Page Title

Text Box: our contributions. Without such steps, we will continually find ourselves readdressing bias in the publication process. NOTES 1 This debate began with the publication of Bruce Arrigo’s “Critical Criminology’s Discontent: The Perils of Publishing and the Call to Action,” The Critical Criminologist, Newsletter of the ASC’s Division on Critical Criminology, Fall 1999, Vol. 10, #1, pp. 10-12. 2. Levi, Michael. 1995. “The Use and Misuse of Citations as a Measure of Influence in Criminology.” British Journal of Criminology, 35 (Winter) 138-142. 3. The need for a special effort also involves ambiguities over what constitutes ‘critical criminology’ and, hence, what yardstick should be used to compare the results. The concept, mobilization of bias, was introduced to explain the tacit exclusion in legislative debates of certain kinds of social policies during the ‘war on poverty’. See Bachrach, Peter and Morton Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. We use this phrase in an ethnomethodological sense as well. Criminology is officially dedicated to the work of a diverse body of professionals; however, these critical journals have no obligation to represent the field as a whole. Consequently, they can justifiably provide comparison groups or indices for judging bias in official journals like Criminology. 6. For a critique of their study, see Herman and Julia Schwendinger. 1997. “When the Study of Delinquent Groups Stood Still: In Defense of a Classical Tradition.” Critical Criminology 8 (Autumn) 5-38. 7. The phrases in quotes are from Imre Lakatos, 1970, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs,’ in Imre Lakatos and Allan Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133-34. The fraudulent ‘special edition devoted to radical criminology,’ edited in by James Inciardi, is a quintessential example of this kind of defense.

Text Box: whether or not the authors plan to publish them in professional journals. Of course, other avenues for displaying articles on the Web have already come into existence. Web pages hosted by Paul Leighton and his students (http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/) should be considered in this context because they are spectacular examples of what can be done. A site with a number of progressive electronic journals, including one devoted to students, can be found in T.R. Young’s website, Red Feather Institute (http: //www.tryoung.com/). If Jim Thomas (http://www.sun.socio.niu.edu/~critcrim/) received adequate support, Division Web pages could refer to articles and books about diverse topics such as criminal justice ethics, privatization of prisons, drug policies, racism and justice, Geek profiling and comparative criminology. Mark Lanier suggests chat rooms where critical criminologists take turns fielding questions from students and the public at large about ecological harms, corporate crimes, the homeless, death penalty, violence, juvenile justice trends, crimes against women, hate crimes, police-community relations, unemployment and crime, etc. By providing an expanded directory of sites where critical criminologists (and organizations such as ACLU and Amnesty International) provide information about their work, the Division can become an organizational nexus that enhances the schools of thought and social policies supported by its members. There are tremendous differences between mainstream and critical scholars that cannot be overcome by simply confirming or complaining about bias. Again, struggling to win space for critical articles in a handful of mainstream journals is justified. Still, it is important to use the current debate to create a setting where critical journals are elevated in stature; where steps are taken to provide supportive environments and mechanisms that produce avenues of expression and positive feedback for critical scholars. We need to establish avenues of information and space for scholarship that values rather than marginalizes