Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology 3030351572, 9783030351571

Citation preview

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology Edited by  Darren Palmer

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology

Darren Palmer Editor

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology

Editor Darren Palmer Deakin University Geelong, VIC, Australia

ISBN 978-3-030-35157-1    ISBN 978-3-030-35158-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: franckreporter on Getty This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The articles in this volume are drawn from a one day Symposium held in late 2017 at Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. I initially invited some Australian criminologists that I knew had completed or were conducting research on ‘learning and teaching’. I was interested in whether there was a desire amongst Australian criminologists to share more broadly their ideas about what scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology (SCOLATIC, see Chap. 1) might look like. The Symposium concluded with a discussion about the possibilities of publications as only one of the presenters had been involved in publishing a peer-reviewed article specifically directed at SCOLATIC. There was considerable enthusiasm and the result is the collection of papers that follows. Of course, as with many projects of this type, not everything went to plan and delays followed delays. I hope that this publication stimulates further research and publications on scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology. Other disciplines have their own journals dedicated to this (e.g. psychology), there are several journals dedicated to generic teaching and learning scholarship, and there are general higher education journals that cover various aspects of teaching and learning scholarship. However, more can be done within criminology to foster greater recognition that this form of publication is scholarship.  The Journal of Criminal Justice Education  has been the ‘home’ of SCOLATIC for three decades, and as important as it is for those seeking to publish SCOLATIC research, surely more can be done in other criminology journals and books. v

vi 

PREFACE

I wish to thank all the participants in the Symposium for the participation and contribution on the day. I also want to thank Sharon Sanders for administrative assistance, and Professor Matthew Clarke, Head of School of Humanities and Social Sciences which provided funding to cover travel, accommodation and catering for the Symposium. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who made insightful and constructive comments. Josie Taylor, the Commissioning Editor, Criminology at Palgrave Macmillan Springer Nature deserves special thanks for her warmth, enthusiasm and receptiveness to a new project outside the realm of existing works and series. But the project would not have come to fruition without the tolerance and patience of Liam Inscoe-­ Jones, Editorial Assistant, Criminology at Palgrave Macmillan Springer Nature. Liam, this project would not have been completed without your assistance—I remain forever grateful for your forbearance.  In addition, once the editorial process began the production team have been superb, particularly  Md Saif as production editor and  Vinodh Kumar as project manager. Finally, thank you to the participants in the Symposium as well as the chapter authors. I do hope that this book makes a contribution, however small, to the beginnings of a sea-change in how we, as criminologists, view the importance of scholarship on teaching and learning in criminology. Geelong, VIC, Australia

Darren Palmer

Contents

1 The Five ‘Troubling’ Developments in Criminology  1 Darren Palmer 2 Transforming Pedagogy in Criminology 17 Matthew Thurgood 3 Learning Behind Prison Bars: University Students and Prisoners’ Experiences of Studying Together 37 Marietta Martinovic and Marg Liddell 4 Teaching Crime Prevention and Community Safety 59 Garner Clancey 5 Trigger Warnings in Criminology Teaching Contexts: Some Reflections Based on Ten Years of Teaching a Sensitive Topic 87 Derek Dalton 6 Employer Expectations of Research Skills Provided in Criminology Undergraduate Education109 Tara Renae McGee and Li Eriksson

vii

viii 

Contents

7 Meta Review of Recent Scholarship on Learning and Teaching in Criminology (SCOLATIC)133 Darren Palmer Index141

Notes on Contributors

Garner Clancey  is Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Sydney. Before joining the University of Sydney Law School in 2011, Garner worked as a crime prevention consultant (between 2002–2010) and in criminal justice (including Juvenile Justice NSW and the NSW Police Force) and alcohol and other drug agencies in NSW and England (between 1992–2002). Garner also taught crime prevention, policing, juvenile justice, security and criminology at five other Australian universities between 2000 and 2011. Derek Dalton  is Associate Professor in Criminology, Flinders University College of Business, Government and Law in Adelaide. His research interests led to him co-editing ‘Policing Sex’ (Routledge) in 2012 with Paul Johnson. A project exploring tourism in sites where major crime has occurred (e.g. Auschwitz, the ‘Killing Fields’ of Cambodia, Port Arthur in Tasmania etcetera) culminated in the publication of ‘Dark Tourism and Crime’ (Routledge) in 2015. As part of a team from Flinders and Deakin University, Derek is currently finalising a review of gay-hate related homicides between 1976 and 2000 connected to Strike Force Parrabell which will be published by the NSW Police Force. Li Eriksson  is a Lecturer with the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University and a member of the Griffith Criminology Institute. She teaches courses in psychological theories of crime, corrections, lethal violence, and forensic psychology. Her research ­ interests include lethal and non-lethal family violence, developmental and lifecourse criminology, criminological theory, and academic dishonesty. ix

