#BSCconf16 – ‘My first BSC conference but definitely not my last’ by Roxanna Dehaghani

Roxanna is a PhD student and graduate teaching assistant at the University of Leicester. She presented a paper at this years BSC conference entitled ‘Vulnerable by law but not by nature: exploring custody officers’ conception of youth and childhood vulnerability in the context of police custody’ . She presented this on Thursday 7 July from 11-1230 in the ‘Childhood, Juvenile and Youthful Vulnerabilities’ parallel. Roxanna has written an interesting piece for us before about vulnerability in police custody, you can find this here.

The 2016 British Society of Criminology conference, hosted at the Nottingham Conference Centre, was not my first conference but it was my first BSC conference. And, as with the previous conferences I have attended, I enjoyed every moment – from the Postgraduate Breakfast (which gave me a chance to meet other PGRs) to the train home on the Friday afternoon (when I collected my thoughts and had a quick nap!).

The conference, for the PGRs, kicked-off on Wednesday morning with an informal meet-and-greet breakfast, shortly followed by a plenary entitled ‘Criminology on a Mission’ with Prof Peter Squires (Brighton) (see the blog by Ania Matczak for more detail). After a quick refreshment break we had the choice of attending one of four panel sessions. As I am nearing the end of my 3rd year I thought I had best attend the session ‘Building your Academic CV’ with Dr Steve Tong (Canterbury Christ Church) and Dr Victoria Silverwood (Birmingham City). This session provided PGR’s with invaluable gems about all things job market from a job-panel member (Tong) and a recent job market candidate (Silverwood). The conference-proper began after lunch with a talk by Mr Will Hutton entitled ‘Why Purpose Matters’ (see the blog by Ania Matczak for more detail). Of all the enticing sessions packed into the three days, I decided to focus on youth justice and policing, whilst also dipping into gender and queer criminology. Day 2, in particular, seemed to have a core theme – that of vulnerability and risk. Each session exploring this concept from different lenses. The plenary by Prof Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Toronto) entitled ‘Repositioning Criminogenic Risk in an Era of Diversity, Data Analytics and Inequality’ aligned perfectly with my ever-increasing interest in risk.

There are many lessons that one can learn from attending a conference. Firstly, you would be surprised about how various areas interact or overlap – do not be afraid to venture outside of your research topic/discipline as there are always (often not-so-obvious) links with your own work. Secondly, conferences can be daunting but they can also be a lot of fun! Some of the best ideas develop over lunch or at the drinks reception or dinner over a glass of wine (or fruit juice!). It is also helpful to discuss your ideas with experts and non-experts alike – these conversations can provide an additional perspective on your work (and it is sometimes the lack of perspective that has been causing you to stare blankly at a computer screen for weeks or months!!!). Thirdly, even if you are the only person attending from your department or institution (I was the only Leicester Law School member in attendance) you will soon realise that you are far from alone. Within the broad church that is criminology I met another Roxanna; two fellow Dutch speakers; a bunch of Leicesterians (from Criminology); other policing scholars; scholars interested in and researching the concept of vulnerability; an expert on the appropriate adult safeguard; and many, many other PGRs. Such commonalities highlight how easy it is to get to know people, establish friendships/working relationships and communicate ideas. Although many of these connections were facilitated through prior contact (through Twitter – I would recommend signing up and using this to connect with people before, during and after the conference! – or via email), many were established organically on the day.

Attendance at the BSC conference was invaluable and I would urge all PGRs to think about presenting a paper or poster at the British Society of Criminology conference next year at Sheffield Hallam.

 

#BSCconf16 experience – Sophie Pike

Sophie Pike attended the BSC Conference in Nottingham last week and has kindly written a blog of her experience of the conference. Sophie presented a brilliant paper under the ‘Homicide Investigation’ panel – a widely tweeted about panel session!  If you would like to contact Sophie about her PhD or research interests please email – Sophie.Pike@southwales.ac.uk or you can find her on twitter at Twitter at @MissSophie84.

