Studying Criminology: The Concept Of Criminological Imagination

Criminology is the multifaceted study of crime and criminality. With origins in medico-legal science, scientifically-oriented psychology & sociology, it can be described as a ‘strange beast’ (Newburn, 2017). Garland 2002 (as cited in Newburn, 2017) establishes that the empirically grounded, scientific nature of criminology differentiates it from moral and legal considerations, whereas its criminal focus sets it apart from other social scientific genres because it is defined by the criminal law. These legal and scientific constraints on the subject in the UK have heightened as a result of particular government Interest in the late 1990s (Barton, Corteen, Scott, Whyte, 2011). In shifting focus to the criminal justice system, research is often undertaken to accommodate the aims of the government instead of being impartial to it. The subject has become an instrumental means of training future employees of the ‘crime control industry’ (Young, 2011). Thus, in order to prevent a ‘textbookification’ of criminology (Hall & Winslow, 2012), Barton et al (2011) recommend the development of an ‘expanded criminological imagination’.

The Criminological imagination is a concept built on the foundations of the sociological imagination developed by C. Wright Mills (1959). It explains an individual’s social position and life experiences as a product of greater social and historical forces (Andrews, 2015). Barton et al 2011 describes it as ‘[A] new means for conceptualising ‘crime’ and its relationship to the social [world]’. Criminologists must make use of their imaginations in order to understand crime by clearly connecting the actor, event and location of the criminalized incident with the structural and historical variables affecting the definitions and applications of the label of ‘crime’, deviance and illegality at that given time (Barton et al, 2011). The main focus of criminological research has been on the development of methodological and technical tools, however, more useful and insightful theories are products of imagination and speculation. Thus, the current attitudes in criminology may be useful for testing theories of the past, but not for developing theories of the future (Williams, 2006)

One phenomenon constantly polluting criminological research is ‘abstracted empiricism’; data is detached from the subject matter and loses all context as the statistical value is prioritised, (Young, 2011). This then results in ‘textbookification’ of the subject, wherein the focus is shifted from understanding, analysing and preventing offending behaviour to a more theoretical and academic attitude of explaining and defining offending behaviour. Hall & Winslow (2012) argue that criminology today is occupied with discriminatory, false knowledge on criminological research and approaches. Much of the studies published today recycle content from other academics, meaning that the study of criminology has become homogenised due to limited interaction with original works; resulting in the omission of key theoretical aspects. Rather than focusing on the future and the organic process of theory and research development, modern criminology focuses on past events. These conditions are unsuitable for the criminological imagination as the theories being taught in criminology textbooks create boundaries within which an individual should think. Matza (1969 as cited in Young 2011) elucidates the aims of criminology as a discipline to have gone astray, accusing the subject of trying to extinguish the source of its study.

This movement of the discipline away from its roots comes in the wake of researchers enhancing their data in order to satisfy the criteria for government funding. Although criminology relies on statistical models and objective data analysis, its scientific methodology has been critiqued. Young (2011) presents the case that many studies are performed incompetently and their data exaggerated, past events are utilised by researchers to form the basis of new theory, which is then adjusted and revised to fit the desired data outcome. This illustrates not only a lack of imagination but also a lack of initiative and curiosity. According to Weisburd Piquero (2008 as cited in Young, 2011), the average predictability of the models published in the ‘Criminology’ journal was less than 40%, leaving the other 60% of crimes unexplained. This indicates that the study of criminology no longer use aim to understand why crimes are committed and what could be done to prevent this behaviour whereas a focus on the criminological imagination promotes unique thinking in order to develop new, more accurate theories on human behaviour that have a real-life relevance due to the more ethnographic approach to research undertaken. Young aims to lift the discipline from its constrictive ashes and clarify the commonly held misunderstandings about ethnographic variables, and he argues for the merge of empirical research and contextualising theories (Karpiak, 2013). Barton et al (2011) recommends a paradigm shift by way of questioning where the power to criminalise lies within our social structures. In this manner, the introduction of new social policy will be informed by structural contexts, making them more generalisable to the human criminal population.

To conclude, the concept of the ‘criminological imagination’ is vital to the growth and advancement of the field of criminology, both in its research methodologies, but also the way in which the results of studies can directly be applied to real-world situations. The current state of Criminology as an academic social science quite literally leaves much to the imagination, with issues such as abstracted empiricism, textbookification and the manipulation of data to fit the ideals of the Criminal Justice System, it no longer feels like criminologists are authentically studying the subject of their discipline. By taking into account the relationship between the individual and the structural forces affecting them, new criminological theory will be better able to understand the criminals as victims of the social contexts that led them into criminality, making the discipline better equipped in tackling both the reasons behind criminality but also the steps that could be taken to prevent it.