Please switch off your mobile phones. Please keep quiet, as your fellow students are trying to listen, even if you are not. Seminars Generally speaking, seminars are your opportunity to discuss issues, raise queries, and try out some arguments. In short, this is the time to talk (about criminology!). You will be expected to have done some work for each seminar – you will get so much more out of a seminar if you have done so. Please be respectful of both your fellow students, and your tutor – if you disagree about something, do so in an appropriate manner! The first few seminars in the first term are skills based seminars: these will address the key skills you will require during the course of your degree. Following on from these, for the rest of the first term, we will use the seminars to consider the main theoretical areas and debates in criminology. Preparation for seminars is vital. You will have suggested readings to do for each week, and it is important that you have done some of this, in order to have something to say. -5- The Understanding Criminology “Wiki” Page In addition to the lectures and seminars, the unit has an online element to it, which can be found at: http://understandingcriminology.pbwiki.com You should keep a regular check on all parts of this Wikisite: you will find lecture notes, announcements, extra seminar readings and anything else I think you might find useful here. There is also a “MMU Criminology and Sociology” Facebook page, if you wish to interact electronically with your students. On Facebook simply search for “MMU Criminology and Sociology”. There is no academic content as such here, but you might have a chat with your fellow students. -6- Assessment This unit is assessed by coursework, worth 50% of your final mark, AND an exam at the end of the year, also worth 50%. You must complete both the coursework essay, and the exam. The coursework submission date for this, and all other units, can be found here: http://www.hlss.mmu.ac.uk/support/acw-schedule/ Coursework Essay Questions: Word Limit: 2000 words including a 50 word paragraph You are required, in a brief 50 word paragraph, to identify one key academic article or original text that you have used to answer the question, and why it has been useful. This text should be based on original scholarly work, NOT a textbook. This should not be the only resource you use for this essay. 1. Choosing either classical OR positivist criminology, assess the strengths and limitations of the approach, and why it still retains an intrinsic appeal for many commentators. 2. Critically assess the usefulness of the concept of anomie in explaining patterns of crime in the 20th and 21st century. 3. To what extent does crime reflect mainstream cultural values? 4. Why do some communities become characterised by high levels of crime? 5. Critically assess the labelling perspective's depiction of the process by which someone achieves the label of 'deviant'. 6. To what extent has the growing awareness of victimisation in criminology the result of feminist criminology? 7. What are the significant differences in the explanations for, and responses to crime across different political perspectives? -7- General Reading List There are a large number of general criminological texts, and unfortunately for you, they all have their strong points, but no single text will be sufficient for this unit. It is an extremely difficult task for me to identify one text you should buy, and not much easier for yourselves, but you need to weigh up factors such as; do you want a text that will serve you well throughout a criminology degree, or a less expensive text that will suffice for this unit only; do you want a text that presents theories in an ‘easy to digest’ manner, or one that reflects the complexity of the ideas and theories you will be presented with; will a second-hand text do, or do you need the most up-to-date sources? I cannot answer these questions for you, but I can offer you my opinions on a few general texts. These are presented in no particular order Maguire, M, Morgan, R, Reiner, R (eds) (2007)’The Oxford Handbook of Criminology’ 4th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press This gets the 5-star recommendation as it represents an up-to-date collection of writings by leading academic criminologists in Britain. You will find this a useful text throughout a criminology degree, and covers both theoretical and policy issues in some depth. The downside of this text is undoubtedly its price (currently £29.50 on Amazon), but it is over 1000 pages long, and does reflect value for money, I think. This is the fourth edition, but if you find second-hand copies of earlier editions, you could save some money, as they are still of considerable use. Newburn, T (2007) Criminology, Cullompton, Willan Publishing This is a new and extremely well written text, that shares the downside of the Oxford handbook – ie. it is expensive (currently £28.79 on Amazon), but is an approachable text that you will probably find relatively easy to read. In comparison to the Oxford Handbook, though, I think it is probably less likely to be useful right through your degree, but certainly for first year, it is a good text. -8- Other Texts to Consider: Downes, D and Rock, P (2007) Understanding Deviance 5th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press This is a good discussion of the theoretical influences and debates in academic criminology, and each chapter gives you a lot to think about. You might find this a little hard going at first, but this is good for the academic soul! This text does not, however, contain much in the way of policy issues, which will form the basis of the second semester, so you will find this is most useful addressing the issues covered before Christmas. Hale, C., Hayward, K., Wahidin, A. & Wincup, E. (Eds.) (2005) Criminology, Oxford, Oxford University Press. A new and very comprehensive text: a useful companion web site. This would be a useful partner-text to the Oxford Handbook of Criminology. John Muncie and David Wilson (2004) Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, London, Cavendish This edited collection of chapters provide a wide-ranging and lively set of chapters. Some of the chapters are directly related to specific seminars, while others offer useful material that you can use in addressing any number of topics. Eugene McLaughlin, John Muncie (2001) Controlling Crime, London, Sage And John Muncie, Eugene McLaughlin (2001) The Problem of Crime, London, Sage These two texts have been produced for the Open University, and as is almost universally the case with such texts, represent an excellent combination of theory, policy issues, case studies, and activities to carry out to enhance your learning; all presented in an easy to digest and lively style. The one major criticism I offer, as a lecturer, is that because these are so tightly structured to a different course, you may find yourself having to read parts of different chapters to find useful reading for topics you are addressing. -9- Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications This text is a reader (a collection of edited original writings), and represents a good overall choice of areas, covering early classical theorists, as well as contemporary theory and research findings. This text will be used for a number of seminar