Conversations in a Crowded Room: An Assessment of the Contribution of Historical Research to Criminology
| Author | IAIN CHANNING,DAVID CHURCHILL,HENRY YEOMANS |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12376 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
The Howard Journal Vol59 No 3. September 2020 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12376
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 243–260
Conversations in a Crowded Room:
An Assessment of the Contribution of
Historical Research to Criminology
HENRY YEOMANS, DAVID CHURCHILL
and IAIN CHANNING
Henry Yeomans is Associate Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds; David
Churchill is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice, Centre for Criminal
Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds; Iain Channing is Lecturer
in Criminology and Criminal Justice, School of Law, Criminology and
Government, University of Plymouth
Abstract: The relationship between history and social science generally, as well as history
and criminology specifically, has long been considered problematic. But, since the likes
of Burke (1992) and King (1999) spoke of a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, crime history has
rapidly expanded and, more latterly, historical criminology has begun to emerge. This
article reappraises the relationship of the subject areas by considering the impact that
historical research has had on criminology. Although the impact is found to be somewhat
patchy, the article identifies positive signs within the two fields that might point towards
a more mutually-enriching future.
Keywords: crime history; criminal justice history; criminology; historical
criminology; interdisciplinarity
Criminology has long manifested an interest in the past. Post-war British
criminology was marked by the historical scholarship of Leon Radzinow-
icz, and the radical ‘new criminology’ of the 1970s made connections with
developments in the social history of crime (see Lawrence 2012). A con-
cern for the past is also visible in the theoretical bedrock of criminology
which, for all the expansion and diversification of the subject area in the last
50 years, remains grounded in classical sociological thinkers (Karl Marx,
Max Weber, Émile Durkheim) who sought to comprehend the historical
transition to industrialism as a route to ‘a larger understanding of social
process, of history, in general’ (Abrams 1982, p.4). Notions of class strug-
gle, rationalisation and anomie still provide criminologists with theoretical
243
C
2020 The Authors. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice published by Howard League
and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which per-
mits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The Howard Journal Vol59 No 3. September 2020
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 243–260
vocabularies for discussing change and continuity through time. Further-
more, a few historical studies, such as Geoffrey Pearson’s (1983) Hooligan,
or David Garland’s (2001) Culture of Control, have attained canonical status
within British criminology. Several other prominent criminologists have
undertaken substantial archival research projects, including Lucia Zedner,
Paul Rock, Mary Bosworth, Tim Newburn, Paul Knepper, and Mariana
Valverde (to name but a few). Though criminology makes the analysis of
contemporary society its fundamental mission, it, nevertheless, has recur-
rent encounters with the past.
However, the extent to which these encounters with the past have pro-
duced genuine historical understanding has been questioned. Garland’s
Culture of Control – to take an especially prominent example – has been
criticised for offering a highly-selective historical account, which ignores
spheres of deviance and regulation that do not fit easily into its central the-
sis (Braithwaite 2003; Loader and Sparks 2004). Indeed, Garland has been
accused of ‘doing violence to the past’ (Loader and Sparks 2004, pp.14–
15). Similar criticisms have been levelled at another historical study in the
criminological canon: Michel Foucault’s (2001) Discipline and Punish (see
Knepper 2016, pp.145–72). Such criticism reflects wider misgivings about
how social scientists treat the past. Historians have repeatedly attacked so-
cial scientists for either ignoring or misusing the past, while social scientists
have critiqued historians’ tendency to eschew claims regarding the general
relevance of their studies (see, for example, Abrams 1982; Burke 1992;
Sewell 2005). Regarding history and criminology specifically, Peter King
(1999) observed some 20 years ago: ‘Historians still tend to raid crimino-
logical texts without fully embracing or understanding the deeper theo-
retical foundations of the ideas or research they are using. Criminologists
often genuflect only momentarily towards historical research and thus fail
to properly contextualise the structures and recent patterns of change they
are analysing’ (pp.161–2). Criminology appears to share with other social
sciences an awkward relationship with both the past itself and the academic
discipline of history. Historians and criminologists have had encounters
without rich understanding, exchange without effective communication,
echoing the famous description of history’s relation with social science as a
‘dialogue of the deaf’ (Burke 1992, p.2).
A cursory look at academic citations only partly supports this charac-
terisation. Ellen Cohn and Amaia Iratzoqui’s (2016) study of citations in
five major international criminology journals between 2006 and 2010 re-
vealed the 50 most-cited authors in each journal: they include criminolo-
gists, sociologists, legal scholars, and psychologists, but no academic his-
torians. The rankings are dominated by researchers specialising in life
course or developmental criminology. Yet the top 50 authors in The British
Journal of Criminology (BJC) include several researchers known partly or
primarily for research that uses the past to make sense of the present:
David Garland was the most cited author, while Michel Foucault, John
Braithwaite, Pat O’Malley, Nikolas Rose, and Stephen Farrall also fea-
tured in the top 15 (Cohn and Iratzoqui 2016, p.609). Again, histor-
ical research exercises a major influence over some parts of the field,
244
C
2020 The Authors. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice published by Howard League
and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial