Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T01:48:37.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disciplining Criminology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

David Garland
David Garland*
Affiliation:
Sociology, New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay discusses the current state of criminology and raises some questions about the subject's nature, its relationship to government, and its location in the academic fìeld. The author argues that criminology is best conceived not as an independent subject but as a bridging subject that addresses a practical fìeld using the intellectual resources of more basic disciplines such as sociology, psychology and law. He warns against recent institutional developments that threaten to distance criminological research and training from those disciplines that provide its intellectual energy and distinction. Against these tendencies, the author argues for a dialogic conception of criminology and for the institutional conditions that make that conception possible.

Résumé

Résumé

L'objet de cet essai est de discuter de l'état actuel de la criminologie et de soulever certaines questions sur la nature de son objet, sur sa relation avec le gouvernement, et sur sa position dans le champ académique. L'auteur soutient que la meilleure manière de concevoir la criminologie n'est pas d'en faire un objet indépendant, mais plutôt un objet fédéra-teur qui mobilise les ressources intellectuelles d'une sèrie de disciplines de base telles que la sociologie, la psychologie et le droit. Il met en garde contre des développements institutionnels récents qui tendent à éloigner la recherche et la formation criminologiques des disciplines qui assurent son énergie et sa distinction. A l'encontre de ces tendances, l'auteur plaide en faveur d'une conception dialogique de la criminologie et de conditions institutionnelles qui rendent cette conception possible.

Resumen

Resumen

El objeto de este artículo es discutir el estado actual de la criminología y plantear ciertas cuestiones sobre la naturaleza de su objeto, sobre su relación con el gobierno y sobre su posición en el campo académico. El autor sostiene que la mejor manera de concebir la criminología no es hacer de ella un objeto independiente sino más bien un objeto asociativo, que movilice los recursos intelectuales de una serie de disciplinas de base, tales corno la sociología, la psicología y el derecho. Advierte sobre los recientes desarrollos institucionales que tienden a alejar a la investigación y la formación criminológicas de las disciplinas que aseguran su energía y su distinción. Frente a estas tendencias, el autor defiende una concepción dialógica de la criminología y de las condiciones institucionales que hacen posible esta concepción.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 46 , Issue 1-2 , 2008 , pp. 19 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 International Society for Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

(1)

This is a revised version of an address presented to the World Congress of the International Society of Criminology in Barcelona in July 2008. The author is grateful to Erin Braatz for research assistance and also to the Filomen D'Agostino and Max Greenberg Research Fund of the NYU Law School. Joachim Savelsberg is also to be thanked for some very helpful comments as the speech was being revised for publication.