readings, so you might find it helpful to have your own copy. Second hand editions should be available. Also: Ainsworth, P. Carlen, P. and Morgan, R. Coleman, C and Norris, C Croall, H Hartjen, C. Hood, R and Sparks, R. Joyce, P. Muncie, J McLaughlin, E., and Langan, M. Williams, K. Williams, K. Psychology and Crime: Myths and Realities Crime Unlimited? Questions for the Twenty-first Century Introducing Criminology Crime and Society in Britain: An Introduction Crime and Criminalisation Key Issues in Criminology Crime and the Criminal Justice System Criminological Perspectives Textbook on Criminology (4th edition) Crime and Criminology This is far from a complete list of useful texts: new ones are coming along all the time, and you may find texts that I do not even know about that you find particularly useful. Please let me know if you do! Do not feel that because I have not mentioned a text, it is not worth looking at. - 10 - Newspapers and Magazines In addition to published texts, it is vital that you keep up to date with what is happening day-to-day in the news. You should really be reading a quality newspaper most days – these are available in the library, or online, and you will certainly be required to identify newspaper reports and articles for seminar discussions. Here are some newspaper sites you will find useful:The The The The The The The Guardian Independent Times Daily Telegraph Sunday Times Observer Daily Mail www.guardian.co.uk www.theindependent.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk www.thesundaytimes.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk/observer http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ As you will learn in the course of the unit (and you probably know already) newspapers, and indeed every source, needs to be read critically. In short, don’t (necessarily) believe what you read in the papers, or for that matter, online. Academic Journals Academic journals are unrivalled as sources of the latest academic research and writing in general, and you should take some time to get to know the journals relevant to this area. In particular the following journals will be of use:British Journal of Criminology * Criminal Justice Matters Crime and Delinquency * Journal of research in crime and delinquency * Theoretical criminology * Journal of criminal law and criminology * * - available online from the library - 11 - Other useful online sites There is a gamut of criminological sites out there provided by a number of different types of institutions and organizations. As before, this is not a complete list, and any information should be read critically. If you don’t know what these organisations are about, have a look at their site, and work it out! Government Bodies The Home Office: www.homeoffice.gov.uk National Statistics Crime Data: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/crime_justice/crime.asp Criminal Justice System Online: http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/home.html Crime Prevention / Reduction Crime Reduction Online: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ Crimestoppers: http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/ Crime Concern: http://www.crimeconcern.org.uk/ Police, Prisons and Criminal Justice System organisations Association of Chief Police Officers: http://www.acpo.police.uk/ Greater Manchester Police: http://www.gmp.police.uk/ Police Federation: http://www.polfed.org.uk/polfed2.html Crown Prosecution Service: http://www.cps.gov.uk/ Prison Service: http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/ Youth Justice Board: http://www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/index.cfm Campaigns, Charities and Pressure Groups NACRO : http://www.nacro.org.uk/ Payback: http://www.payback.org.uk/ The Truth about Rape: http://www.geocities.com/truthaboutrape/ The Howard League: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/howard.league/ Prison Reform Trust: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ Women in Prison: http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/ Liberty: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ Victim Support: http://natiasso03.uuhost.uk.uu.net/ Statewatch: http://www.poptel.org.uk/statewatch/ - 12 - Political Parties The Labour Party: http://www.labour.org.uk/ The Conservative Party: http://www.conservatives.com/ Liberal Democrats: http://www.libdems.org.uk/ - 13 - Seminar Sessions Session One: Introductory Seminar As this is the first seminar, we will not require you to do too much formal academic work in preparation for this seminar, when you will be meeting up with your colleagues for probably the first time. However, without doing any particular reading for this week, consider what you think about the following questions (make a few notes and bring them to your seminar): What do you feel are the major problems facing our society regarding crime and deviance? What about aspects relating to offending, victimisation, imprisonment, civil rights and the operations of the criminal justice system? In general terms, how has society changed over the last 100 years? How about the last 50 years? The last 10 years? How have these changes affected the level of, experience of, and reactions to crime? What do you find interesting about the study of criminology? If you were asked to complete a substantial project about a criminological area, what might you choose, and why? - 14 - Session Two: “The State We are In” The aim of this exercise is to build on your opinions and views identified in the first seminar, but now you need to provide evidence for these views. This is what we would like you to do, in preparation for the seminar: 1. Write out 3 opinions about the current crime situation, and how it is changing. Try and state your opinion in clear language, and linking cause and effect. For example: “The crime rate is currently increasing because the unemployment rate is going up” Try, also, not to stick to general statements: think about specific types of crime, groups of people, areas of the country, perhaps global patterns etc. 2. Then go and find evidence to back up (or possibly contradict) your opinions. Good places to look for evidence would be Online: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html (Crime in England and Wales 2006/07) http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/0,,339240,00.html (Guardian Special Report on Crime) http://www.statistics.gov.uk (National Statistics Website) http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/index.jsp (Crimeinfo Website) Books: David Wilson and John Ashton (2001) What Everyone in Britain should know about Crime and Punishment’, Oxford, OUP This is not an exhaustive list: use internet search engines etc. to look up more precise topics and sources 3. Identify the ways in which the evidence has been collected: what problems do you identify with this. - 15 - Session Three: What is Going On? The Great Understanding Criminology Extent of Crime quiz Today's session will involve a quiz relating to the contemporary experiences of crime. There will be a prize (!) for the highest scoring student across all seminar groups. - 16 - Session Four: Classical Criminology 1. Both Classical and Positivist criminology (next week) emerged during a period of history identified as “The Industrial Revolution”. Identify what you see as the main aspects are of this period of time, both in wider societal terms, and criminologically. 