Contestability in criminology
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Author | Andrew Goldsmith,Mark Halsey |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865820912650 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Contestability in
criminology
Andrew Goldsmith and Mark Halsey
Flinders University, Australia
The question we wish to pose as longstanding observers and contributors to the disci-
pline of criminology (as well as editors of this journal) is this – is there sufficient space
and structured opportunity presently within the scholarly practice of criminology for
robust engagement with other perspectives within (and even outside of) criminology?
Here, ‘sufficient’ refers not just to the chance for different points of view to be shared,
but for those views also to be heard and considered, and for there to develop, at least
from time to time, a shared consensus around the ‘better’ view of knowledge and under-
standing on a particular topic. While criminology has offered, and can continue to offer,
a range of critiques of existing practices and understandings, it ought, as many of its
practitioners undoubtedly would endorse, to offer its audiences a strongly based con-
ception of knowledge built upon the presentation of principles and propositions that
have developed through presentation, contestation, and regard to the available evidence.
While we would not argue that absolute consensus is required for knowledge to emerge
credibly and in actionable from, there must nonetheless be a minimum, shared core of
understandings about what constitutes good method and what can be considered mate-
rial facts. Otherwise, we would suggest, the discipline will suffer (perhaps, continue to
suffer) widespread dismissal in terms of its public and policy audiences. While not
expecting a symphony or perfect harmony of opinion, those audiences would rightly
reject a cacophony of views that offered only evidence of division and indecision on key
matters of public concern, namely crime and criminal justice.
So why raise this issue now? The stimulus arises from observing the operation of the
discipline for several decades in a variety of roles: as conference attendees, as paper
presenters, as submitters to academic journals, as reviewers of papers submitted to those
journals, as peer reviewers in competitive grant competitions, and as editors of journals
in the field. Neither of us has participated enough in the internal operations of other
Corresponding authors:
Andrew Goldsmith, Visiting Scholar, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, UK.
Email: andrew.goldsmith@flinders.edu.au
Mark Halsey,Centre for Crime Policy & Research, College of Business, Government & Law, Flinders University, GPO
Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia.
Email: mark.halsey@flinders.edu.au
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2020, Vol. 53(1) 3–6
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865820912650
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
To continue reading
Request your trial