Making Criminology Work: Theory and Practice in Local Context
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700204 |
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
108
Making
Criminology
Work:
Theory
and
Practice
in
Local
Context
Fergus
McNeill
explores
the
nature
of
criminological
theory
and
assesses
its
practical
value
to
work
with
offenders.
He
argues
that
theory
and
practice
should
’interrogate’
one
another
in
each
local
context,
and
concludes
by
offering
a
series
of
questions
to
help
criminal
justice
social
work
professionals
to
develop
a
localised
understanding
of
criminal
behaviour
and
the
criminalisation
process.
he
new
Diploma
in
Probation
Studies,
whatever
its
other
merits
and
demerits,
places
criminology
more
firmly
centre
stage
within
probation
training
and
education.
It
therefore
seems
a
good
time
to
explore
the
extent
to
which
criminology
can
enable
practitioners
to
think
differently
about
their
work
and
to
develop
their
practice.
Clearly,
this
article
cannot
hope
to
address
these
issues
comprehensively;
rather
it
aims
to
stimulate
debate
by
relating
a
brief
review
of
some
influential
criminological
theories
to
some
of
the
more
general
social
work
literature
about
the
relationships
between
theory
and
practice.
It
goes
on
to
consider
some
of
the
reasons
why
this
dialogue
between
criminology
and
probation
must
be
’localised’,
and
it
is
argued
that
theory
and
practice
should
interrogate
one
another
in
every
unique
and
particular
context
where
probation
is
practised.
The
paper
concludes
with
a
framework
of
questions
that
might
serve
to
foster
thinking
about
how
this
’localising’
of
criminology
in
probation
practice
might
be
approached.
-
--
Reviewing Some Influential
Criminological Theories
Garland
(1997)
identifies
two
streams
of
criminological
discourse
which,
through
various
circumstances,
have
converged
in
the
history
of
the
emerging
discipline.
These he
refers
to
as
the
’Lombrosian
project’,
concerned
with
crime
causation;
and
the
’governmental
project’,
concerned
with
the
administration
of
justice
and
penal
practices.
The
former
draws
criminologists
in
the
direction
of
constructing
a
’science
of
causes’
(and
perhaps
cures);
the
latter
draws
them
towards
a
more
pragmatic
policy
orientation.
The
contemporary
’What
Works’
agenda
illustrates
very
well
how
Garland’s
two
projects
have
overlapped
in
probation
policy
and
practice
as
well
as
in
criminological
discourse.
Sometimes,
probation
has
aimed
to
discover
and
address
the
causes
of
crime
(or,
in
the
language
of
’What
Works’,
’criminogenic
needs’)
as
part
of
its
role
in
the
administration
of
justice.
Whether
by
’helping’
or
by
’treating’
offenders
To continue reading
Request your trial