ABSTRACT
The role of academics in society has been of perennial interest to philosophers, scientists and social scientists. In 2005, however, the debate in social science was given fresh impetus by the publication of Michael Burawoy’s 2004 presidential address to the American Sociological Association, entitled ‘For Public Sociology’ (Clawson et al. 2007). Since then, debate about the desirability of a ‘public criminology’ has become one of the staples of criminological polemic (e.g. Uggen and Inderbitzen 2006; Loader and Sparks 2010). However, the term ‘public’ has proved to be something of a dead weight as far as this particular debate is concerned, since it could reasonably be claimed that with the majority of criminologists engaged in publication, teaching, campaigning or government consultancy, criminology has always been primarily ‘public’ (see Ericson 2005 for a similar view). None the less, much of the debate has got bogged down with discussion about how to define ‘public’, rather than with addressing the main issue as to the desirable and possible roles for academic criminologists in penal politics. That is why the term ‘public criminology’ is used sparingly in this chapter. Instead, the phrase ‘doing politics’ is routinely employed. It refers, specifically, to debates and oppositional struggles between players involved in the development of criminal justice and penal policies, including: local and national politicians, civil servants, campaigners on crime and penal justice issues, crime victims, religious groups, media, and academic criminologists – each arguing from a different mix of political, ideological, epistemological and ethical standpoints, and, from each of these standpoints, often developing internally logical criminologies. Academic criminology, in the political context, is but one criminology among many (see Carlen 2010).