 

Last week I attended the British Society of Criminology conference for the first time.  It was a really informative event and this blog post will give an insight into my experiences of attending.

As well as attending the conference for the first time, I was asked to present as part of a panel that my PhD supervisor, Professor Fiona Brookman, established to address the topic homicide, which was entitled ‘Homicide Investigation: UK and USA Research Findings’.  Dr Cheryl Allsop and I presented on our forthcoming paper ‘The Changing Face of Homicide Investigations – only the crime is fixed in time’.  Based on our PhD research, the talk consisted of two parts.  Firstly, I discussed some of my findings in respect of how the investigation of homicide in England and Wales has changed since the 1980s, before Cheryl explained how these changes, particularly scientific and technological changes, have enabled investigators to resolve cold cases many years after they originally occurred.  I have always found it helpful to present my PhD research and have done so at several stages over the last few years; it helps to develop your ability to justify your topic and your approach along with your ability to answer questions about the research, all of which will be helpful when it comes to the Viva.  It was great to speak to people afterwards and hear them say that they enjoyed the talk and are interested in my work – I even spoke to a prospective external examiner.  Our panel was very well received and many people commented on how they liked and found useful that each of the three talks were linked to each other.

One of the things that I most enjoyed about the conference was the diversity of the talks – there were plenty to choose from and it was not easy to decide what to go along to!  This was particularly the case with the postgraduate sessions on the first day.  In the end I opted for the session on publishing in journals and books.  It is my intention to convert my thesis into a book and there were plenty of helpful tips on how to do this. I found the hints around developing a book proposal especially helpful and I hope to put them to good use soon.  As well as attending sessions that were more closely related to my research and areas of interest, such as the session on miscarriages of justice, I attended others that I was interested in, but knew less about.  For example, I attended particularly interesting sessions on joint enterprise and animal abuse.  It was helpful to learn about new topics and to see the very different ways in which people of all different experiences conduct their research and how they present that work.

My first experience of attending and presenting at the British Society of Criminology conference did not disappoint.  It was, as ever, valuable, to present my own work and to learn more about areas that were new to me.  The importance of networking also cannot be underestimated and it was great to meet new people (including those whose names I recognised from books and journals!) and to spend time with colleagues – heading to the pub to watch the football and chatting over several glasses of wine at the conference dinner!  I would definitely recommend that other postgraduate students attend the conference if they get the chance.

 

Picture credit @BritSocCrim / Twitter

What now criminology? Anna Matczak

Anna Matczack is a PhD researcher and criminologist at London School of Economics and Political Science. She recently attended the BSC conference in Nottingham and has written this review. You can find the original review at Anna’s blog https://annamatczak.com/2016/07/11/what-now-criminology/, and contact her on twitter @MatczakAnia.
Ana also presented her poster at the BSC conference, take a look below:

20160707_141110-01(1)

 

‘Everything starts at the crime scene’, said Professor Peter Squires in the first session of the British Society of Criminology conference, which I attended last week in Nottingham. So what is criminology really for? To answer this question Professor Squires put forward a number of stimulating remarks. The obvious function is to provide voices for the excluded but criminology must also remain critical in questioning authority and the power to punish. As all of the conference presentations demonstrated well, the criminological thinking in Britain has been informed by a variety of robust and interesting research. Nonetheless, according to Professor Squires, the purpose of this should not be to advance criminology as such but to have a say about the quality of justice in a given society. What the profession needs more are critical criminologists who acknowledge the broader context of crime and punishment and take the research evidence further.

