Public criminology, reflexivity and the enterprise university: Experiences of research, knowledge transfer work and co-option with police forces
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480616689299 |
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Author | Jackie Goode,Karen Lumsden |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
689299TCR0010.1177/1362480616689299Theoretical CriminologyLumsden and Goode
research-article2017
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2018, Vol. 22(2) 243 –257
Public criminology, reflexivity
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
and the enterprise university:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480616689299
DOI: 10.1177/1362480616689299
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Experiences of research,
knowledge transfer work and
co-option with police forces
Karen Lumsden
Loughborough University, UK
Jackie Goode
Loughborough University, UK
Abstract
This article reflects on an enterprise project which aimed to build partnerships with
police forces in England. In attempting to do ‘public criminology’ we had to negotiate
internal and external organizational cultures, public management and ‘audit culture’. We
focus on two levels of co-option we experienced during the project, by the university
and the police: (1) internal university pressures such as definitions of ‘research’ and
‘enterprise’, funding and the terms of the ‘contract’ of the project; and (2) external
pressures when engaging with police that included new public management principles
and ‘fast academia’. The discussion draws on data from field notes and interviews with
police officers and staff.
Keywords
Enterprise, evidence-base, police–academic partnerships, policing, public criminology,
reflexivity
Corresponding author:
Karen Lumsden, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
Email: K.Lumsden@lboro.ac.uk
244
Theoretical Criminology 22(2)
Introduction
In this article we contribute to discussions of ‘public criminology’ (Loader and Sparks,
2010a) by reflecting on our experiences of conducting research and knowledge transfer
work with police forces in England within the context of the ‘enterprise university’ and
evidence-based policing. The police have a long history of being secretive and resistant
to outsider interference, but in recent years many have exhibited greater willingness to
form partnerships with academics (Fleming, 2012; Fyfe and Wilson, 2012; Goode and
Lumsden, 2016). We consider our activities to be a form of ‘public criminology’ which
was contracted insofar as it was a funded project involving direct engagement and col-
laboration with external stakeholders including the police. Burawoy (2005: 11) notes that
‘public sociology’ and ‘policy sociology’ can often blur. In this case, we found ourselves
operating on the shifting ground between two groups of clients (university and police)
while attempting to engage in ‘public criminology’.
We focus on attempts to co-opt ‘public criminology’ into serving two broad agen-
das—that of universities’ commitments to ‘enterprise’ and the financial, political and
professional constraints to which external users of research are increasingly subject. Two
levels of co-option experienced during the project are reflected upon herein. First, we
discuss the internal university pressures and dilemmas which had to be negotiated. These
included: definitions of ‘research’ and ‘enterprise’ and issues around funding and con-
tracting of the project. Second, we reflect on the external pressures encountered in inter-
actions with police partners. These included the influence of new public management
principles and ‘fast academia’. In attempting to do ‘public criminology’ we were con-
fronted with challenges in our interactions with stakeholders, including the power
dynamics which must be negotiated in relation to internal and external organizational,
public management and ‘audit cultures’ (Power, 1997; Strathern, 2000).
There is a need to value the ‘public aspects’ of ‘criminological labour’ and to
develop greater understanding of those aspects which further or impede our efforts to
have ‘practical effects’ (Chancer and McLaughlin, 2007: 168). We highlight how the
practice of ‘public criminology’ can entail occasions in which the criminologist may
feel they are treading a thin line between critical engagement and academic freedom;
and becoming, in relation to one of the pathologies of ‘policy sociology’, a ‘servant of
power […] sacrificing scientific integrity in the process’ (Burawoy, 2004: 1611). We
are concerned with a tension between the self-identity of criminologists within the
bounds of public engagement (i.e. in a normative sense the role of criminology in
engaging with the social world), and the institutional context in which this takes place,
which consists of a pervasive ‘audit culture’ and the rise of the ‘enterprise’ or ‘entre-
preneurial university’ (Taylor, 2014).
