Roger Matthews, (2009) Beyond ‘so what?’ criminology:
Rediscovering Realism, Theoretical
Criminology, 13(3), 341-362
The Differential Association article of choice this month
was Roger Matthews’ pointed critique of criminology, Beyond ‘so what?’ criminology: Rediscovering Realism. Matthews’
2009 article was chosen following his barnstorming turn as a plenary speaker at
the 9th North South Criminology Conference, held this year in
University College Cork. Matthews, as conference opener, provoked a
conversation which continued to echo in overheard conversations for the two
days of the conference, and indeed beyond, as is ably proved by this blog entry.
His critique of the discipline, and his diagnosis that there was an ailment
afflicting criminology, seemed to divide the delegates. At the conference he
expressed disappointment that the argument, originally expressed in this 2009
article had, as yet, received no response.
Matthews’ thesis hinges on a three-pronged critique of
criminology, judging the problem with the discipline to be a lack of
theoretical integrity, lack of methodological rigour and a lack of policy
relevance.
The term used by Matthews, ‘So what?’ criminology, is one gleaned
from Elliot Currie’s 2007 article, Against
Marginality: Arguments for a Public Criminology. It refers to highly
technical and quantitative criminological research, which takes as its
starting-point previous studies of a similar nature, and which therefore tends
to become increasingly and alarmingly niche and irrelevant. Currie argued that
this infinite regression of reference points rendered such studies beyond the
interest and comprehension of lay persons, rendering it opaque to many
criminologists as well.
Much of Matthews’ article hinges on the idea of public
criminology. Matthews cites Currie’s call for active engagement by academics
with policy-makers and the public, and a chance to engage in dialogue. He also
cites the speech of Michael Burawoy while President of the American
Sociological Association, in which he also argued for a public sociology.
Burawoy advanced the notion of a division of labour within the discipline,
something that Matthews does not.
Matthews' tripartite examination appears to suggest that the
application of a sound theoretical foundation and the use of appropriate and
suitable methodologies to criminological research will, of itself, herald greater
policy relevance. This depiction lacks some appreciation of the realities of how
political structures and administrative procedures shape the policy-making
process. How, and to what degree, expert-led knowledge trickles into
policy-making is a full area of study in itself. First, there is the problem
of cultural translation as research moves from the academic occupational space to
the sites of policy-making. No matter how rigorous criminology is, theoretically
and methodologically, this data is often stripped to make it fit for political
purpose. That political/policy purpose is in turn shaped by the policy-making culture and institutional rules, all of which mediate how such
data is received and understood and filtered into policy. Secondly, the
demands of the policy-maker and the responsibilities which underpin their work
can vary between policy-making contexts, their requirements are, however, always
more varied than needing to be just expert-led. Thus, and increasingly, criminological knowledge is often
just another voice in the cacophony of equally vested interests such as victims
groups, community activists, criminal justice occupational groups such as the
POA, economists, human rights groups and the public voice more generally. This
is not to say criminology should not have a place at the table, but the aim is
to bring into view the tension and complexity which characterises political
engagement. In addition, this problematises the idea that criminology is
outside these sites of power simply because we lack underpinning theory and
methodological rigour.
Matthews’ call for rigour in theory and method is a noble
one, its aims inevitably desirable goals, and we should welcome the debate on
the current state of research. Before research is conducted, that which is
being researched should be fully understood and conceptually situated. Matthews
attempts to draw a line between those who do not problematise the issue of
crime, and those who go too far and deny its ontological reality; in the latter category Matthew's has created something of a
straw man of social constructionism, an edifice which is then deftly pulled
apart by the author. His omission of feminist methodological writings is also
something of an oversight, considering his focus on the notions of truth and
objectivity which proliferate throughout scientific empirical criminology.
Feminist researchers were in the vanguard of the critique of the reductive approach
to criminology that Matthews condemns.
The article is critical of the perceived missed
opportunities of liberal criminologists following the decline of conservative
influence towards the end of the twentieth-century/early twenty-first. Matthews argues that for so long the liberal school defined itself
so thoroughly in opposition to conservatives, who held sway throughout the
1980s and 1990s, that when this power waned, liberal criminologists were mute.
Matthews argues that their more benign policies, directed towards education and
healthcare, were somewhat optimistic and toothless. From his critical realist
position, Matthews argues that such policies denied the powerful and negative
impact of crime. He situates this as part of the legacy of liberal influence,
citing the downfall of penal welfarism as a further unintended consequence of a
liberal criminology that was bereft of ideas, but content to produce studies
which derided the claims of individualised justice and sentencing to reduce
crime, without producing alternative policy ideas.
It seems trite to say that Matthews’ article was
thought-provoking. It challenges assumptions within the academy and urges its
reader to rethink fundamental conceptions and understandings. By the end, however, the
most important question of all feels fundamentally unanswered: where to from
here? After the plenary some of us mentioned the desire to engage Matthews in an
appreciative inquiry (Liebling, 2004) – what is criminology’s best practice?
What work highlights the exciting promise of this
discipline? What can we hope for criminology? In moving beyond 'so what criminology', we need to move beyond only viewing criminology's negative characteristics. Surely the situation is more hopeful than this plenary portrayed.
Matthews may be a proselytiser for our conversion to critical realism, but such an approach seems too imperialist to create a truly engaged and reflexive
discipline. Consequently, what
appeared at the outset to be a call to arms for criminology, may instead be a
recruiting call for critical realism. However it behoves criminologists to
regularly pose the questions highlighted by Matthews, albeit with the awareness
that many will come up with different answers.