The broader context of current criminology affairs was then discussed by two conference plenary speakers, Will Hutton and Professor Kelly Hannah Moffat. Will Hutton addressed, among other things, the fact that criminology should better accommodate the notion of inequality as its levels have become exceptionally dysfunctional. This observation was later interestingly echoed in a couple of sessions in which I participated. For example Dr John Moore’s presentation, Built For Inequality in a Diverse World: A Brief History of Criminal Justice showed brilliantly how important is to understand the origins of the criminal justice system, which was built on the premise of and destined for inequality; therefore criminal justice systems in general will probably never become the best mechanisms through which to achieve social justice. Furthermore, as we know there are different kinds of inequalities and Professor Harry Blagg’s presentation, Southern Theory and Southern Criminology: A Postcolonial Critique demonstrated how to maintain a critical stance towards the unequal production of criminological knowledge. Based on his observations related to the situation of indigenous populations in Australia, Professor Blagg said that the information from the ‘Global South’ becomes knowledge only if it is processed by the ‘Global North’. In the light of this highly pertinent argument, my own reflection would be that there is a significant imbalance in the knowledge recognition within the Global North itself, for example between Western and Eastern European countries.

The choice of the conference theme proved that criminology is capable of accommodating and discussing the notion of inequality. However it is still debatable whether the same applies to achieving practical outcomes, or in other words how to do public criminology well. A very interesting remark was made by a member of the audience after Will Hutton’s lecture – universities are institutions that are good at creating a sense of purpose and moral alignment but they are not good at creating conditions for moral actions. This point was played out in another session that I attended, entitled What is to be done about crime and punishment? Professor Roger Matthews, who chaired the session, made a rather strong introductory statement, saying that contemporary criminology has become theoretically weak and empirically dubious, and has no policy relevance and as a result is disentangled with the real world. Although this claim was then challenged by Professor Philip Stenning, who said that the problem lies in the political elites who are not listening, not in criminologists, in my view Professor Matthews’ opening comment was an interesting provocation that aimed to generate emotions, and possibly actions. Professor Roger Matthews’s point was that the contemporary research might be informative and interesting but lacks a tangible policy impact. To prove that research can be communicated differently he then introduced three panellists (who are also contributors to his new book, What is to Be Done About Crime and Punishment? Towards a ‘Public Criminology’) who presented fascinating and policy-focused papers on policing (Professor Ben Bowling), drug policy (Dr Caroline Chatwin) and youth gangs (Professor John Pitts).

The organization of the conference made it evident that there is an enormous willingness to engage with the wider public on the part of criminologists. Communicating criminological thinking in the form of blogging, tweeting, or poster presentations interestingly mirrored Professor Kelly Hannah Maffot’s plenary lecture, which made me rethink how criminologists have increasingly become involved in networked social activism. Nonetheless, as indicated by Professor Kelly Hannah Moffat, risk is constructed in a non-neutral way and the production of knowledge about crime in times of an information avalanche has begun to be constructed by new tech-savvy players – it is worth remembering that the profession of criminologists is only one of these players. Although we might strive for real and tangible policy outcomes, we also have to consider carefully how we should take our research to the next level.

On a more personal note, the conference took place in the shadow of the Brexit vote – a subject that appeared in almost every presentation and informal conversation. I might be a PhD candidate at a great university with promising career prospects. However since 24th June it has felt as if my identity has been limited to the ‘migrant other’. Attending the BSC conference somehow helped alleviate my disappointment in the referendum outcome and recreate a sense of belonging. I should not forget that Britain will always be the place where I gained my very first research experience, met inspirational academics and made a beginning as a criminologist. The conference experience reminded me of how much I have learnt and developed throughout my academic migrant years in the UK.

Whatever the future holds for me professionally, I promised myself to deeply cherish this thought.

BSCConf2016 – Plenary review

BSCConf2016 – Plenary on ‘criminology’ by Professor Peter Squires and the ‘near perfect storm’ by Will Hutton.

By Susie Atherton

Susie Atherton is a Teaching Fellow in Criminology at Keele University. She has recently submitted her PhD on ‘Communities, Crime and Justice: Exploring community justice and community life’ which is a case study of community justice initiatives in the North East. It examines different ways in which the police, courts and restorative justice practitioners work with volunteers and local citizens to solve the problem of crime and anti-social behaviour.

