Futures of European Criminology
In my previous presidential messages, I have argued for an open and interdisciplinary criminology and for a Society that promotes such an interpretation of criminology. First of all, this was about how I myself view criminology and what I have tried to carry out and apply as president this year. At the moment, for my address at our conference in Ghent, I am preparing a more empirical analysis, in which I want to outline what we in Europe do as criminologists and what we mean by criminology. In September, I hope to be able to present to you the results of a topic analysis of all abstracts from all of our conferences. In this message today, I focus on what the future could bring for our Society and criminology.
I will not sketch out what I think the future of criminology could be. I’m an advocate of the use of scenario techniques, in which multiple images of futures can operate at the same time. Scenarios are not predictions but tools for thinking about alternative visions of the future and stimulating anticipatory action. Via scenario exercises, we take a first step towards discovering driving forces that are relevant to the subject of the scenario, but it is uncertain in which direction they will develop. In the next phase, the extreme poles of each uncertainty are outlined and combined in scenarios.
Although it’s impossible to offer a full-fledged scenario study within the context of this message, I will provide an initial impetus, via scenarios, for what European criminology could look like within 20 years. I have constructed my scenario exercise around interdisciplinary uncertainties and the public role of criminology.
The first uncertainty has to do with the development of disciplines within scientific research. On the one hand, an evolution is conceivable in which disciplines continue to develop further although independently of each other. In such an evolution, criminology could well become one of the most successful disciplines of the 21st century. This would mean that criminology, along with other scientific disciplines, would increase in size and in scientific strength. Scientists from other fields of research could be guests in criminology but would not be regarded as full-fledged criminologists. The consequence of this is that there would be very limited interaction with what is happening in other disciplines undergoing similar self-directed evolutions. Researchers from various disciplines would pass each other like ships in the night. So, the relationship with other disciplines would not be the first and foremost concern of criminology—it would be much more important to preserve cohesion and maintain an overview within criminology itself. After all, under this scenario, the further professionalisation and specialisation of criminology leads internally to the emergence of various sub-disciplines and schools that sometimes contend with, rather than comprehend, each other.
On the other hand, it is possible that scientific disciplines become much less important and that scientific research becomes clustered around questions and themes. With such a development, criminology has much less command over its own domain, and criminologists become kings without a country. Questions related to criminology or insecurity are not exclusive to criminologists. In the organisation of research, this leads to a deterioration of the boundaries between research domains, with a lot of attention being paid to interdisciplinarity. This can lead to criminology losing importance as a separate scientific discipline and shrinking or even disappearing.
A second uncertainty concerns the relation of criminological research to the world outside of science. How will criminology relate to policy? What societal impact will criminology have in 20 years’ time?
Criminology has already been described as ‘a successful failure’ to reflect a part of the uncertainty and ambiguity around developments in the discipline. On the one hand, we see that criminology is flourishing. There are more and more criminologists who increasingly practice their profession with more skill and expertise. On the other hand, this development does not seem to be followed at all by a growing visibility and social impact. Although there are certainly differences between regions and countries in that regard, the public role that criminology receives or assumes remains a major uncertain factor, both poles of which deserve exploration. At one extreme, criminology retreats into its own discourse and communicates little about what is happening within the walls of its an/the ivory tower. In many cases, this criminology is quite critical with regard to policy and social developments without, however, being concerned about translating this criticism into dialogue or action in the public forum. At the other extreme, we see a criminology that chooses to espouse the questions that matter socially and politically at a given moment. So, criminology primarily provides knowledge and techniques from its discipline, but is completely absorbed in a social role. We all know the types of criminological engagement that Loader & Sparks have conceived between those two extremes. Will it be the scientific expert or the lonely prophet?
The two uncertainties, and their respective poles, form the framework for four future scenarios for 2040. I have given each of the scenarios a name that a professor in such a development would be able to support:
- Crime Science describes the situation in which a large interdisciplinarity is linked to a pronounced public role.
- Penal Policy sketches a world with a low degree of interdisciplinarity and a strongly assumed public role.
- Da Vinci presents a future with a high degree of interdisciplinarity and a limited public role.
- Theoretical Criminology provides a scenario in which a limited interdisciplinarity is linked to a limited assumed public role.
In her opening oration, the new Crime Science professor explains what she wants to research in the coming years. She is a bio-engineer by training, and for her dissertation she developed a new application for the police department’s DNA database. She indicates that the insights and methods of the natural sciences will guide her in her research into security and society, and she explains that she hopes this will enable her to achieve further breakthroughs in crime prevention. She knows very well that she differs from her predecessors because she has no education in the social sciences and, to date, has never published in a journal that explicitly deals with criminology. She maintains that this can also be the very strength of her research programme because, without having to consider all kinds of complex mechanisms about people and systems, she can look for what works with highly reliable instruments and methods.
The appointment of the Penal Policy professor hits the front page of the quality newspapers. Barely a day after she submitted her resignation as prime minister, she announces her transfer to the university. In an extensive interview in the newspaper, the prime minister explains her career switch. Although she was already politically active as a student, she stayed on at the university for a number of years after her master's in criminology and security policy. During that period, she completed her dissertation on the use of dietary supplements in prisons. After that, she worked as a prison director for a few years and led the ‘brain and policy’ research unit at the ministry. She then became politically active full-time and shot up like a rocket in the political landscape. She says that it is now time to return to the university. She is convinced that she now has more knowledge than anyone else of what criminology and security are all about. As professor of penal policy, she plans to valorise her political experience and knowledge in constant dialogue with those responsible for policy. Her research programme is centred on research into interventions aimed at the behavioural modification of prisoners.
The Da Vinci chair goes to a professor from the United States. The University is very proud that it has been able to snag the leader of the Human Science research lab for this position. The professor’s family situation has definitely helped her decide to return to Europe. The professor holds multiple doctorates in philosophy, mathematics and crime science. Recently, it has also become known that she is the author of a children's book—published under a pseudonym—that received a literary prize last year. In her inaugural lecture, the new professor explains how she wants to further develop human science. She puts great effort into her research line concerning energy, in which she gives a lot of attention to data and theories with regard to norms and the exceeding of norms. In her lab, physicists, chemists, biologists, sociologists, philosophers and lawyers work alongside, and with, each other. At the reception after her speech, when she is congratulated by the Minister of Society, she has no idea who she is shaking hands with.
The professor of Theoretical Criminology is in on the decision to reduce his department’s research funds—a manoeuvre meant to cripple the critical investigation of his group. He states that his research group is among the world leaders in the discipline. He has just published in the journal with the highest impact factor in criminology. His research group is too small to carry out his ambitious research programme. This is all the more the case now that the Minister of Security only finances his own research projects. The professor refers to the words of praise that the peer review evaluation recently had for his scientific research. He says that he has taken their recommendation to heart that he could further valorise, and communicate, his extraordinary research results. His first newsletter will appear next month.
Of course, I could not really develop these scenarios for criminology in 20 years in this short message. But hopefully they provide a stimulus to think about where we want to go—and not go—with our discipline. In any case, European criminology can go in many directions. And our Society has a front row seat for following these developments and helping shape them. See you in Ghent!
Tom Vander Beken is President of the ESC, Full Professor at the Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law and director of the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), both at Ghent University.