2. If you asked a classical criminologist to outline the areas that are relevant to a question “why do people commit crime?”, what answers would they give? Which parts of our criminal justice system would they want to emphasise? 3. Why do you think people commit crime? What assumptions does our criminal justice system work on? What assumptions does our media make about the motivations of criminals? Do these views lend themselves to a classical criminological view, or something else? Suggested Readings Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Chs 1-4 Lilly, J.R, Cullen, F.T, and Ball, R.A. (1995) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, London, Sage Publications Ch 1,2 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 3 S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 5 … and many others: if you can’t get your hands on these readings, look in any basic criminology text (see the list at the front of this book), or sociology text, or look on the internet for information about classical criminology. - 17 - Session Five: Positivist Criminology 1. Define the terms “positivism” (on its own) and “positivist criminology”, and try and distinguish between different “types”. 2. What kinds of understandings and assumptions about human nature do positivists hold? Are these valid? 3. Why has positivism had such an influence in criminology? Why has it been criticised, and does it still have any influence over contemporary criminology and criminal justice policy? Suggested Readings Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Chs 1-4 Lilly, J.R, Cullen, F.T, and Ball, R.A. (1995) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, London, Sage Publications Ch 1,2 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 3 S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 5 … and many others: if you can’t get your hands on these readings, look in any basic criminology text (see the list at the front of this book), or sociology text, or look on the internet for information about classical criminology. - 18 - Session Six: Anomie Theory 1. Consider Durkheim’s thoughts relating anomie to crime. What did he see the trigger to rising crime to be? What did he mean by a ‘collective conscience’? How does Durkheim see crime and deviance as ‘functional’? 2. What are the main tenets of Merton’s strain theory? How has Merton developed the concept of anomie from Durkheim? 3. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of anomie and strain theory? 4. Merton has been criticised for focussing too heavily on economic strain as the trigger for offending. What other sources of ‘strain’ could you identify? Consider writers such as Albert Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin, and David Matza. Suggested Readings Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 7 Downes, D and Rock, P (1998) Understanding Deviance 3rd edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Ch 5 “Anomie” and Ch 6 “Culture and Subculture” Durkheim “The Normality of Crime” (Ch 74) in Worsley, P (ed) (1991) The New Modern Sociology Readings”, London, Penguin Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 5 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 3 S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 7 - 19 - Session Seven: Social Disorganization Seminar 1. The Chicago School have been strongly associated with the criminological ideas around “social disorganization”, in particular Clifford Shaw and Henry Mackay. What are the main tenets of Shaw and Mackay’s social disorganization theory? 2. Read the first chapter of Robert Putnam's influential book of 2000, 'Bowling Alone' (available on the Wiki Site). What similarities and differences can you identify between the Chicago School's notion of social disorganization, and what Putnam is describing. Suggested Additional Reading S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 6 & 8 Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 5, 6 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 4 Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 13 Downes, D and Rock, P (1998) Understanding Deviance 3rd edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Ch 6 “Culture and Subculture” Anthony Bottoms and Paul Wiles “Explanations of Crime and Place’ in Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications Jewkes, Y and Letherby, G. (eds) (2002) Criminology: A Reader, London, Sage Chs 8,9 - 20 - Session Eight: Cultural Criminology Main Seminar Reading: Keith Hayward 'The Vilification and Pleasures of Youthful Transgression' (available on the Wiki site) 1. What groups in society, do you think, are particularly attracted by the appeals of crime? What are the appeals of crime for these people? 2. What is the prospect of punishment likely to achieve here? 3. Identify examples, in contemporary society, of where crime, or at least deviance, is used in ways to enhance someone's sense of identity. Why is this done? Other Readings: A collection of key readings in Cultural Criminology can be found at http://www.culturalcriminology.org/papers.html - 21 - Session Nine: Labelling Theory Seminar Read the following extract and consider the questions that follow: A person may come to use excessive alcohol not only for a wide variety of subjective reasons but also because of diversified situational influences, such as the death of a loved one, business failure, or participating in some sort of organized group activity calling for heavy drinking of liquor. Whatever the original reasons for violating the norms of the community, they are important only for certain research purposes, such as assessing the extent of the 'social problem' at a given time or determining the requirements for a rational program of social control. From a narrower sociological viewpoint the deviations are not significant until they are organised subjectively and transformed into active roles and become the social criteria for assigning status. The deviant individuals must react symbolically to their own behaviour aberrations and fix them in their sociopsychological patterns. The deviations remain primary deviations or symptomatic and situational as long as they are rationalised or otherwise dealt with as functions of a socially acceptable role. Under such conditions normal and pathological behaviours remain strange and somewhat tensional bedfellows in the same person. Undeniably a vast amount of such segmental and partially integrated pathological behaviour exists in our society and has impressed many writers in the field of social pathology. Just how far and for how long a person may go in dissociating his sociopathic tendencies so that they are merely troublesome adjuncts of normally conceived roles is not known. Perhaps it depends upon the number of alternative definitions of the same overt behaviour that he can develop. perhaps certain physiological factors (limits) are also involved. However, it the deviant acts are repetitive and have a high visibility, and if there is a severe societal reaction, which, through a process of identification is incorporated as part of the 'me' of the individual, the probability is greatly increased that the integration of existing roles will be disrupted and that reorganization based upon a new role or roles will occur. (The 'me' in this context is simply the subjective aspect of the societal reaction.) Reorganization may be the adoption of another normal role in which the tendencies previously defined as 'pathological' are given a more acceptable social expression. The other general possibility is the assumption of a deviant role, if such exists; or, more rarely, the person may organize an aberrant sect or group in which he creates a special role of his own. When a person begins to employ his deviant behaviour or a role based upon it as a means of defence, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary. Objective evidences of this change will be found in the symbolic appurtenances of the new role in clothes, speech, posture, and mannerisms, which in some cases heighten social visibility, and which in some cases serve as symbolic cues to professionalization. Edwin Lemert, Social Pathology, pp. 75-6. - 22 - Questions 1. What are the differences between primary and secondary deviance. Is the difference important? 