As an observer in the comfort of my study and soft leather (effect) chair it is interesting to watch how the conference this year is represented through twitter, and so I decided to collate some observations and thoughts.

image

Professor Peter Squires began with asking ‘What is Criminology?’ A very important question and one which we all still need to grapple with, in order to consider its role in determining the future of criminal justice policy, the political and economic contexts in which this occurs and to critique the pervasive notion of justice as punishment. It resonated with me given my own PhD research on problem solving justice, which requires practitioners, journalists and local citizens to accept different forms of ‘doing justice.’ Any number of evaluations into such approaches, (e.g. Wolf 2007, Mair and Millings, 2011; Bowen and Whitehead 2013) demonstrate the value of problem solving approaches, innovation in courts and restorative justice. However, they also emphasize the challenges in engaging citizens to work with the state to prevent crime and re-offending, whether this is seen solely as the responsibility of the state, or a problem they wish to see removed, rather than resolved. Donoghue (2014) suggests court processes can do something which is more ‘socially meaningful’ than being part of the punishment production line and others see courts as a place for ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ (e.g. Ward, 2014) in which the adversarial contest gives way to dialogue with defendants and partnership working with a range of other agencies to prevent re-offending.

image(1)

 

In his plenary, Professor Squires suggests the discipline of criminology needs to contribute to policy which is evidence led, asks more practical questions, looks forward and seeks to solve problems. In restorative justice and problem solving approaches in courts and in policing, there are examples of a response to crime which is more forward thinking. Perhaps then challenge for criminologists is to get this message out to those who still view justice as punishment to deter others, taking retributive glances back to the harms caused and justifying the rhetoric of control as a means to solve the problem of crime.

 

The theme of the political and economic contexts in which crime and the response to it occurs was then picked up by Will Hutton. He outlined the ‘near perfect storm’ of the political and social disaster of the new right project, which has seen pervasive and long term inequalities leading to what Dr Mary Corcoran described as  ‘weakening civil society.’ The acceptance of contemporary forms capitalism across the board of policy makers, politicians, the media and citizens, which Dr James Treadwell described as ‘capitalism on steroids’ has now demanded attention by criminologists. Recent events have seen high profile political figures retreat from their responsibilities, even in the face of a victorious (in the eyes of Gove, Johnson, Farage et al) referendum vote to leave the European Union (EU), in a campaign which dismissed the word of ‘experts’ and which has gambled with social and economic policy. The divisive reactions from citizens focusing their frustration and anger on immigration and the role of the EU is disturbing, but not surprising. Given that it is the experts, the researchers and academics across the country who can provide evidence on what works, for whom and why, criminology has its place in using research to examine the details of how crime and justice affects individuals and communities, whilst also understanding how social structures and political ideologies inform policy, practice and perceptions of crime and justice.

 

Both plenaries have provided some interesting themes for the conference, so, if anyone at the conference is reading this, do keep tweeting!

 

References

BOWEN, P. and WHITEHEAD, S. (2013) Better courts: Cutting crime through court innovation, New Economics Foundation and Centre for Justice Innovation.

DONOGHUE, J. (2014). Transforming Criminal Justice?: Problem-Solving and Court Specialisation. Routledge.

MAIR, G. and MILLINGS, M. (2011) Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, London.

WARD, J. (2014) Are problem-solving courts the way forward for justice? London: Howard League for Penal Reform.

WOLF, R.V. (2007) Principles of Problem Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, New York: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Picture credit to Claire Davis BSC PG Chair @ClaireDavisPHD.

Tweet Susie your thoughts @SusieAtherton and follow the conference hash-tag #BSCConf16.

 

 

BSC Conference 2016 – Inequalities in a diverse world

Today is the first day of the British Society of Criminology conference for 2016 ‘Inequalities in a diverse world’. This year the conference is being held in Nottingham, and postgraduates are part of the main conference, with a dedicated morning for postgraduates starting today at 9am with a free breakfast!