In the past few decades the traditional liberal and Enlightenment idea of the university
as a place of higher learning has been replaced with the modern idea of the university as
corporate enterprise. The enterprise university is primarily concerned with maximising
profit, return and investment, gaining competitive advantage, and servicing the needs of
commerce and industry (Shore, 2008). Although this research is UK centric, it is impor-
tant to acknowledge that these developments are occurring across Anglophone jurisdic-
tions. We highlight the ways in which ‘public criminology’ risks becoming institutionalized
Lumsden and Goode
245
and managerialized, set within a context of ‘fast academia’—behind which is a business
model consisting of high student fees, private providers and new public management
principles (O’Neill, 2014). We show how this ‘business model’ can define the kind of
contract which sets the parameters of the research and/or enterprise relationship between
universities and external stakeholders.
Public criminology and the neoliberal university
The problems faced by criminologists in their role as public intellectuals are part of
a continuing series of dilemmas for social scientists (Gattone, 2006), reflected in
Burawoy’s (2004, 2005) call for ‘public sociology’ and related pleas for ‘public
criminology’ (Loader and Sparks, 2010a; Uggen and Inderbitzin, 2010). Burawoy
(2005: 11) distinguishes between four types of sociology: ‘policy sociology’, ‘pro-
fessional sociology’, ‘critical sociology’ and ‘public sociology’, which together
form a division of sociological labour. ‘Professional’ and ‘policy sociology’ involve
instrumental knowledge, while ‘critical’ and ‘public sociology’ involve reflexive
knowledge.
In his 2009 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology Todd Clear
argues for criminology to develop a public research agenda which will influence pol-
icy-making (Rock, 2014). Criminology can be distinguished as a form of public schol-
arship because it is interdisciplinary, includes a subject matter which can incite moral
panics, and has a practitioner base engaged in knowledge production (Uggen and
Inderbitzen, 2010). The service roles of academic life are also part of ‘public criminol-
ogy’ and include developing and nurturing students’ passion for social justice (Uggen
and Inderbitzin, 2010: 728).
In Public Criminology? Loader and Sparks (2010b) propose a series of ideal types
of academic engagement, of which they favour the ‘democratic under-labouring’. This
approach to criminology seeks to contribute ‘to a better politics of crime and its regula-
tion’ (Loader and Sparks, 2010b: 117). It is committed to the generation of knowledge
across three distinct moments: ‘the moment of discovery’, the ‘institutional-critical
moment’ and the ‘normative moment’ (Loader and Sparks, 2010b: 125). They also
warn against forcing authors into various categories, or arguing that ‘public crimiol-
ogy’ is a particular position which criminologists may or may not choose to adopt.
Wacquant (2011: 439) argues that Loader and Sparks help to support calls for reflex-
ivity, as they ask us to consider criminology’s relationship to policy and politics.
Nonetheless, he highlights three weakness in their thesis including: a focus on the US
‘public sociology’ controversy; the adoption of a textualist brand of reflexivity which
ignores institutional aspects; and the utilization of a descriptive typology (Wacquant,
2011: 439). There are a number of more general critiques of ‘public criminology’. Tittle
(2004) for example, draws attention to the moral dilemmas faced by criminologists, the
‘shaky’ ground on which criminological knowledge is based, and threats to the legiti-
macy of sociological knowledge. He cautions that most of the time we do not know as
much as we pretend to and practitioners rarely trust sociological knowledge (Tittle, 2004;
see also Stanko, 2008). It is also worth noting that in general the debate thus far concern-
ing ‘public criminology’ has been macho and of a relatively non-applied nature.
246
Theoretical Criminology 22(2)
In this article we are concerned with the role of ‘public criminology’ in the neoliberal
university. We are reflecting on our experiences of doing enterprise as defined and pro-
moted within a particular university in the English higher education system, and recog-
nize that our experiences may not be shared. However, we believe they reflect the growing
trend in British higher education and in neoliberal universities in other Anglophone juris-
dictions towards managerialism, ‘audit culture(s)’ (Power, 1997; Strathern, 2000; Shore,
2008), and a focus on public engagement outside of the academy. In this sense, ‘public
criminology’ also risks becoming managerialized in the context of research...
To continue reading
Request your trial