x 

Notes on Contributors

Marg Liddell  is a Senior Lecturer in the Criminology and Justice Studies Discipline at RMIT University. Her research interests relate to vulnerable populations such as children, young people and women offenders; the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program; family violence and the impact of people accessing online child abuse material on partners and their children. Marietta Martinovic  (BA, Sir John Minogue Medal, MA, APA, PhD), Lecturer in Justice and Legal studies at RMIT University in Melbourne in Australia. She has been leading the development and implementation of the first Australian Inside Out Prison Exchange program, which simultaneously engages RMIT students and prisoners in university-level education. She has also been leading two prison-based Think Tanks in which RMIT students and prisoners directly contribute to Corrections Victoria’s policy-making processes related to reducing further offending and improving people’s quality of life both within and outside of prison. On the basis of teaching in prisons Marietta has received two RMIT Teaching Excellence Awards in 2017—Deputy Vice Chancellor Education’s Award for Good Teaching and Educational Partnerships and Collaborations with Other Organisations. Her key research interests are electronic monitoring, incarceration and teaching in prisons. Tara Renae McGee  is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University and a member of the Griffith Criminology Institute. She teaches Statistics for Social Research and Developmental and Life-­ Course Prevention courses. She is the co-editor of the Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology and President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology. Darren  Palmer (editor) is Associate Professor in Criminology and Deakin University with 30 years of experience of teaching and scholarship in criminology. I introduced criminology to Deakin University just over a decade ago with only 1 other staff member. We now have 16 FTE staff and multiple short-term contract and sessional staff. I am the lead editor of the leading Australian criminology textbook (Crime and Justice, 5th edition, Lawbook Co.) and have recently published an international edited collection with Palgrave (National Security, Surveillance and Terror: Canada and Australia in comparative Perspective with Randy K Lippert, Kevin Walby and Ian Warren, Palgrave, 2016) and co-­authored

  Notes on Contributors 

xi

Global Criminology (with Ian Warren, Law Book Company/Thomson Reuters, 2015). He has obtained in excess of $1  million in competitive research funds. Matthew  Thurgood is a Senior Lecturer at the  Australian College of Applied Psychology (previously named Navitas College of Public Safety (NCPS)). He has been involved in teaching criminology and criminal justice for over 15 years, specialising in criminological theory, transnational crime, and the sociology of deviance. Matt is currently undertaking a PhD in Criminology at Deakin University in which he is examining the necropolitical nature of Australia’s immigration practices.

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Introduction to crime data analysis. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 67 Fig. 4.2 The criminal mind series: The Graffiti ‘Artist’. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 68 Fig. 4.3 The life of a persistent young offender peers. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 70 Fig. 4.4 Doing developmental crime prevention. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 71 Fig. 4.5 Applied crime prevention case studies—crime prevention implementation. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 73 Fig. 4.6 Applied crime prevention case studies—local government crime prevention planning. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 74 Fig. 4.7 Unintended (negative) consequences of crime prevention. (Developed by Garner Clancey) 75 Fig. 7.1 Adapted PRISMA flow chart for select criminology journals 2014–2018. ANZJC—Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; BJC—British Journal of Criminology; CJCCJ—Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice137

xiii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 6.1

DPFC policy initiatives: 2015–2018 MCC policy initiatives: 2017–2018 Crime prevention and community safety courses taught List of research methods skills

53 54 61 117

xv

CHAPTER 1

The Five ‘Troubling’ Developments in Criminology Darren Palmer

Over the past decade Australian criminology has experienced a seismic growth in the number of tertiary courses and the number of students or student load. In 2018 alone three Victorian Universities—Monash, Swinburne and the Australian Catholic University—are undertaking the development of new courses (the first two already offer criminology subjects—individual classes that can be grouped to provide a ‘major’ within a degree such as the Bachelor of Arts). At my own university, we have gone from a criminology ‘major’ introduced in 2005 as part of a broad-based liberal arts degree, to a Bachelor of Criminology and double degrees across the university (Forensic Science, Psychological Science, Law, and IT Security). Enrolments and student loads reflect this growth in courses. To give an example, first year class enrolments a decade ago were less than 150 students but are now around 1500 students. That is just one university, albeit with three campuses and a strong history and reputation in online teaching (The Open University in England were advisers in the early years of Deakin University).

