Book Review: Public sector criminological research: The Australian Institute of Criminology, 1972–2002 by Russell Smith
| Published date | 01 June 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/26338076241239061 |
| Author | Richard Harding |
| Date | 01 June 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
Book Review
Russell Smith, Public sector criminological research: The Australian Institute of
Criminology, 1972–2002. Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. 488 pp. ISBN 978-3-031-
28355-0; 978-3-031-28356-7 (eBook); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
28356-7
Reviewed by: Richard Harding, University of Western Australia, Australia
Date received: 19 February 2024; accepted: 26 February 2024
On 16 October 2023, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) celebrated the 50th anni-
versary of its official opening. In anticipation, Dr Russell Smith undertook the task of research-
ing and writing its history; in doing so, he received full access to official records and
documentation and conducted numerous interviews with key personnel. Such a work necessar-
ily involves evaluating the AIC’s strengths, weaknesses and achievements.
Smith points out (page 55), quoting Professor Norval Morris, that "the Institute took about
17 years from conception to parturition". The conception occurred at the First United Nations
Crime Congress in Geneva in 1955, attended by Sir John Barry, Sir Jock McClemens and
Morris himself. The context was a growing recognition in the post-World War social
context that societies needed to put much more intellectual effort into understanding crime
issues and trying to manage them. This post-War period saw the conception of the
United States National Institute of Justice, the Home Office Research Unit, the Research and
Statistics Division of Justice Canada, and the various United Nations research institutes such
as the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control affiliated witht hte United Nations
(HEUNI) in Finland and the United Nations and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) in Tokyo.
Smith traces well the hesitancy and confusions that manifested themselves during this
17-year period of gestation. A good thing was that, when at last Australia committed itself
to the establishment of a national criminological institution, it was a politically bi-partisan
initiative.
Nevertheless, there have been some tensions throughout the AIC’s history. Smith identifies
at various points underlying, and sometimes explicit, tension between what seems to be import-
ant to the federal government, as the funding agency, and what seem to be AIC priorities to the
States and Territories, as the responsible entities for mainstream crime and justice administra-
tion issues.
I myself, as an academic criminologist, have never grasped the significance of this supposed
dichotomy. And when I was Director of the AIC (1984–87), it did not emerge as an inhibiting
factor in setting our research and training priorities. Self-evidently, if one jurisdiction can
understand and manage a crime issue more effectively, that is good for the other jurisdictions
Journal of Criminology
2024, Vol. 57(2) 257–259
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/26338076241239061
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
To continue reading
Request your trial