ABSTRACT
Comparative researchers face a number of potential pitfalls and this is as much the case for researchers in the field of probation as for others. Certainly any a priori assumption that probation is a readily identifiable ‘thing’ replicable with only administrative variation in different criminal justice systems should be viewed with scepticism: probation itself requires first problematizing and then clarifying. It does not, however, follow that a relativism which decrees that ‘anything’ can constitute probation must ensue. After all, probation round the world must presumably possess certain characteristics for it to be rendered recognizable, even if what those characteristics are is contested.