D. Palmer (*) Criminology, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_1

1

2 

D. PALMER

Deakin is by no means the only Australian university to have experienced significant growth over the past decade. While up to date data is not easily obtained and that which is available requires careful interpretation, what we do have is clear: the number of undergraduate and postgraduate students has grown dramatically, and significantly more than the baseline growth in student numbers within the tertiary sector during the past few years of ‘open’ enrolment (i.e. a demand-driven system without a cap on student numbers across the sector, since changed in 2018 with a cap set at university level based on the previous year). But the numerical growth of criminology in the higher education is only part of the story. To expand this story, this chapter explores Garland’s five ‘troubling’ developments in criminology. Garland (2011) suggest that the institutional development and growth of criminology in recent times may very well lead to the demise of criminology. His argument is that as criminology increasingly becomes a stand-alone ‘discipline’ (he rejects the claims of criminology as a discipline), it is increasingly separated from other disciplines and oriented towards vocational training and practical governmental objectives (both in terms of research and training). He sees particularly strong evidence of this emanating from the US. But to what extent is this true of other countries such as Australia? The first section introduces some selected literature on the development of criminology and scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology (SCOLATIC) and the efforts of the discipline to create learning and teaching ‘standards’. Following this, the chapter addresses Garlands concern about the directions of the institutional development of criminology. Before proceeding we need a working definition of SCOLATIC. First, this is simply an extension from SCOLAT to include ‘in criminology’. I prefer SCOLAT to the more common SoLT (scholarship of teaching and learning) as it is simply less ‘cluncky’ though note concerns with the rise of ‘unfortunate acronym’ usage (Tight 2018: 68). As Tight (2018) suggests, the focus on scholarship on learning and teaching in the late twentieth century owes much to the work of Boyer (1990, 1998) who identified four domains of scholarship—discovery, integration, application and teaching, the latter now broadened to teaching and learning (Tight 2018, and see Boshier and Huang 2008). Various definitions have followed, though much of it focused on the teaching aspects (see Tight 2018: 63–64), though Trigwell and Shale (2014: 525, cited in Tight 2018: 64) indicate ‘we see the scholarship of teaching as about making trans-parent, for public scrutiny, how learning has been made possible’. But this needs

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

3

to be about more than the specific teaching and learning practices so as to include ‘scholarship on scholarship’ (e.g. Tight’s own work, 2018, though he returns to the focus on improving learning and teaching and disseminating this, see 2018: 64), and ‘how learning is made possible’ through curriculum development and associated contextual factors. For current purposes I define it as research-based scholarship on any aspects of factors shaping the practices of learning and teaching in criminology and the material artefacts produced within those practices. In this way, SCOLATIC can range from analysis of the impact of broader societal structures on learning and teaching in criminology (e.g. the rise of mass education) through to highly individualistic learning and teaching practices such as single classroom approaches to developing ‘critical thinking’ skills. To be included within SCOLATIC the research must address criminological practices. Otherwise it is simply scholarship on learning and teaching (SCOLAT).

The Institutional Development of Criminology and Learning and Teaching Scholarship The formative years of the institutional development of criminology owe a lot to ‘crises’. In the United States the 1965 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice fundamentally shaped the development of criminal justice and criminology courses. The Commission was, as the title to the published executive summary attests, a systematic response to The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967). Apart from the research programme established by the commission, it also funded the development of two- and four-year qualifications in Law Enforcement Education Programmes to which “many existing criminal justice and criminology programmes … owe their existence” (Giever 2007: 23). Thus, out of the ‘crisis’ in criminal justice emerged a significant expansion in criminology in the US. As Mark Finnane has documented, early developments in Australian criminology in the 1960s and 1970s were shaped by developments in the UK and USA and the active agency of key individuals seeking to translate those international experiences into the Australian context (Finnane 1998, 2006, 2008). These experiences and linkages were used to shape an under­standing of the need for Australian universities to develop criminology in ways that would avert the crisis in the US (Palmer 2017).

4 

D. PALMER

Further, the crisis of policing in Queensland in the late 1980s again fostered course development directed towards the need to professionalise policing. As Mahony and Prenzler documented in the mid-1990s (and one of the earlier examples of SCOLATIC), a series of police-related commissions of inquiry that followed the US President’s Commission also highlighted the need for tertiary education in policing in Australia, including the St Johnston (1971) and Neesham (1985) inquiries in Victoria and those that followed in NSW (Lusher 1982). But it was some years later when the seminal Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry in Queensland sparked a series of educational developments including the shift towards undergraduate degrees for police (Mahony and Prenzler 1996; see also Lewis 1992). While criminal justice ‘crises’ might form part of the background to the development of criminology and SCOLATIC, there has been much written about the need for community engagement and public education by criminologists, such as the call for ‘public criminology’ (Loader and Sparks 2011) and Bosworth and Hoyle’s (2011) edited collection in search of an answer to their title What is Criminology? Yet in each instance there is little said about what we do in translational spaces between research and teaching and learning: the elucidation of the assumed nexus between research and learning and teaching (the definition of a university). This volume and this introduction seek to engage criminologists (and others) in a different ‘framing’ (Goffman 1959) of the issues: what do we do as practising learning and teaching scholars? How are we and through what means ‘making up’ the broader current and future criminological community? A partial answer to these questions has already been attempted in two important transatlantic efforts to ‘benchmark’ course content. In the US, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences developed the Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Education (ACJS n.d.).1 Though limited in terms of prescription, “a minimum of six content areas must be addressed for university criminal justice baccalaureate degree programs” including: “administration of justice, corrections, criminological theory, law adjudication, law enforcement, and research and analytic methods” ­ (Sorensen et al. 1994: 63).

1  The divisions between ‘criminology’ and ‘criminal justice’ are important but not the focus here. See Sorensen et  al. (1994) for a study of differences between ACJS and ASC members. Marenin and Worrall (1998) explore what they regard as five intellectual traditions shaping this field: police science, criminology, penology, normative and legal theory, and policy studies. Any or all of these approaches could be in the ACJS or ASC members’ foci.