2. Identify a form of non-criminal deviance, and consider its primary and secondary features. 3. What are the principles of labelling theory? Can they be applied equally to different types of crime: drug crime; burglary; domestic violence; murder; corporate crime? 4. Consider the roles you “play”. What stereotypes do people use to interpret you and your behaviour; what labels are you subject to you; how might they hinder or help you? In what circumstances are labels more or less powerful? Suggested Additional Readings Howard Becker ‘Outsiders’ in Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 6 & 8 Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 5, 6 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 5 (this is also useful for the next couple of weeks) Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 8 Jewkes, Y and Letherby, G. (eds) (2002) Criminology: A Reader, London, Sage Ch 3, 11 - 23 - Session Ten: Feminism in Criminology Read the following extract and consider the questions that follow: Feminism and criminology There are four identifiable strands to feminist thought, all of which have had a different impact on criminology: liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism and postmodern feminism. We shall discuss the differential influence of each of these in turn. (NOTE: this extract considers just three “strands”) Liberal feminism Liberal feminism, stemming from the work of Wollstonecraft, Taylor and Mill, presumes that it is 'bad' or 'poor' scientific practice which produces the sexist bias in empirical research. In other words, it is a view of the scientific process which presumes that the rules of science and scientific inquiry are in themselves sound; what is at fault is how they are applied. To alleviate this problem liberal feminists align themselves with the view that more women researchers are needed, and that any empirical investigation should include women in the sample. In some respects it is possible to argue that liberal feminism has had the longest historical impact on the study of criminology. This statement can be defended in a number of ways. First, there have always been women researchers looking at the problems associated with crime. There may not have been very many of them, and the work that they produced may not have been particularly radical, but they were nevertheless present and they were examining the sex differentials associated with crime, especially delinquency (see, for example, Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Wootton, 1959; Cowie et al., 1968). In other words, there is both a history of women researching within criminology and a history of work addressing female offending behaviour. It is possible to align much of that work with the liberal imperative of ensuring that females feature as a part of any empirical data set - a question of good 'scientific' practice. There is a second theme, however, to that work which we might locate as being influenced by liberal feminism - a focus on the discriminatory practices of the criminal justice system. This strand reveals itself in different ways. Arguably the work of Pollak (1950), concerned as it was with understanding the influence that chivalry might play in the under-documenting of women's criminality, is at the same time a study of discriminatory practice. The presumption that women are discriminated against, either favourably or unfavourably, within the criminal justice system has informed a wealth of criminological research. Research has shown that factors such as type of offence (Hindelang, 1979; Farrington and Morris, 1983), home circumstances (Datesmann and Scarpitti, 1980) and personal demeanour (DeFleur, 1975) are contributory factors to the way in which women are processed by the criminal justice system. - 24 - This theme has been explored in ever more detailed and specific circumstances; in magistrate's courts (Eaton, 1986), in prison (Carlen, 1983; Dobash et al., 1986) and in women's experiences as victims of crime (Chambers and Millar, 1983; Edwards, 1989). That these factors simply represent sexist practices, however, is not easy to assert. Some studies suggest that women are treated more leniently by the courts, others suggest a harsher outcome. Such contradictory conclusions point to the complex way in which factors such as age, class, race, marital status and previous criminal record interact with each other. Moreover, Gelsthorpe (1989) found that there were organizational influences which affected the way in which females were dealt with by practitioners which were difficult to attribute to sexist or discriminatory practices alone. Gelsthorpe (1989) goes on to discuss the key drawbacks to this anti-discriminatory theme within criminological work. First, it assumes that women have been neglected systematically by criminology whereas it might be more accurate to assert that criminological concerns have developed rather more erratically than this. Women were the focus of some early criminological work (as suggested above). Moreover, women are not the only blind spot within criminology. There are others, such as, for example, race. Second, the focus on sexism presumes that if criminological theory and / or practices were emptied of sexism, then the theories and the practices would in themselves prove to be sound. This presumption, of course, returns us to one of the key problematics of liberal feminism; the fact that it leaves unchallenged what the yardsticks against which our understandings are measured. Third, much of this work assumes that sexism applies only to women. Gelsthorpe argues that this is an 'untenable' assumption; what about men? Finally, the complexity of the findings in this area do make it difficult to assert which outcomes are a result of direct discrimination. Some writers have argued that the pursuit of this discriminatory theme, with its underpinning assumption of equality before the law is no longer a fruitful enterprise for feminists interested in the crime problem (Smart, 1990). What is clear, however, is that the work informed by these themes has yielded a wealth of information concerning the complex way in which factors interact to produce different outcomes for different female offenders and victims of crime. Indeed, it is the sheer weight of that evidence which renders a simplistic assertion