Search

Southern Criminology is a theoretical perspective that shifts the focus from the state criminal justice process to global inequalities, transnational crime, and postcolonial politics. While recognising the importance of this shift in perspective for a globalising world, this paper asks two difficult questions. Firstly, how easy is it to generalise about whole regions of the world in advancing a political viewpoint? Secondly, is it possible for those in the West to imagine an alternative global criminology, if non-Western societies really do have different cultural values and epistemologies? For example, how should we respond to traditional practices among Indigenous Australians or a Confucian understanding of crime? These questions may make a Southern Criminology sound impossible in the same way as other varieties of critical theory. But this paper is intended to strengthen this emerging movement by acknowledging, and working through, potential difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores some implications of interpretive philosophies of social science, developed by thinkers such as Max Weber and Peter Winch, for conducting comparative research in criminal justice. These address the meaningful character of human activities but, unlike constructionism and postmodernism, respect the objective and constraining character of institutional realities. Drawing on American empirical studies that employ qualitative methods to explain statistical variation, the article shows how interpretive traditions often find it difficult freeing themselves from positivist assumptions and fall short of investigating how social actors understand and engage in comparison in their everyday lives. A discussion of data collected in an ethnographic study of children's courts in Australia demonstrates how a more thorough-going and consistent approach to comparison is possible within this interpretive framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is intended to stimulate reflection and debate about the relationship between pure and applied research in criminology. The central argument is that evaluation research, which has almost become a dominant paradigm in researching criminal justice, has lower methodological standards than peer-reviewed social science. It considers this case in relation to quantitative and qualitative methods, and examines examples of a 'flagship' and 'small-scale' evaluation. The article concludes by discussing the implications for evaluators (who are encouraged to employ a wider range of methods), funding agencies and criminology as an academic discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]