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

5

Developments in Britain have been more detailed following the British Society of Criminology development of Criminology Benchmarks (BSC 2006)2 to establish “a threshold standard for an Honours degree in Criminology and a range of related courses” (2006: 2) (in total there were 24 listed course titles, see Appendix 1, 2006: 17). While avoiding prescribing “substantive content” the focus was on establishing graduate “abilities and skills” and “the areas of knowledge which constitute the core of the discipline” (2006: 2). These were bracketed under “major theories”, though they were conceptually grouped into theories—not named—addressing “crime”, “victimisation”, “responses to crime and deviance” and “representations” (2006: 3); “key concepts”; “principles of social research”; “principles of human rights and civil liberties”; “dimensions of social divisions and social diversity”; “construction and influence of representations”, and; “local, national and international contexts” (2006: 3–4). The Benchmarks do “not specify teaching and learning policies or methods” or “modes of assessment” (2006: 4) though it does provide lists of “cognitive abilities and skills” that students are expected to acquire (2006: 6) and “learning resources” (2006: 8). The Benchmarks then provides a Table (2006: 12–16) linking each specified benchmark, divided into “Subject knowledge and understanding”, “Cognitive abilities”, and “Discipline specific skills”, to “Threshold achievement” and “Typical achievement”. The following is one example taken from the Table (2006: 12). Benchmark

Threshold

Typical

An awareness of how crime and victimisation are constructed in the media and by agents and practices of crime control.

Able to identify political and social processes of victimisation and criminalisation.

Able to appraise critically political and social processes of victimisation and criminalisation in the light of criminological theories.

These Benchmarks were revised in 2014 as part of the requirement to meet the Expectations of subject benchmark statements reviewed by the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, which also aligns with European standards, Criminology 2014: fn3). All higher education providers are required to “consider and take account of relevant subject benchmark ‘statements’ in order to secure threshold academic standards” (Criminology 2014: 2). The 2014 Expectations apply to 2  This was produced by a group chaired by Maureen Cain and subsequently revised and published as Criminology 2007.

6 

D. PALMER

“bachelor degrees with honours and master’s degrees in criminology” (2014: 3). The significant changes from the 2006 iteration concerned “greater consideration given to the issue of ethical practice and standards, greater attention to the methodological skills required to work with quantitative and qualitative empirical data about crime, and use of technologies of data retrieval, evaluation and analysis” (2014: 4). The 2014 version no longer contains a table linking benchmarks directly to ‘threshold’ and ‘typical’ achievements but rather provides separate lists of ‘Subject knowledge and understanding’ (2014: 17), ‘Cognitive abilities and skills’ and ‘subject-specific skills’ (2014: 18). For a master’s degree, students are expected achieve additional threshold standards, which consists of a seven-­ point list (2014: 19) with the main focus being ‘critical’ awareness and skills and “a substantial empirical research project, systematic review or systematic case study” (2014: 19). Australian criminology has not developed a Benchmark of any kind, with the focus being institutional responses to ‘quality control’ set at the Federal level but devoid of discipline content. The Australian Higher Education Standards Framework requires means of ensuring students have demonstrated the learning outcomes specified for the course of study, including generic skills and life-long learning skills of critical and independent thinking (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). If Benchmarks are at best broad guiding principles, or as in the case of Australia are absent, then what do we know of the context of the development of criminological learning and teaching?

50 Years of Australasian Criminology It is quite timely that we publish an edited collection devoted to SCOLATIC at the time of the 50th anniversary of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology (ANZSOC). The anniversary raises several issues about the place of SCOLATIC within criminology. First, much of the debates about criminology leading to the formation of the society were precisely concerned with what subject matter needed to be taught and how. Second, despite the centrality of learning  and teaching to the introduction of criminology to the university sector and to the formation of the ANZSOC, little has been published since and certainly nothing like a dedicated volume or even special edition of the society journal. Third, the Society publication documenting and celebrating the 50th anniversary (Deckert and Sarre 2017) has little to say on the matter despite its’ historical