of chivalry highly problematic and points to understanding women's experiences of the criminal justice system by reference to factors outside the operation of the criminal justice system. Radical feminism Understanding the ways in which such processes result in differential outcomes for victims of crime leads to a consideration of the value and impact of radical feminism on criminological concerns. In contrast to liberal feminism, radical feminism focuses more clearly on men's oppression of women rather than on other social conditions which might result in women's subordination. Crucial to the radical feminist analysis is the question of sexuality. The emphasis within radical feminism on women's oppression and control through their sexuality has had its greatest impact on criminology through the avenue of 'victim studies'. It must be said, however, that radical feminists display a far greater preference for the term 'survivor' rather than 'victim', since that term implies a more positive and active role for women in their - 25 - routine daily lives. These contentions over terminology, notwithstanding the work of radical feminists on rape (including marital rape and date rape), domestic violence, child abuse and sexual murder, have certainly constituted a challenge to criminology in what is defined as criminal, the extent of that criminality and its location. (See, for example, Stanko, 1985; Cameron and Fraser, 1987; Russell, 1990.) Understanding and embracing the 'safe haven' of the home as a place in which much criminal behaviour occurs, and is perpetrated by men towards women, is still a difficulty for some mainstream (malestream) criminological work, since taking this seriously means taking gender seriously. The campaigning voice of radical feminism which shouts 'all men are potential rapists' reflects both the power and the threat of feminist studies to a criminology informed in this way. There are difficulties, however, with accepting this stance uncritically. Radical feminism presumes that all men have the same power and control over their own lives as they have over women. Moreover, the view that 'All men are potential rapists' presumes that all men have the same relationship with violence and to the expression of their masculinity in violence towards women. This presumption is derived from the problem of essentialism of which radical feminism is frequently accused. Essentialism asserts the view that there are immutable differences between men and women shared by all men and all women. Moreover, while radical feminism, despite this problem, has centred on men's sexual oppression of women as a key criminological concern, sex is not the only variable about which criminology had had a blind spot. The complex ways in which variables such as sex, race or class might interact with one another has been the central concern of socialist feminism. Here some attention will be paid to the work of Messerschmidt (1986) as articulating one expression of this position. Socialist feminism Messerschmidt has this to say about his theoretical framework for understanding crime: My socialist feminist understanding of crime had two premises. First, to comprehend criminality (of both the powerless and the powerful) we must consider simultaneously patriarchy and capitalism and their effects on human behaviour. Second from a social feminist perspective, power (in terms of gender and class) is central for understanding serious forms of criminality. It was theorised that the powerful (in both the gender and class spheres) do the most criminal damage to society. Further, the interaction of gender and class creates positions of power and powerlessness in the gender/class hierarchy, resulting in different types and degrees of criminality and varying opportunities for engaging in them. just as the powerful have more legitimate opportunities, they also have more illegitimate opportunities. (Messerschmidt, 1993: 56) As Messerschmidt himself admits, as with all theoretical constructions, this framework has its limitations. For example, it denudes the criminal actor of a sense of agency, locating the motivation for crime within the social system. It also asserts patriarchy as being unitary and uniform in its impact on both men and women. Yet - 26 - despite these problems this framework does offer a starting point which posits an understanding of criminality located within socio-structural conditions - a way of thinking about the criminal behaviour of both men and women and the way in which those socio-structural conditions impact upon men and women. Elements of these concerns are also found in the work of Carlen. It is important to note that Carlen recognizes the importance of feminism as a politics rather than as a guarantor of theoretical or empirical truth (Carlen, 1990). Moreover, Carlen is very critical of feminist efforts at explaining criminal behaviour and points to two major limitations in such efforts with respect to female lawbreaking behaviour in particular. First, she argues that an exclusive focus on women's lawbreaking behaviour presumes that women break the law for essentially different reasons than men do. This, for Carlen, reflects a reductionist and essentializing position similar to that adopted by the biological positivists. Second, when the historically and socially specific contexts of male and female offending behaviours are examined, the explanatory concepts which emerge rapidly merge with issues of racism, classism and imperialism rather than gender per se. She goes on to comment that women in prison represent those whose criminalization has been overdetermined by the threefold effects of racism, sexism and classism, none of which is reducible to the other and all of which, for Carlen, point to connecting the debate around women and crime to the broader issue of social justice. What is particularly striking about both the theoretical work of Messerschmidt (1986) and the range of work conducted by Carlen, on female offenders and women in prison, is the way in which both these writers have drawn on conceptual formulations which take us outside of mainstream criminological debates in order to understand the nature of criminality. This process of moving to debates outside of criminology in order to understand women's and men's experiences of the criminal justice system is one of the features of what Cain (1990b: 2) has called 'transgressive criminology'. Cain's 'transgressive criminology' constitutes a call to move beyond what she defines as the 'binding web of co-man sense' (Cain, 1990b: 8). In order to do this criminology must take seriously that which actors themselves take seriously yet simultaneously make visible that which is taken for granted. This concern generates a criminological shopping list of women only studies, that is studies exploring the totality of women's lives, as well as studies of men. As Cain (1990b: 12) states, criminology must take on board the question of 'what in the social construction of maleness is so profoundly criminogenic: why do males so disproportionately turn out to be criminals?' There are clearly some parallels between the work of Carlen and Cam and the respective questions they raise for criminology. While Carlen would not concur with any particular claims to a feminist methodology and would eschew the term 'feminist' for all but campaigning purposes (in contrast to elements of Cain's work), their joint focus on locating gender issues as being just one dynamic of both women's and men's experiences of the criminal justice system and their concern to place those experiences within a broader social context outside of criminology, gives some flavour as to why each of them in different ways find the label 'feminist criminology' disturbing. Moreover, each in their different ways have also found it important to - 27 - challenge any approach which endeavours to essentialize the differences between males and females, as found in radical feminism. 