Claire and the postgraduate committee have organised a brilliant morning today which will be very useful for postgraduates attending the conference. This includes:

Postgraduate Plenary:Peter Squires, University of Brighton
‘Criminology on a Mission: Difficult Issues and Awkward Questions’

 

Postgraduate Panel sessions:

Mark Simpson, Teesside University and David Best, Sheffield Hallam University -Networking and Conference Skills
Peter Squires, University of Brighton and Helen Jones, British Society of Criminology
– Dissemination, Media and Impact
Steve Tong, Canterbury Christ Church University and Victoria Silverwood,
Birmingham City University
-Building your Academic CV
Thomas Sutton, Routledge Books
Getting published: An introduction for early career academics
and
Jacquelyn Fernholz, Routledge, Taylor and Francis
Publishing in academic journals.

You can look through the conference proceedings here.

Today at least two of our postgrad’s are giving oral presentations, and they have both also contributed to our blog.

Jayne Price, University of Liverpool, is in today’s first session A.1 ‘Perspectives on youth justice’ 15:15-16:45 (LT4, Level 1 and 0 access). You can read her blog post here.

‘Exploring pathways and transitions between juvenile and adult penal institutions’
And

Charlene Crossley, Manchester Metropolitan University, is in today’s last session B.15 ‘Young people, Violence and Homicide’ 17:00-18:30 (LT9 Level 0). Read her blog post here.

‘Here. Me. Now.: The goals and aspirations of young people living in communities labelled as gang affected’

If you are at the conference and are able to, please go along to show them some support and ask some questions/ give feedback. Don’t forget, we have some brilliant poster submissions from postgraduates, please do make sure you get a chance to check them out.

** Are you a postgraduate presenting at the conference this year? email me your details nicola.harading@stu.mmu.ac.uk, and I will also feature you on the blog **

BSC Conference – 6-9th July 2016

The Postgraduate Conference, Nottingham Conference Centre, 6-9th July 2016

The Postgraduate Committee organises its own event prior to the main annual BSC conference. The BSC Postgraduate Conference is an opportunity to discuss work in progress in a friendly and supportive environment. It also provides a forum for gaining constructive feedback from peers and a chance to engage in what we hope will be lively debate with other postgraduate criminologists. The conference also presents an opportunity to meet a number of established scholars in an informal setting. The Postgraduate conference is open to all post graduate students and there are student bursaries available.

The call for papers, draft agenda and registration for this year’s Conference, ‘Inequalities in a Diverse World’, are now available:

Conference website: http://www.criminologyconference.com/

Conference email: BSC2016@britsoccrim.org

Twitter: #BSCConf16

Apply for a bursary

Postgraduate Bursaries

Thanks to the generosity of Hart Publishing and The Centre for Law Enforcement and Public Health, we are offering number of postgraduate bursaries to attend this year’s conference.

Each bursary will cover the full conference fee for one PhD student, and accommodation for three nights (5th to 7th July inclusive).

Eligibility criteria

You can apply for a postgraduate bursary if you meet ALL of the following criteria:

1. You are presenting a paper at the BSC Conference 2016

2. You are a registered PhD student (full-time or part-time)

3. You are a member of the British Society of Criminology (BSC)

How to apply

To apply for a bursary you must submit:

  1. Your completed bursary application form
  2. Your completed abstract submission form
  3. A letter of support from your PhD supervisor on institutional headed paper. This should also confirm that you are a registered PhD student and indicate your year of study.

Please send ALL THREE documents together by email to Claire Davis (Chair of the British Society of Criminology Postgraduate Committee) at claire.davis2012@my.ntu.ac.uk Please make it clear in the subject line that it is a bursary application form.

Please note, the deadline for bursaries has been extended to the deadline for abstract submission – which is Monday 23rd May 2016.