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

7

importance to the formation of ‘intellectual traditions’ (Marenin and Worrall 1998). So what are the trends in publications on teaching and learning in Australian criminology? First, there are specific areas of debate that have sparked periodic flourishes of publications. For instance, the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into police and political corruption made specific recommendations about the needs for higher education for police officers, leading not only to course development at QUT and Griffith but also some important scholarship. For instance, in 1993 Mahony and Prenzler conducted a mailed survey questionnaire to police studies educators in Australian universities including 35 items with Likert scale responses (1–5), qualitative responses, and questions concerning the respondents professional background, with responses being anonymous (n  =  55, a response rate of 54%, 1996: 288–289, for a somewhat similar though also comparative analysis in the US see Sorensen et al. 1994). Second, some important conferences have been held that have largely focused on criminal justice and police education, such as the Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of the Australasian Association of Criminal Justice Educators (Bull 1991), and the Proceedings of the Police Education in Australia: The Way Ahead Conference (Griffith University 1993). Whatever their content or legacy for participants, these conferences took place a quarter of a century ago, a time when many of the new entrants to teaching criminology in the current period of major expansion of programmes and thus staff were either not born or too young to have participated (at best someone now in their mid-40s could have participated, but more likely now in their 50s). This raises an important issue concerning who is teaching criminology? Research in the US has examined the issue of instructor qualifications since the 1980s (Fischer et al. 1985). Additional research currently being conducted by this author (with others) is examining this issue in current criminology programmes in Australia and staffing profiles. Anecdotally, a major shift is underway from diversity to uniformity: a shift from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds amongst faculty towards an increasing presence of faculty with undergraduate and postgraduate criminology qualifications. Those with a psychology background have largely replaced those coming from a sociology programme, and to a lesser extent a law background, but the rise of those with a criminology background has been profound (again reflecting the increase in criminology undergraduate courses over the past decade). Concerns with this as an exercise in

8 

D. PALMER

­ arrowing criminology has been expressed by David Garland, suggesting n the more ‘inward-looking’ criminology will ‘tend to narrow itself intellectually’ and produce ‘negative consequences’, intellectually, in relation to government and in its’ positioning in the university (2011: 300). The following section addresses each of Garland’s five issues that he suggests are ‘troubling’ rather than something to be celebrated.

Five ‘Troubling’ Developments in Criminology First, criminology has expanded significantly but this expansion has often been in more vocationally-oriented settings, shaping coursed content and research that realigns criminology with government needs. Garland accepts that this is a problem across university disciplines but given the problem of this for criminology—a discipline where government determine the questions to be addressed—undermines independence, autonomy and theory-building and scientific replication (300–301). On face value, Garland’s observation partly rings true in Australia. The growth of criminology degrees over the past decade has been led by newer universities (Wimshurst 2011) outside the claimed prestige of the ‘Group of 8’ sandstone universities. Deakin University (2005) and the University of New England (2006) led this development and most recently the University of the Sunshine Coast (2015), La Trobe University (2016), Swinburne University (2019) and the Australian Catholic University (2020). But in one form or another criminology exists across the differently delineated universities. Wortley and Wimshurst (2000) identified 15 courses containing criminal justice within the 39 Australian universities in 2000. In 2014 this had increased to 23 of 39 universities “offering undergraduate criminology, criminal justice and/or justice degree programs” (Bartels et al. 2015: 122). Four universities have offered new criminology degrees in the past three years. In addition, some universities offer several different degrees related to criminology and/or criminal justice so that we are now approaching the point that almost all universities offer some form of criminology or criminal justice. The extent that these are more vocationally oriented requires a more detailed examination of course offerings. However, in terms of ‘outputs’ (publications from the staff of these expanded criminology offerings), Pratt and Priestly observed in their review of 30  years of publications in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology:

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

9

It would appear that as criminology has become more established within the tertiary sector, it has been able to give critical criminology a more distinctive voice in the journal—to the point where it has now begun to mount an effective challenge to the dominance of administrative criminology … (1999: 323)

Further research is needed to fully examine Garland’s first concern and the extent that it applies to Australian criminology. Garland’s second observation is that the growth of undergraduate programs rather than the postgraduate programmes where criminology started has meant lesser qualified students are making up the criminology cohort that are the future criminologists. He suggests this is particularly clear in the US in the distinction between criminal justice and criminology. In the case of Australia, in the late 1960s Hawkins and Chappell (1967), located at the Sydney University Institute of Criminology formally made the case for the expansion of Australian criminology. They were explicit in their desire for a pragmatic criminology, arguing that they were: aligning ourselves with the pragmatic approach of Radzinowicz and the Cambridge school. This approach is one which distrusts philosophizing and calls for facts. (1967: 309 cited in Carson and O’Malley 1989: 339)

However, Finnane’s (2012) detailed history must temper the broader narrative of the historical foundations of Australian criminology presented by Carson and O’Malley (1989). Finnane identified a strong desire in the early days of criminology at Melbourne University to ensure “the delivery of critical and inter-disciplinary perspectives” (2012: 14). Finnane quotes from a memorandum of the Board of Studies in Criminology: Knowledge in this field must be derived from those disciplines covered by the historian, the sociologist, the psychologist, the jurist, the theologian, the economist and the political scientist … It thus provides an example of the integration of elements from already established bodies of knowledge which reflect back on the problems of the interstitial areas lying between them. (2012: 14)

Finally, Carson and O’Malley (1989) have suggested that these early developments in Australian criminology as ‘independent’ and theoretically critical was constrained by two important factors. First, the early criminology programs were set up by lawyers in service to Law Schools and lawyers