1. Each of the three strands of feminist thought that Sandra Walklate identifies is in some sense critical of “malestream” criminology. a. What aspects of crime and deviance do each strand focus on? b. What do the different feminists identify as the main problems with existing criminology? c. What do they propose as the way(s) in which feminism can effectively influence criminology? 2. What do you see are the strengths and limitations of each approach? Suggested Additional Readings Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications Ch 3, 16, 41, 42, 43 S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 13 Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 13, 15 Eamonn Carrabine, P. Iganski, M.Lee, K,Plummer, N. South (2004) Criminology: A Sociological Introduction, London, Routledge Ch 5 Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 10 Jewkes, Y and Letherby, G. (eds) (2002) Criminology: A Reader, London, Sage Ch 6 - 28 - Session Eleven: Political Debates in Criminology Read the articles and answer the questions that follow. Left Realism In 1979, the new right succeeded in a Conservative/Tory party victory in Britain's General Election and brought into office a government determined to effect change (Jenkins, 1987). The Conservative party was committed specifically to ending Britain's domestic and international economic and political decline. To do this, the first target of the victorious Conservatives was to make an ideological and political break with the assumptions and rules restraining government under the ideology of social democracy circa 1940 and post-World War II. This represented a major change in British politics. At the heart of social democracy was a four-decade expansion of the functions and responsibilities of the state. The public enterprise sector, for example, was substantially "increased through the nationalization of major public utilities such as gas, electricity, coal and railroads" (Gamble, 1989, p. 2). In the social arena, this expansion meant that welfare provisions were extended as were national health care, housing, and education. But by the 1970s, social democracy and its welfare policies came under attack in Britain and in many other countries. The 1979 Conservative victory ushered in a new governmental ideology, which used as its major agenda the privatization of government industries and the placing of restrictions on welfare, national health care, and educational support. At the time of this writing, 15 years after the 1979 General Election victory, the Tories continue dismantling the welfare state, although markedly weakened in popularity by failed social policies and high-level governmental scandals (New York Times, 1994a; Observer, 1993). As the new right's governmental policies were being formulated and implemented, radical criminology recognized that its tide had turned. Writing about the impact of radical criminology, Stanley Cohen (1981) stated: There are more corners and cavities than ten years ago, but for the most part the institutional foundations of British criminology remain intact and unaltered, for the Establishment saw the new theories as simply fashion which would eventually pass over or as a few interesting ideas which could be swallowed up without changing the existing paradigm at all. (p. 236) In a reflective comment about radical criminology's two-decade history, Matthews and Young (1986) stated that it had "concentrated on the impact of the state-through the process of labelling-on the criminal at the expense of neglecting the effect of crime upon the victim" (p. 1). In their words this neglect was improper because radical criminology should have concentrated on "the basic triangle of relations which is the proper subject matter of criminology - the offender, the state and the victim" (p. 1). In part as a remedy to this oversight and the claim in some circles that radical criminology was in a state of crisis of its own, radical criminology developed a different approach to studying crime called left realism, a name used because of its emphasis on the real aspects of crime. Central to left realism was a strong concern that - 29 - the new criminology not only had placed perhaps too much emphasis on the state' but also had neglected the etiology of crime (Young, 1986). This point cannot be overly emphasized because it marked a significant shift in Britain's radical criminology, one not so much from theoretical issues as toward research and statistical analyses of crime causation and its consequences. More specifically, left realism was explicitly, though not exclusively, concerned with the origins, nature, and impact of crime in the working class. This emphasis was conducive to creating a research agenda that included “an accurate [study of] victimology" (Young, 1986, p. 23). But this was not just an emphasis on "victims"; it was a broader approach that not only stressed the geography and social dimensions of vulnerable sections of a community but also included studying the "risk rate of vulnerability" in the community. One way of conceptualizing this point is to think of the working class as a victim of crime from all directions. The more vulnerable a person is economically and socially, for example, the more likely it is that both working-class and white-collar crime will occur against them (Young, 1986,p.23). One example of left realism's concern for victims is the emphasis it places on feminist perspectives in criminology. With the growing awareness in the 1970s of the problem of rape and other feminist issues, feminists forced a rethinking of criminological theory itself, as has been discussed here. This development has not been lost on left realism, as it stresses that crime should be studied as "problems as people experience them" (Young, 1986, p. 24). As Young stated, 1t takes seriously the complaints of women" (p. 24). This should not be interpreted to mean that left realism is concerned only about women as crime victims. Its agenda is concerned equally with racism, police brutality, and a number of other "everyday crimes" (see Young & Matthews, 1992; Matthews & Young, 1992). The uniqueness of its perspective is that it is interested decidedly in the class and power dimensions of crime causation and what can be done about it. Finally, today left realism is at least a decade old and its appeal and contributors are found in a number of countries, including Canada, the United States, Australia, and Britain. Varieties of Right Realism The emphasis on crime's biological roots represents only one theme found in conservative writings about crime. At the risk of simplifying complex arguments, three additional types of conservative theorizing can be delineated (Currie, 1985). By revitalizing classical school