Download Unit Outline Part 1 - MMU Understanding Criminology / FrontPage

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 -