Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Contestability in criminology

Contestability in criminology Editorial Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology Contestability in 2020, Vol. 53(1) 3–6 ! The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: criminology sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0004865820912650 journals.sagepub.com/home/anj Andrew Goldsmith and Mark Halsey Flinders University, Australia The question we wish to pose as longstanding observers and contributors to the disci- pline of criminology (as well as editors of this journal) is this – is there sufficient space and structured opportunity presently within the scholarly practice of criminology for robust engagement with other perspectives within (and even outside of) criminology? Here, ‘sufficient’ refers not just to the chance for different points of view to be shared, but for those views also to be heard and considered, and for there to develop, at least from time to time, a shared consensus around the ‘better’ view of knowledge and under- standing on a particular topic. While criminology has offered, and can continue to offer, a range of critiques of existing practices and understandings, it ought, as many of its practitioners undoubtedly would endorse, to offer its audiences a strongly based con- ception of knowledge built upon the presentation of principles and propositions that have developed through presentation, contestation, and regard to the available evidence. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology SAGE

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/contestability-in-criminology-7pWSIVDn5r

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
0004-8658
eISSN
1837-9273
DOI
10.1177/0004865820912650
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Editorial Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology Contestability in 2020, Vol. 53(1) 3–6 ! The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: criminology sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0004865820912650 journals.sagepub.com/home/anj Andrew Goldsmith and Mark Halsey Flinders University, Australia The question we wish to pose as longstanding observers and contributors to the disci- pline of criminology (as well as editors of this journal) is this – is there sufficient space and structured opportunity presently within the scholarly practice of criminology for robust engagement with other perspectives within (and even outside of) criminology? Here, ‘sufficient’ refers not just to the chance for different points of view to be shared, but for those views also to be heard and considered, and for there to develop, at least from time to time, a shared consensus around the ‘better’ view of knowledge and under- standing on a particular topic. While criminology has offered, and can continue to offer, a range of critiques of existing practices and understandings, it ought, as many of its practitioners undoubtedly would endorse, to offer its audiences a strongly based con- ception of knowledge built upon the presentation of principles and propositions that have developed through presentation, contestation, and regard to the available evidence.

Journal

Australian and New Zealand Journal of CriminologySAGE

Published: Mar 1, 2020

There are no references for this article.