principles, some have developed rational choice / routine activities / econometric models that conceive of individuals as logical actors choosing crime when the benefit exceeds the cost. Others have attempted to revitalize the psychological approach by suggesting that offenders persist in crime because they think not logically but differently. Still others of a conservative bent have gone beyond an individualistic approach, but only to the point of linking crime to a distinctive type of social influence: the allegedly permissive culture that they trace to developments in the American society of the 1960s, such as those discussed in earlier chapters. - 30 - Rational choice and routine activities. Rational choice theory represents an approach favoured by many economists. Based on the concept of expected utility, it proceeds on assumptions similar to Bentham's utilitarian assertion that individuals operate by rational decisions expected to maximize profits and minimize losses. Gibbs (1975) has argued that as sociologists became more interested in the deterrence issue, economists became interested in rational choice models of crime. There is little doubt that both shifts were products of the times. According to Cornish and Clarke (1986), rational choice theory can account not only for the decision to engage in crime but also for the selection of specific crimes at specific times and places. Unlike the more rationalistic exponents of the classical school, however, contemporary rational choice theorists do not insist on the pure rationality of decision making but make allowances for factors such as morality, inaccurate information, and fear that might distort the hedonistic calculus. Rational choice theorists tend to exaggerate the "irrationality" of other psychologically oriented theories; however, by making so many exceptions to the pure rationality they purport to stress in their own theories, some critics have insisted that there is little to set them apart from other theoretical models (Akers, 1994). The more ecologically oriented routine activities theory looks beyond the individual to the larger context, particularly the combination of motivated offender, potential victim, and absence of capable guardians in conjunction at a particular time and place (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Such an approach is, of course, much less individualistic and less conservative in that it stresses the logic of social systems in addition to that of actors (Williams & McShane, 1994). The probability of a conjunction of the three key crime factors is held to be a product of the usual, recurrent, routine daily activities of human beings in particular times and places. According to routine activities theory, changes in these patterns of daily living simply alter the odds of crime as they bring the various crime-generating factors into conjunction. This theory does not purport to explain the nature of the criminal motivation on the part of the potential offender or probe very much into reasons why potential guardians are unavailable, incapable, or unwilling to help. Like control theory, it assumes that crime will tend to occur. Like ecological theory, it traces this to "natural" features of certain social systems. In terms of policy consequences, the rational choice theories are largely deterrence theories. The political implications drawn from the theories are especially revealing. Although die logic they adopt suggests that crime might be reduced by either increasing the risks of punishment (e.g., through tighter citizen surveillance and harsher penalties) or increasing the rewards for conformity (e.g., through increased employment at higher wages), or both, these theorists tend to concentrate on the first policy approach. The psychological approach. Although by the middle 1970s psychoanalytic theory had lost considerable standing and was to come under considerable attack by the early 1990s, partly because of new evidence suggesting that Freud had either misjudged or actually suppressed much of his critical case material and partly because of sharp feminist critique, Samuel - 31 - Yochelson and Start Samenow (1976) published a popular book, The Criminal Personality, arguing that crime was the result of pathological thought patterns constituting a "criminal mind." Offenders were described in the traditional language of psychopathy as manipulative, calculating, and largely immune to efforts to treat them. By the 1980s the notion that the criminal must be characterized by some pathological mentality, if only it could be identified, had gained more favour, with many different psychological characteristics suggested as the origin of crime. A wide variety of learning disabilities were suggested as the sources of crime. As discussed in an earlier chapter, Hirschi himself largely abandoned his sociological version of control theory for the essentially psychological theory that crime could be traced to a breakdown of self-control, the one form of control that was really crucial (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Although the theory was less biologically oriented than some that were becoming popular, it did not link crime to weakness in society in the manner of strain theory, conflict theory, or even labelling theory; instead it focused on the failure of the institutions of socialization, especially child-rearing practices of the family, to inculcate the inner, self-control necessary for an individual to resist the temptations of crime. By the late 1970s the IQ theory that had fallen into disrepute decades earlier was being reasserted (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977). Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) suggested that low intelligence is associated with inability to reason morally, reestablishing the notion that it represented not only a cognitive but also a moral backwardness. By the late 1980s, those accepting as facts the arguable assumptions (a) that intelligence is a single, unitary faculty, (b) that IQ scores are valid measures of this capacity, and (c) that the capacity is essentially inherited rather than environmentally developed were using them to explain racial differences in crime and delinquency (Gordon, 1987). In somewhat oversimplified terms one might say that the early 1990s saw a restoration of elements of social Darwinism, with suggestions that Blacks, for example, were both cognitively and morally inferior by nature and that this inferiority explained much of the crime problem. Permissive society and crime. In addition to rational choice approaches and those stressing possible psychological deficits, some of the more conservative theorists have linked crime to a distinctive type of social influence: the permissive culture in U.S. society (see Murray, 1984). Although minimizing the criminogenic effects of class and social inequality, they argued that family and schools were failing to discipline and punish effectively (see also Hirschi, 1983). Underlying these claims is the notion that unless humans' baser instincts are tamed they will embark on lives of crime. Assessment. These observations on crime should not be dismissed out of hand. Some offenders do calculate crime's profitability; some think differently; and some become lawbreakers due to lax child rearing. Empirical evidence, however, is equivocal on the extent to which complex decision making by offenders can be reduced to a simple model of weighing costs and benefits; simply raising the costs of crime does not seem an effective crime control strategy (Finckenauer, 1982). Similarly, cognitive approaches - 32 - to understanding offenders' thinking have merit, but simple constructs such as a criminal mind-have not been demonstrated to exist across offenders. Y6chelson and Samenow's study was limited to a highly specialized, institutionalised group of offenders, and such approaches leave unexplained the critical causal point: Where do criminal minds come from (Pfohl, 1985)? Families and schools clearly have an impact on criminal involvement (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986), but as Elliott Currie (1985) pointed out, crime seems to be associated not with permissiveness per se but with child-rearing practices that are overly neglectful or overly harsh, failing to nurture human development. A more general criticism, however, can be levelled at these types of conservative theorizing: "They treat larger social arrangements and forces as inconsequential" (Currie, 1985). Even if offenders make decisions on costs and benefits, we are told little of why society is structured in such a way as to make joining a gang "pay" for some youths and going to college pay for other youths. The existence of criminal minds, as noted, is taken for granted, with little thought given to the social circumstances that may have shaped this unhealthy development. Parents and teachers are warned that tough discipline is a panacea for misbehaviour, but we learn little of how poverty, loss of manufacturing jobs in cities, and neighbourhood disintegration strain families and schools and thereby reduce their ability to furnish youth with a nurturant environment (see also W. J. Wilson, 1987). In short, by seeing crime as simply a matter of bad choices, bad personalities, or the failure to tame bad impulses, attention is deflected away from defects in the social structure that form the wider context of crime causation. Source: Lilly, J.R, Cullen, F.T and Ball, R.A. (1995) “Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences” Questions 1. Outline the main features of left and right realism: where do the proponents of the different theorise look for explanations of the rise in crime experienced over the 1980s and 1990s? What solutions do they propose? 2. How would you characterise the positions on law and order represented by the Labour and Conservative parties now? You could use the website of the two parties and newspaper archives (e.g. the Guardian archive) to identify the crime-related policies of the parties. - 33 - Suggested Additional Reading Muncie, J, McLaughlin, E and Langan, M (1996) Criminological Perspectives, London, Sage Publications Ch 13, 14, 21 S. Jones (2006) Criminology, Oxford, OUP, Ch 10, 11, 12 Tierney, T (2006) Criminology: Theory and Context, Harlow, Prentice Hall; Ch 10, 12, 14 Burke, R.H. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton, Willan, Ch 3, 4, 15 Jewkes, Y and Letherby, G. (eds) (2002) Criminology: A Reader, London, Sage Ch 4, 11 - 34 - Appendix: Department of Sociology Referencing Guide This is a short guide to how to include various types of references in your coursework. There are a number of different styles, but the generally agreed referencing style in Sociology at MMU is the Harvard system. This guide presents a fictitious set of sources, all with the same broad title but representing different types of sources, and shows how they should be references, both in the text of a document, and in a bibliography. When to reference You should reference all academic material that you include in your coursework. This includes direct quotes, statistics, other evidence and points of argument and theories that other people have published. When you need to refer to a source in the text of a document, irrespective of the type of document, you do so by placing the authors name, and date of publication in brackets, after the material you are referencing. If you are referencing more than one article by an author in the same year, then they should be distinguished by an additional letter (eg. Williams 2005a; Williams 2005b) Examples Direct quotes “The National Union of Students represent a progressive force for social change” (Williams 2005a). Statistics 17% of members of the National Union of Students are psychologically stable (Williams 2005b). Other Evidence Members of the National Union of Students demonstrate a strong, consistent and rational understanding of civic responsibility (Williams et. al. 2003) Points of argument While there is clearly a strong case for pressure groups to campaign for enhanced rights, no single group has done so with such unmitigated success and with such a universally accepted agenda as the National Union of Students (Williams 2004) - 35 - Bibliographies Each time you have cited a source in the body of your document, you then need to add the full reference in to a bibliography at the end of the document. There are, obviously, various types of sources that you will have used. Here are the ways in which a standard Harvard referencing system would format different sources in a bibliography. Books Williams, S. (2005a) The National Union of Students: a force for social change? Manchester: MMU Press OR Name (date) Title, Place of Publication: Publisher Journal Articles Williams, S. (2005b) ‘The National Union of Students: a force for progressive social change?’ British Journal of Spurious Social Science, Vol 10, Issue 3, 15-35. OR Name (date) ‘Title of Article’, Journal Title, Volume, Issue Number, Page numbers. Websites Williams, S. (2005b) ‘The National Union of Students: a force for progressive social change?’ http://www.mmu.ac.uk/sociology/dubious.htm Accessed 18.7.2005 OR Name (date) ‘Title’, URL, Date accessed Book Chapters Williams, S. Smith, D. and Cooper, H. (2003) ‘The National Union of Students: a force for progressive social change?’ in B. Leach, (ed.) Readings in Spurious Social Science. Manchester: MMU Press. OR Name (date) ‘Title of Chapter’, in Name editor (ed.) Book Title, Place of Publication: Publisher TV Programmes Williams, S. (2004) ‘The National Union of Students: a force for progressive social change?’ T. Goddard, Rational Debate on Social Issues ITV1 18.7.2005 OR Name (date) ‘Title of Programme or Film’, Series Director, Series Title Broadcasting Channel, Date of Broadcast - 36 - It must be said that non-standard sources do exist: not every reference has every piece of information available, but complete as much as you can, and follow the guidelines as closely as possible. Other information There are a range of other useful sources of information about referencing, but the following are useful: MMU Sociology (2005) ‘Referencing, Citation and Bibliographies’ http://www.sociology.mmu.ac.uk/referencing0.php Accessed 18.7.05 ‘Citing Electronic Sources - International Standard ISO 690-2’ (2005) http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/iso/tc46sc9/standard/690-2e.htm Accessed 18.7.05 Shaw, M (2004) ‘How to Reference. A Guide for Students’ Division of Criminology. Nottingham Trent University www.internetjournalofcriminology.com Accessed 18.7.05 Dan Ellingworth 18.7.08 NOTE: A second unit outline will be made available at the start of term two. - 37 -