Page Title

Text Box: This article is an edited discussion taken from the critical criminology list-serve, that was spawned by Bruce Arrigo’s article “Critical Criminology’s Discontent: The Perils of Publishing and the Call to Action” The Critical Criminologist 10(1): 10-13. The contributors here were Bruce Arrigo, Ellen Leichtman, Ray Michalowski, Steve Russell, Martin Schwartz, and Jeff Walker. Stuart Henry did editing and assembling. Jeff Walker: Although swamped, something led me to put aside my work and read Bruce Arrigo’s essay on publishing. I think it is right on point and something that all of us in the Division should consider. I want to make three points about Bruce’s position in an attempt to support and extend his call to action. I think that Bruce is correct concerning the chilling effect of publication of critical manuscripts. Why would a professor subject herself or himself to abuse and rejection at the hands of Criminology reviewers when we know that there is little chance that the article will be accepted (literally or figuratively)? I think there is a latent issue that is also important here. One reason critical scholarship is not accepted in prestigious journals is because it often criticizes mainstream thoughts and theories. I don’t think that is the only issue, though. As the latest firestorm over the editorship of ASR shows, there is a serious prejudice against works that are not highly empirical, obsessivecompulsively methodological, AND based on a rigid theoretical framework. Although much critical analyses are based on sound theory, and some are fairly empirical, we often get hammered by reviewers because all three are not present at the level of much of the secondary data analysis that is eminently publishable but means nothing. This is not a call for us to begin to mimic the works we see in the journals (although we would certainly benefit from empirical and testable support for some of the well thought out theories) as much as it is an echo of Bruce’s call to work to change the editorial philosophy of some of these journals. The reality is, though, that we can’t sit around and bitch among ourselves about the problem; and public, confrontational protests are likely to fall on deaf ears. We must begin to work within the system to change it, either by altering what we attempt to get published, by becoming a part of the decision making process or both. This brings me to my next point. If we are to truly begin to change the views of the mainstream journals, we must position ourselves to be able to

Text Box: effect that change. Bruce correctly points out that he, Stuart, Dragan (and many others) have been editors or on the editorial boards of many journals. That is great, and it is something that I believe we must do more of if we are to begin to effect change. As editor of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education (not prestigious but certainly mainstream), I made it a point to publish as many critically oriented manuscripts as I could. Granted, there were not a lot of manuscripts that were submitted where the choice was Humanity and Society or JCJE; but I did work to publish articles concerning persons of color, gender, etc. Also, a glance at the current editorial board reveals the names of Marty Schwartz, Gregg Barak, Mike Lynch and Barbara Sims. I believe that we must take up this mantle and begin to work to become editors of mainstream journals where we can have a substantial influence on the publication of divergent philosophies. Why don’t we have editors of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and other prestigious journals? If we have a call to action, why not a call to real action? The last point is the issue of what this means for Critical Criminology, the journal? Granted, it is a journal for us by us; but the nature of journals is that those that have a built-in membership (it comes with an association membership) have a broader readership and typically become the most prestigious journals. It just may be that, if we can establish and maintain a journal such as Critical Criminology, it can become more than one more mouthpiece for the left. If we show “them” that we accept their contributions to “our” journal, then we may be on firmer footing when we request publication of “our” work in “their” journals. I strongly support Bruce's arguments and call for action including and beyond what he has proposed. Marty Schwartz: I have been asked to go more public with a version of comments I have previously made privately. 1. One can take a rather broad perspective on this problem. This is not a criminology problem, but one that affects sociology, psychology, political science, economics, history, etc. One exception is English literature, which has had a slightly different history, especially with postmodernism. One of the reasons is that academics from Duke, NYU, Berkeley, Chicago, etc. were doing the publishing. Like it or not, that will color the decision of many editors.

Text Box: Critical Criminology and the Mainstream: Issues in Publishing Critical Scholarship

Critical Criminologist