Editorial
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220314545461 |
| Published date | 01 August 2014 |
| Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
European Journal of Probation
2014, Vol. 6(2) 89 –91
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220314545461
ejp.sagepub.com
Editorial
In our previous editorial, we set out part of the agenda for the European Journal of
Probation as it continues to grow and develop, stressing the need to develop critical and
comparative research on probation. In the papers of our last edition, we saw that chal-
lenge beginning to be addressed in a critically important discussion of probation privati-
zation. Though focused mainly on the European jurisdiction where this process has been
most developed (England and Wales), some of our contributors began to take up the task
of exploring how ideas and practices like privatization travel, and what it might mean if
they do travel further in Europe.
What we did not do in our previous editorial was to offer any taxonomy of types of
probation research within which our critical and comparative priorities might located.
Thus, for example, McNeill et al. (2010) – in exploring relationships between criminal
justice and social work – note that a narrow approach to the development of ‘evidence-
based’ policy and practice has produced an unhelpful preoccupation in this field with
evaluation research. Their review suggests that a proper review of criminal justice social
work research needs to extend (at least) to include two other forms of research.
Explanatory research has as its objects the issues, problems or processes with which
probation institutions and practices seek to engage (such as, for example, desistance
from crime); explanatory research seeks to describe, understand and explain these phe-
nomena, and sometimes makes prescriptions about how problems might be ameliorated
and solutions developed. McNeill et al. (2010) conceive of a third form of research –
critical and comparative research – as being concerned not with the outcomes of institu-
tions and practices but rather with the institutions and practices themselves; aiming to
describe, understand and (sometimes) to explain them. Typically, it also has an inher-
ently if not always explicit moral and political dimension since it is commonly con-
cerned with the legitimacy and value of these practices, and with their social roles and
functions.
Taxonomies are useful, but they also sometimes over-simplify and obscure complexi-
ties. Thus, for example, it seems obvious to us that evaluation research and explanatory
research are also inherently comparative (if not always critically so). To evaluate is often
to compare one practice with another; and to seek to prefer one practice over another.
And to seek to explain without some attention to the contextual dynamics of different
systems and contexts seems both impracticable and perhaps even dangerous, at least if it
leads to over-generalized prescriptions.
An alternative taxonomy is to be found in Loader and Sparks’ (2010) work on ‘Public
Criminology?’. They differentiate between three ‘moments’ involved in pursuing the pub-
lic contribution of criminological research; the moment of discovery (of new knowledge
545461EJP0010.1177/2066220314545461European Journal of ProbationEditorial
2014
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial