- Email: [email protected]
Doing criminological research.
Book reviews / International Journal of the Sociology of Law 30 (2002) 307–315
309
progressive than a ‘liberalism of fear’ is needed to provide a secure moral foundation for punishment. Max Travers Buckingham College, UK doi:10.1016/S0194-6595(02)00007-2
Doing criminological research. V. Jupp, P. Davies and P. Francis, (Eds.); Sage, London, 2000, 272pp., d49.50 hardback, d16.99 paperback There are a number of reasons for commending this book to students about to undertake a dissertation in criminology. One is the appealing layout and the separation into three parts: the planning, the doing and the experiencing of criminological research. The style of allowing chapter authors to reflect on their own research does make for a student-friendly production, though this can lead to difficulties in applying ideas to one’s own research. This problem is partly alleviated by Part I, the first 50 pages, during which issues of research design and planning are raised. Students will find the guidance on literature reviews and research proposals most useful. Students often see a research proposal as a necessary evil to attain the credit points for their course, yet these sections do highlight the purpose of careful preparation in this way. The misuse of terms such as ‘hypothesis’ and ‘research question’, often evident in work of weaker students, would be purged by scrutiny of Part I, which sets a good foundation for the remainder of the book. The issues in criminological research are largely the same as those in other social research, but with added emphasis on the ethical considerations. One would expect, therefore, a book so titled to place great importance on ethics. A dedicated chapter would have been welcome but there are short discussions within some of the chapters. The distinction between this book and a mainstream social research book is mainly evident in Parts II and III as researchers discuss their own research in criminology. These encourage the reader to be critical of their own research, and there by appreciate the limitations of competing approaches. Edited books can give the impression of an uncoordinated set of writings, partly resolved here by the clear ‘signposting’ within each part, involving clear explanations of key terms used in the following chapters. However, a result of the structure is that some key areas in research are barely addressed. The two most common flaws in undergraduate (and postgraduate) social research are not tackled by this book. Sampling is treated skimpily, with only a cursory explanation of common approaches. Students looking to undertake primary research on groups such as police officers, truants, the general public or even fellow students do not receive sufficient guidance on strategies in case selection. Similarly, question design, highlighted as one of the main problems in measuring fear of crime in Jason Ditton’s excellent chapter could have been treated in the opening salvos of the book. Students will find that the later chapters provide valuable insights into the realities and practical problems in doing criminological research. There are many detailed
310
Book reviews / International Journal of the Sociology of Law 30 (2002) 307–315
texts on the general limitations of crime statistics, and the editors rightly see no reason to trample over very old ground. Instead two chapters in Part II look at specific measurements—fear if crime (Ditton) and safety crimes (Steve Tombs)—and each demonstrates the consequences of relying on official statistics in their field. There are also three chapters dedicated to evaluation research, a heartening inclusion in this book, providing a lively commentary on the current debates within this often neglected area, and how they apply to criminological research in particular. There also exist precious few meaningful discussions on the use of unobtrusive measures and even these usually convey the impression of poor man’s research. Garwood, Rogerson and Pease, however, have produced a short yet persuasive writing here. Issues involved in researching offenders, as an example of a difficult group, are treated tidily in the chapters by Carol Martin and Pamela Davies. The latter chapter provides an excellent stages-by-stage discussion of there interviews with female offenders, putting in practical context a range of obstacles faced by researchers. This is required reading for any student either studying qualitative methods or about to embark on interviewing as part of a piece of social research. Space precludes detailed comment on all chapters, but a common feature is the encouragement of reflexivity in research. The analogy of research methods as a tool box is well worn, but we need to reflect both on the tools we select and on the ways we use them. The choice is often driven by one’s personal experience and preference, but for some jobs we might forsake our favourite hammer for the more suitable screwdriver. Importantly, the potential combination of tools is addressed, both by the editors in Part I and by the chapter authors in Parts II and III. Overall, the book provides a series of research experiences that interest and inform the reader and, despite the omissions mentioned, is recommended for students at the stage of embarking on their own research. Keith Spicer Southampton Institute, UK PII: S 0 1 9 4 - 6 5 9 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 4
In the grip of freedom: law and modernity in max Weber. Cary Boucock; University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2000, xiv + 230pp., ISBN 0-8020-4804-8 (cloth) This is an excellent book; it is carefully and closely argued. Central to Boucock’s argument is the notion that the process of legal rationalization, which is now a dominant feature of modernity, is the source of both the ‘regulatory-administrative structure of the modern state’ and of our aspirations for individual emancipation and rational control. Boucock uses the example of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which become part of that country’s new constitution in 1982, to explore the tension between these aspirations and the way in which our dependence upon a rights-oriented polity ‘‘may actually contribute to a qualitative and quantitative increase in our sense of entanglement’’.
309
progressive than a ‘liberalism of fear’ is needed to provide a secure moral foundation for punishment. Max Travers Buckingham College, UK doi:10.1016/S0194-6595(02)00007-2
Doing criminological research. V. Jupp, P. Davies and P. Francis, (Eds.); Sage, London, 2000, 272pp., d49.50 hardback, d16.99 paperback There are a number of reasons for commending this book to students about to undertake a dissertation in criminology. One is the appealing layout and the separation into three parts: the planning, the doing and the experiencing of criminological research. The style of allowing chapter authors to reflect on their own research does make for a student-friendly production, though this can lead to difficulties in applying ideas to one’s own research. This problem is partly alleviated by Part I, the first 50 pages, during which issues of research design and planning are raised. Students will find the guidance on literature reviews and research proposals most useful. Students often see a research proposal as a necessary evil to attain the credit points for their course, yet these sections do highlight the purpose of careful preparation in this way. The misuse of terms such as ‘hypothesis’ and ‘research question’, often evident in work of weaker students, would be purged by scrutiny of Part I, which sets a good foundation for the remainder of the book. The issues in criminological research are largely the same as those in other social research, but with added emphasis on the ethical considerations. One would expect, therefore, a book so titled to place great importance on ethics. A dedicated chapter would have been welcome but there are short discussions within some of the chapters. The distinction between this book and a mainstream social research book is mainly evident in Parts II and III as researchers discuss their own research in criminology. These encourage the reader to be critical of their own research, and there by appreciate the limitations of competing approaches. Edited books can give the impression of an uncoordinated set of writings, partly resolved here by the clear ‘signposting’ within each part, involving clear explanations of key terms used in the following chapters. However, a result of the structure is that some key areas in research are barely addressed. The two most common flaws in undergraduate (and postgraduate) social research are not tackled by this book. Sampling is treated skimpily, with only a cursory explanation of common approaches. Students looking to undertake primary research on groups such as police officers, truants, the general public or even fellow students do not receive sufficient guidance on strategies in case selection. Similarly, question design, highlighted as one of the main problems in measuring fear of crime in Jason Ditton’s excellent chapter could have been treated in the opening salvos of the book. Students will find that the later chapters provide valuable insights into the realities and practical problems in doing criminological research. There are many detailed
310
Book reviews / International Journal of the Sociology of Law 30 (2002) 307–315
texts on the general limitations of crime statistics, and the editors rightly see no reason to trample over very old ground. Instead two chapters in Part II look at specific measurements—fear if crime (Ditton) and safety crimes (Steve Tombs)—and each demonstrates the consequences of relying on official statistics in their field. There are also three chapters dedicated to evaluation research, a heartening inclusion in this book, providing a lively commentary on the current debates within this often neglected area, and how they apply to criminological research in particular. There also exist precious few meaningful discussions on the use of unobtrusive measures and even these usually convey the impression of poor man’s research. Garwood, Rogerson and Pease, however, have produced a short yet persuasive writing here. Issues involved in researching offenders, as an example of a difficult group, are treated tidily in the chapters by Carol Martin and Pamela Davies. The latter chapter provides an excellent stages-by-stage discussion of there interviews with female offenders, putting in practical context a range of obstacles faced by researchers. This is required reading for any student either studying qualitative methods or about to embark on interviewing as part of a piece of social research. Space precludes detailed comment on all chapters, but a common feature is the encouragement of reflexivity in research. The analogy of research methods as a tool box is well worn, but we need to reflect both on the tools we select and on the ways we use them. The choice is often driven by one’s personal experience and preference, but for some jobs we might forsake our favourite hammer for the more suitable screwdriver. Importantly, the potential combination of tools is addressed, both by the editors in Part I and by the chapter authors in Parts II and III. Overall, the book provides a series of research experiences that interest and inform the reader and, despite the omissions mentioned, is recommended for students at the stage of embarking on their own research. Keith Spicer Southampton Institute, UK PII: S 0 1 9 4 - 6 5 9 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 4
In the grip of freedom: law and modernity in max Weber. Cary Boucock; University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2000, xiv + 230pp., ISBN 0-8020-4804-8 (cloth) This is an excellent book; it is carefully and closely argued. Central to Boucock’s argument is the notion that the process of legal rationalization, which is now a dominant feature of modernity, is the source of both the ‘regulatory-administrative structure of the modern state’ and of our aspirations for individual emancipation and rational control. Boucock uses the example of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which become part of that country’s new constitution in 1982, to explore the tension between these aspirations and the way in which our dependence upon a rights-oriented polity ‘‘may actually contribute to a qualitative and quantitative increase in our sense of entanglement’’.