10 

D. PALMER

to enhance their understanding of broader social issues related to law and criminal justice practice, and to service criminal justice agencies (Police, courts and in the early days particularly corrections). Second, the limited development of Australian sociology meant that unlike the UK for instance, criminology could not draw from and interact with a strong local critical sociology. In effect this reinforced the first constraining factor. As they put it in summary: In both Melbourne and Sydney, then, law and lawyers clearly played a leading role in shaping early criminological development, which took on a strong correctionalist form and was closely articulated with the ideas and perceptions of the administration of state criminal justice systems. (1989: 337)

Yet these constraining factors are no longer present in Australian criminology as new courses are being developed within Arts and Social Sciences Faculties and sociology (and other disciplines) are now well-established and to varying degrees contributing to criminology courses. The ‘control’ of law, lawyers and criminal justice professionals over the criminological agenda (never total) has been diminishing over the past 15 years or more. However, Garland is right in observing a shift from limited postgraduate courses to high volume undergraduate degrees. The growth in criminology over the past 15  years has almost exclusively been at the income-­ generating ‘mass education’ undergraduate level. The third concern for Garland is that criminological programmes are becoming increasingly vocational (2011: 301). This is true of the general pressure on Australian universities across all disciplines in seeking to enhance employment-related skills and capacities. However, vocational courses are qualitatively different and requires ‘thick description’ of the details of course offerings. On face value it seems as though the vocational push is starting to occur at the postgraduate level as specialists professional courses emerge that are directly related to criminal justice professionals’ training and education needs, most clearly seen as Charles Sturt University’s suite of postgraduate programmes aimed at police personnel though this is as much a result of being in partnership with the New South Wales police to deliver police training within ‘police studies’ rather than being the result of shifts in criminology. The fourth concern is the attenuation between criminology and ‘its constitutive disciplines’ as criminology builds its’ independence as a

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

11

‘­free-­standing academic discipline’ (2011: 301). Garland suggests this will lead to a criminology that is less theoretically rich and of less interest to a broader audience. Counter to this view it is important to recognise the development of the explicitly theoretical journal Theoretical Criminology and journals such as Punishment and Society that tackles pragmatic criminal justice issues (punishment) in theoretically rich ways. That said, there are many other journals with considerably less theoretical materials being published. In addition, Garland misses an important consideration: university administrators can use the popularity of criminology undergraduate courses to cross-subsidise appointments in other disciplines. In the vernacular, criminology becomes the ‘cash cow’ that enables a broader liberal arts offering. A tension thereby arises as criminology staff seek more criminology-dedicated positions to ensure adequate resources for teaching criminology and to enable the expansion of criminology as a recognised discipline able to contribute to research excellence reviews. To stretch the point, Garland is not attuned to the need for other ‘formative’ disciplines to support the growth of criminology on equitable terms. Furthermore, these other ‘constitutive disciplines’ are not homogenous in the sense of being dedicated or even interested in criminological questions. While the sociology of deviance is certainly an area of alignment, other ‘sociologies’ might not be so interested or inclined to address the concerns of criminologists. For instance, those focused on sociology of religion might seek to build resources in ways that have no connection to criminology, and the research excellence reviews only add institutional pressures to this divide. In addition, Australian academics are increasingly formally ‘trained’ in education practices with all new academics required to undertake tertiary teaching and learning qualifications (some variation of the title Graduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning—learning and teaching academic positions normally mandate the attainment of this qualification inside a tenure probation period unless a person has several years of documented evidence of good teaching performance). This development has its’ own genealogy warranting further exploration of the impact of this training on how this might be changing what and how criminologists practice SCOLATIC. In terms of methodology, has there been a ‘short-termism’ effect from postgraduate certificates in HE teaching where academics-as-students conduct short, highly focused research projects to test personal curriculum innovations to provide evidence of teaching impact. Macfarlane and Tomlinson (2017) drawing on Evans et al. (2015 meta-review of SCOLAT)

12 

D. PALMER

highlight the behaviouralist orientation and poor methodology of much SCOLAT, even raising questions about whether many of the studies coming under this banner should qualify as such as they are ‘under-theorised’, lack methodological rigour, use simplistic cause and effect models, present single interventions as a ‘panacea’ for broader more complex issues, often do not have any longitudinal data, ‘cognitive-level data’ is absent and more robust methodologies such as ‘multi-methods and clearer control samples spread across a reasonable time-scale’ are mostly absent (2017: 9). Tights meta-review makes a similar critique of SCOLAT, namely that many articles do not refer to general scholarship on teaching and learning but instead: analysed particular pedagogical innovations—such as civic engagement, classroom design, critical thinking, cross-cultural pedagogies, diversity training, flipped classrooms, mind mapping, strategic reading, student motivation and uncertainty management … (Tight 2018: 69)

Finally, Garland’s fifth concern is with the growth in criminology not being matched with a commensurate growth ‘in theoretical range or intellectual ambition’ (2011: 301) so that ‘today’s most pressing security issues are discussed in the public sphere in ways that are innocent of all criminological theory’ (2011: 302). He suggests this outcome is caused by the topic-driven focus of criminology rather than being theory-driven. A detailed response to this last point is beyond this chapter though is partly addressed above (new theoretical journals for instance). Though in a general sense this has been a long-standing complaint that takes us back to the earlier debates concerning the historical development of criminology in any country, and the extent such development occurred at the behest of the state and remains so. Certainly there is some truth in these claims as is indicated in the various debates concerning ‘public criminology’ though even then such claims can be overstated by failing to look at the various efforts at public criminology not always as well documented as some of the more high-profile criminological efforts.

Concluding Comments One issue alluded to above concerns the growing influence of regulatory frameworks from without: first in the form of professional accrediting bodies that shape course delivery (e.g. Law, psychology etc.) and second

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

13

the growing role of governments in ensuring ‘quality assurance’, ‘student satisfaction’ and now more explicitly ‘student engagement’. The latter is largely imposed whereas the former develops from within a discipline/ profession in the context of broader HE shifts (themselves increasingly shaped by central policies). It would be remiss of me to not at least raise this possibility as something to be considered and something that has been attempted within criminal justice and criminology (largely the former but see above) with seemingly little effect. As indicated above, in the US criminal justice education broadly has developed course standards, albeit they remain voluntary rather than an imposed set of criteria to be addressed as is the requirement in other related fields such as law and psychology. In the UK the British Society of Criminology, borrowing heavily from the British Sociological Association, developed a set of ‘Criminology Benchmarks’ in 2006 though these have had little effect on course development (pers. Comm.). The more recent Benchmarks developed in 2014 with the ‘quality assurance’ framework are still not overly prescriptive. Australian criminology has not entered into dialogue concerning professional standards, and issue recently raised by Bartels et  al. (2015). However, for this to have any significant effect it would seem necessary to go beyond the efforts of the US and UK guidelines. Whether such a process could produce outcomes that enhance criminological practices, whether in SCOLATIC, in public criminology or in terms of assuaging Garland’s five troubles remains unknown.

References ACJS (Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences). (n.d.). Certification for College/ University Criminal Justice Baccalaureate Degree Programs. Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Educations. Retrieved from http://www.ajcs. org/pubs/167_667_12921.cfm. Bartels, L., McGovern, A., & Richards, K. (2015). Degress of Difference? A Preliminary Study of Criminology Degrees at Australian Universities. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 119–146. Boshier, R., & Huang, Y. (2008). In the House of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), Teaching Lives Upstairs and Learning in the Basement. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 645–656. Bosworth, M., & Hoyle, C. (Eds.). (2011). What is Criminology? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

14 

D. PALMER

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York. BSC. (2006). Criminology Benchmarks. Revised into Quality Assurance Agency Criminology Benchmarks (2007). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/reader/4157430. Bull, D. (1991, July 4–5). Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of the Australasian Association of Criminal Justice Educators. Mitchell Campus, Bathurst: Charles Sturt University. Carson, K., & O’Malley, P. (1989). The Institutional Foundations of Contemporary Australian Criminology. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 25(3), 333–355. Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards). Canberra: Australian Government. Criminology. (2014). Subject Statement Benchmark: Criminology, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/subject-benchmark-statements/sbs-criminology-14%2D%2Dmasters. pdf?sfvrsn=7790f681_16. Deckert, A., & Sarre, R. (Eds.). (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Evans, C., Muijis, D., & Tomlinson, M. (2015). Engaged Student Learning: High-­ Impact Strategies to Enhance Student Achievements. York: Higher Education Academy. Finnane, M. (1998). Sir John Barry and the Melbourne Department of Criminology: Some Other Foundations of Australian Criminology. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 31(1), 69–81. Finnane, M. (2006). The ABC of Criminology: Anita Muhl, JV Barry, Norval Morris and the Making of a Discipline in Australia. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 399–422. Finnane, M. (2008). “Promoting the Theory and Practice of Criminology”: The Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology and Its Founding Moment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(2), XXXX1– XXX28. Online. Finnane, M. (2012). The Origins of Criminology in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 157–178. Fischer, R., Golden, K., & Heininger, B. (1985). Issues in Higher Education for Law Enforcement Officers: An Illinois Study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13(4), 329–338. Garland, D. (2011). Criminology’s Place in the Academic Field. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What Is Criminology? (pp. 298–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giever, D. (2007). Security Education  – Past, Present and the Future. Security Journal, 20, 25–25. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

