Text Box: 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. Job descriptions regularly make the ability to bring in external funding a condition of hiring. This dictates that statistical methods are the sought after approach. Why shouldn't the discipline's journals reflect this bias? After all, this is where the field actually is. I think that is Marty's first point. This means that we need to change the bias in the field itself in order to change the bias in the journals. I personally don't have a problem with the scientific method if it can be considered as one approach within many. I am waiting for the day the gov't gives out grants for a hermeneutical study on crime in the inner city. There are also academic fields that don't subscribe to this religion of science. Of course, these aren't fields that are considered "related" to criminal justice and sociology. I am talking about the fields of anthropology and ethnomusicology (the latter is usually sloughed off as being a humanity by those in criminal justice because the degree is often in the music dept.). I would also include the fields of literary criticism and philosophy, but they are actually humanities and as such considered unimportant to C.J.. (I can't believe the narrowness of some in this field.) I like Bruce's idea of trying to publish the results of the poll in the respective journals. Use their own methodology against them. If it's "scientific", it must be true. However, it brings up all those "problems" that statistical studies have. Would it account for all those "lost" articles that were never sent, because of the climate against critical criminology? How would published articles be rated against those that were rejected? Perhaps it would also be interesting to apply Marxist theory to a study of who gets published. The numbers don't tell it all. Steve Russell Of course quantitative work can be critical criminology. I agree with the comment that a lot of quantitative crap seems to find its way into mainstream journals. I say this not because I am capable of evaluating the numbers but because I take the numbers at face value and can find many, many reasons to say "So what?" The methods of literary criticism can and should inform our enterprise. I am not sure why the "humanities" label is so deadly. Seems to me like the anthropologists who think Indian elders are ignorant. There are different ways of knowing. Is that so complicated? Ray Michalowski Ellen, Thanks for the observations. Putting on my politicaleconomist hat for a moment, I'd like to suggest that the emphasis on the grantgetting capacity of faculty is a reflection of the desperation of many university administrations in the face of the ongoing, rightwing campaign to defund universities in order to punish them for being sites of where some critical inquiry into the operations of the society still goes on. Ellen Liechtman Text Box: Ray, I didn't know that. I appreciate your bringing that up. It puts another dimension on the issue. I do know, however, that CJ grants are often given to people who know people in gov't, for studies that don't rock the boat, to continue government policies. If the government pays, the government dictates. I had a problem with that in gov't funding of the arts when I work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Now there is a problem with the Brooklyn Museum of Art and Giuliani. It also brings in more money for professors and depts. to supplement their income. Ray Michalowski Ellen and all, I think the matter regarding insider trading on Federal grants is generally correct, but maybe a little bit less sinister than just funding nonboat rockers. Marty is right that (up to a point) a critically oriented study that was theoretically and methodologically sound and (here's the kicker) about the next hot topic, would not be denied funding just for being critical. Many of the reviewers are people not so dissimilar from us on the review panels. BUT...the key is that insiders know what's going to be coming down the line and can begin to prepare long before the rest of us see the [request for proposals]. Nothing more sinister than networks among the good ole boys and girls. But it does put those of us in the hinterlands, or my case the last outpost of civilization in the Southwest, at a serious disadvantage even if we wanted to do that kind of funded work. All of this discussion can seem a little dispiriting at times, but I want to add a note of joy. For me it is a delight to see so many people doing critical work in criminology, to see a division within the ASC where we can meet and exchange, to have outlets of our own, to have panels devoted to critical work at meetings. I can remember the days in the 70s when we were far fewer and when the majority of the orthodox crim folk were pretty convinced we had no right to even exist in academia. The progress is too slow for sure, but the intellectual movement survived, grew, and continues to grow. If it were not a struggle there would be no reason for us to be critical. If we enjoyed the mainstream limelight in a criminology situated in center of the world capitalist, neoimperialist, and globalized empire, something would be wrong. Of course there are systemic pressures to keep us at the margins. That's our struggle. That's the point. So let's struggle on together. Steve and all, Thanks for comment on quantitative work. I think the real problem with any methodology is that people forget it is nothing more than a tool to understanding, not an end in itself. I think of a lot of orthodox quantoids who seem to fit the saying that "If you give a child of three a hammer, everything looks like a nail." As someone who has done quantitative work, theoretical work, and ethnographic work it seems to me that the real issue is, does the strategy being used to create understanding fit the question at hand. It's hard to do political economy without numbers; it is hard to do ethnography with them. I think Steve's "so what" point is the key one. It is not whether work is "quantitative crap," or "postmodern crap," or "theoretical crap," it is whether the work helps us build an understanding that moves us, however limitedly, down a path toward an undistorted discourse on human justice. Bruce Arrigo