References

Abbott, A. (2001), Chaos of Disciplines, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Aebi, M. and Kronicz, G. (2008), “ESC Annual Report 2007”, in Criminology in Europe: Newsletter of the European Society of Criminology, 7/2, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Austin, J. (2003), “Why Criminology is Irrelevant”, Criminology and Public Policy, 2/3, pp. 557–64.Google Scholar
Baars-Schuyt, A. (2001) “Overview of Criminology in Europe”, European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 9, pp. 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balvig, F., Christie, N. and Tham, H. (2008), “Whither the Stockhold Prize”, Criminology in Europe: Newsletter of the European Society of Criminology, 7/1, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Bisi, R. (1999), “Teaching and Professional Training in Criminology”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 7, pp. 103–129.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. (2000), “The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology”, in British Journal of Criminology, 40, pp. 222–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, J. (2003), “What's Wrong with the Sociology of Punishment?”, in Theoretical Criminology, 2/1, pp. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, J. (2000), “Globalization, Reflexivity and the Practice of Criminology”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33/2, pp. 118–35.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1985), Visions of Social Control, Polity Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
Day, E. and Vandiver, M. (2000), “Criminology and Genocide Studies”, Crime, Law & Social Change, 34, pp. 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, R. (2003), “The Culture and Power of Criminological Research”, in Zedner, and Ashworth, (eds), The Criminological Foundations of Penal Policy, OUP, Oxford, pp. 31–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Allen Lane, London.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980), Foucault, M., “Prison Talk” in Michel Foucault: Power/Knowledge, edited by Gordon, C..Google Scholar
Garland, D. (1985), “The Criminal and his Science”, in British Journal of Criminology, 25/2, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
Garland, D. (1988), “British Criminology Before 1935”, in Rock, P. (ed), A History of British Criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Garland, D. (1992), “Criminological Knowledge and its Relation to Power: Foucault's Genealogy and Criminology Today”, in British Journal of Criminology, 32/4, pp. 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, D. (2002), “Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology in Britain”, in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edition, OUP, Oxford, pp. 7–50.Google Scholar
Garland, D. and Sparks, R. (2000), “Criminology, Social Theory and the Challenge of Our Times”, in British Journal of Criminology, 40, pp. 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, J., Rymond-Richmond, W. and Parker, P. (2005), “The Criminology of Genocide: The Death and Rape of Darfur”, Criminology, 43/3, pp. 525–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, J. and Rymond-Richmond, W. (2008), Darfur and the Crime of Genocide, University of Cambridge Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, M. (2005), “After September 11: Terrorism Research and the Crisis in Criminology”, Theoretical Criminology, 9/2, pp. 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. (2007), “Criminology, Crime and Politics before and after 9/11”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40/1, pp. 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. (1983), International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Criminology, 2 vols, Greenwood Press, Woodport CN.Google Scholar
Kerner, H.-J. (1998), “The Global Growth of Criminology”, International Annals of Criminology, 36/1, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Laub, J. (2004), “The Life Course of Criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 Presidential Address”, Criminology, 42/1, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, K. (2003), “Beyond the Metaphor: Political Violence, Human Rights and ‘New’ Peacemaking Criminology”, Theoretical Criminology, 1, pp. 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006), “Criminology and Terrorism: Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality?”, British Journal of Criminology, 46, pp. 379–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieswiadomy, M. (1998), “LSAT Scores of Economics Majors,” Journal of Economic Education, (Fall), pp. 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepinsky, H. and Quinney, R. (1991), Criminology as Peacemaking, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Peters, T. (2006), “The Academic Status of Criminology”, International Annals of Criminology, 44/1, pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
Petersilia, J. (1991), “Policy Relevance and the Future of Criminology”, Criminology, 29/1, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radzinowicz, L. (1962), In Search of Criminology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and McMillan, N. (2003), “For Criminology in International Criminal Justice”, Journal of International Criminal Law, 1, pp. 315–338.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, R. (2002), “Why Criminologists Should Study Terrorism”, The Criminologist, 27/6, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Savelsberg, J. (2006), “Underused Potentials for Criminology: Applying the Sociology of Knowledge to Terrorism”, Crime, Law & Social Change, 46, pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsberg, J. and Sampson, R. (eds.) (2002), Mutual Engagement: Sociology and Criminology?, Special issue of Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 37, No. 2 (with contributions by Short, James F. Jr., Hagan, John, Vaughan, Diane, Susan Silbey and an introduction by Savelsberg/Sampson).Google Scholar
Savelsberg, J. (ed.) (2007), Against Narrow, Distorted, and Unconscious Adaptations of Theory, Special Issue of Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol. 42 (with contributions by Ross Matsueda, John Hagan & Holly Foster, Mark Cooney, James F. Short, Jr., and Savelsberg).Google Scholar
Savelsberg, J. and Flood, S. (2004), “Period and Cohort Effects in the Production of Scholarly Knowledge: The Case of Criminology, 1951-1993.” Criminology, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 1009–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsberg, J., Cleveland, L. and King, R. (2004), “Institutional Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993”, Social Forces, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 1275–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsberg, J. and Sampson, R. (2002), “Mutual Engagement: Criminology and Sociology.” Crime, Law, and Social Change, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsberg, J., King, R. and Cleveland, L. (2002), “Politicized Scholarship? Science on Crime and the State.” Social Problems, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwendinger, H. and J. (1975), “Defenders of Order or Guardians of Human Rights”, in Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (eds), Critical Criminology, Routledge, London, pp. 113–146.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. (1998), “Criminology and Crime Prevention in the 21st Century”, in International Annals of Criminology, 36/1, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. (2005), “The Use and Usefulness of Criminology, 1751-2005”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 600, pp. 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uggen, C. and Inderbitzin, M. (2006), “Public Criminologies”, paper presented at the 2006 annual meetings of the ASA, Montreal.Google Scholar
Wolfgang, M. (1963), “Criminology and the Criminologist”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 54, pp. 155–162.Google Scholar
Yacoubian, G. (2000), “The (In)significance of Genocidal Behavior to the Discipline of Criminology”, Crime, Law & Social Change, 34, pp. 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zedner, L. and Ashworth, A. (2003), “Introduction” to Zedner, and Ashworth, (eds), The Criminologicai Foundations of Penai Policy, OUP, Oxford, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar