Text Box: understand critical work, the more of it will be published. But we also have to be sure that we don't confuse solidarity with critical criminologists with being uncritical of their work. But being a critical analyst of the work of others carries a serious responsibility. We must actively help one another make our work better, rather than merely taking pleasure in pointing out what's wrong with each other’s scholarship. Marty suggests we have a serious discussion about what constitutes "critical" work. The discussion going on here, so far, seems to imply that quantitative work is, by definition, not critical. Or am I misreading things? If quantitative work is excluded from the idea of critical crim, it puts the kind of politicaleconomic analyses done by people like Susan Carlson and me outside the scope of "critical criminology." Is "critical" a code word for qualitative and postmodernist modes of analysis only? Or does it refer to forms of criminology that challenge the takenforgranteds of orthodox criminology from alternative perspectives that are not conservative/rightwing? Marty Schwartz In general, having been a reviewer in my career for over 30 academic journals and having had about 60 acceptances and 30 rejections of my own, I think that I am at least qualified to agree with Ray virtually point for point. An excellent commentary. I was just writing privately to someone else suggesting that one of the many problems is that few of us are rigorously trained, or have rigorous colleagues. As Ray suggests, in an field with unclear boundaries, there are many who feel that they are sharp and clear when they are not (I don't mean this to apply to Dragan and Bruce, by the way). My students who have been successful at publishing in top journals are the ones who have gone to the very best graduate schools, and have learned top rigor. They work in departments with very top senior scholars who critique their work before it goes out. Despite being radical feminists or socialist feminists, they still publish, get grants, etc. It is a bit harder than if they were mainstream, but it is being done. Most crim people (myself included) went to secondary schools and work in departments without rigorous scholars. We suffer at a great disadvantage as compared to many abstract empiricists. Lately, I have been doing a lot of grant reviewing for the National Institute of Justice, and while I have vows of confidentiality about specifics, I can say that the overwhelming majority of grant applications have terrible theoretical bases and abysmal statistical design. I think that if a crit person had a very clear theoretical model, with a plan for action that was crisp and sound, it would be received enough to be read carefully, if not by all reviewers then certainly by the NIJ staff. Of course, the debilitating thing is that a certain amount of the money goes out to whatever the agency thinks is hot and needs to be done, even if the methodology is not very good. Of course, it could be worse. I write from Australia, where the conservative federal government (confusingly named the Liberal Party) has decided to fund the Lone Fathers Association to set up shelter houses for battered men, because they are tired of funding women and want to even up the score a bit. Two more things: Ray asks whether the definition of critical is presumed to be nonstatistical. I agree with his basic presumption, since that also Text Box: would not apply to me. Although I have written or coauthored a number of theoretical pieces, including several on postmodernism, I also use statistical work heavily, including publishing pieces using logistic regression, etc. Like Ray, I think that it is your theory and intent that informs whether you are critical, not your methodology. Steve wants to be heretical in suggesting that people will read stuff in smaller journals. I agree that law is a very different field  judges for example actually read the material clerks gather, unlike many sociologists. But, if I can be even more heretical, I might suggest that very few people in this field get promoted to full professor, get invited to lecture at top conferences, get awards for ASC and ASA, etc. on the basis of publishing in Humanity & Society. I know in my own case that when I publish in Sex Roles, Criminology, JQ, etc. I am inundated with requests for reprints, my articles appear in readers; I am invited to give lectures, etc. When I publish in Deviant Behavior, H&S, Sociological Focus, etc., the work disappears into a black hole, never to be mentioned or cited again. I think that is why Bruce and Dragan would like to break into some top journals now and then. It isn't because they can't publish  they already have more publications than any 10 people should be allowed to jointly have. It is because their work is marginalized. Steve Russell Ray, Isn't this true not only of most academic disciplines but also most cultures at any given time? It is the proper function of a university to generate critical thought. To those who benefit from established wisdom, that is more often than not unwelcome. See, e.g., the fate of Socrates. That is the romance of our profession, and I for one would have it no other way. In support of your remarks, see Ronnie Dugger's book, Our Invaded Universities. You are absolutely right. But it seems to me that is the way it is, has been, always will be and always should be. People will not pay for the privilege of getting their asses kicked but that is no reason to quit kicking. I know you do not suggest we quit kicking, but you seem to suggest that the kickees ought to start liking it. Ray Michalowski Steve, No, you are right. I don't think the kickees will start liking it. But I do believe that some infiltration is possible. I have also had the experience that sometimes the kickees get the message, begin to change their minds and find themselves tempted to want to join the kickers. Some of the most radical people ever to exit my classes were high-placed police officials who began to question the logic they had lived by. I don't think, like many of my good liberal friends do, that we can educate away the problems of power and domination, but I do think we can and should reach out to those we think oppose liberationist approaches to social life. Sometimes they are less organized in their thought, and less immovable in their beliefs than we like to think. Don't give the powerful too much credit. They may have power, but they often lack wisdom. Ellen Leichtman While I agree with Marty that one needs to "differentiate between Text Box: one needs to "differentiate between excellent pieces that don't get published, and crap that doesn't get published," this seems to be true only with regard to critical criminologists. It seems to me that a lot of statistical crap does get published, and by mainstream journals. This means that it depends on the type of crap you are submitting.