1  THE FIVE ‘TROUBLING’ DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINOLOGY 

15

Hawkins, G. J., & Chappell, D. (1967). The Need for Criminology in Australia. The Australian Law Journal, 40, 307–314. Lewis, C. (1992). Transitions in Police Education. Queensland Police Union Journal, 9, 19–25. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2011). Public Criminology? London: Routledge. Lusher, Mr. Justice. (1982). Report of the Commission to Inquire into New South Wales Police Administration. Sydney: Government Printer. Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critiques of Student Engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30, 5–21. Mahony, D., & Prenzler, T. (1996). Police Studies, the University, and the Police Service: An Australian Study. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 7(2), 283–304. Malcolm Tight. (2018). Tracking the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 3322969.2017.1390690. Marenin, O., & Worrall, J. (1998). Criminal Justice: Portrait of a Discipline in Process. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(6), 465–480. Neesham, T. A. (1985). Committee of Inquiry, Victoria Police Force, Final Report, Volume One, Melbourne, Ministry of Police and Emergency Services. Palmer, D. (2017). Criminology in Australia: Past, Present and Future. In D.  Palmer, W.  De Lint, & D.  Dalton (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (pp. 639–656). Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co. Pratt, J., & Priestly, Z. (1999). The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Thirty Years On. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32, 315–324. Sorensen, J., Widmayer, A.  G., & Scarpitti, F.  R. (1994). Examining Criminal Justice and Criminology Paradigms: An Analysis of AJS and ASC Members. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5(2), 149–166. St Johnston, E. (1971). A Report on the Victoria Police Following an Inspection by Colonel Sir Eric St Johnston, 1967–70. Melbourne: Government Printer. Wimshurst, K. (2011). Applying Threshold Concepts Theory to an Unsettled Field: An Exploratory Study in Criminal Justice Education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 301–314. Wortley, R., & Wimshurst, K. (2000). What’s in a Name? Perceptions of Course Names for Criminal Justice Professionals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11(2), 267–278.

CHAPTER 2

Transforming Pedagogy in Criminology Matthew Thurgood

Introduction It is no great thing to state that higher education is a different beast in the twenty-first century. Even in the past decade, the Australian higher education environment has been significantly altered by government reforms including the Bradley Review and substantial changes to the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector, as well as institutional drives to offer courses online and to wider audiences. Both a driving cause and primary impact of these changes is that the higher education student of the twenty-first century is a very different individual to that of previous decades. As Huber and Hutchings (2005) describe, albeit in relation to the American context, the higher education student of the 2000s is more likely to be older than previous incarnations, more likely to be studying part-time, coupling study with part-time work, and more likely to be first I wish to thank Professor Alperhan Babacan, Head of Criminology at ACAP, for his assistance in the drafting and writing of this chapter.

M. Thurgood (*) Discipline of Criminology and Justice, Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP), Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_2

17

18 

M. THURGOOD

in their family to attend a higher education institution. Of greater concern though, is the varying quality of students enrolling in bachelor courses. As Clark (2009: 2) states, “No longer is the university the place solely of elite learning … It is no longer possible to assume a certain level of ability, interest, educational background, or aptitude among students”. Despite the nature of students changing and a continued commitment to skills enhancement and active learning, higher education appears rooted in offering a traditional mode of passive learning in which students “consume, compartmentalise and regurgitate information” (Glisczinski 2007: 319). Glisczinski (2007) is highly critical of the higher education system, arguing that institutions merely serve to ‘normalise’ and ‘socialise’ students so that although universities might confer cultural capital, they largely fail in developing human capital. Higher education has therefore seemingly failed to take on board the criticisms levelled by Freire (1970), who decades ago called for a new approach to education that engages students as the foci of teaching. Following Freire’s work, Glisczinski (2007) and others (for example Wals and Jickling 2002; Mezirow 2003; Nagda et al. 2003; Huber and Hutchings 2004, 2005; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015; Howes 2017) called for higher education to seek more than knowledge transfer and skills enhancement and extend its aims to developing graduates who can make a difference to the wider world, whether in relation to a profession, or to society more broadly. Flagging this broader ambition, Babacan and Babacan (2015: 173) suggest that: “Education has the potential to produce active and engaged citizens, committed to not only actively participating in their professions and communities, but also transforming it”. For a field like criminology, transformative learning appears particularly valuable for two additional reasons. Firstly, the number of dedicated criminology and criminal justice courses offered in Australia continues to grow (Bartels et al. 2015), as it does in the United States and elsewhere (Miller 2009). With it can be assumed a growth in the number of criminology graduates. Secondly, as Bartels et al. (2015) note, criminology graduates have available to them a wide array of employment options including law enforcement, paralegal work, crime prevention, youth work, case management and corrective services. As these varying modes of employment can require different skill sets all of which a course is unlikely to cover, transformative learning offers those teaching criminology a way to develop graduates with a deeper understanding of crime and its impacts, and their future professions. This can further act to prepare graduates for not only

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

19

the challenges they are likely to face in the workforce, but also as members of twenty-first century society. The latter reveals itself as important in light of the challenges posed by the twenty-first century, many of which directly relate to criminology. This includes such issues as transnational organised crime and terrorism, cybercrime, and much of what Lucia Zedner (2007) terms ‘pre-crime’ amid her contention that security and governance are increasingly entwined. Questions are also raised by the current era of growing information production and related phenomena such as ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’, whereby we can ask whether graduates are equipped with the skills necessary to discern the legitimacy of sources or the validity of information (Hogg 2018). This might relate to the causes or impacts of crime, as well as responses to it, as governments continue to employ ‘law and order’ rhetoric, and students, along with society, increasingly rely on social media as a primary news source (Hogg 2018). Such questions attract greater significance as the twenty-first century progresses. While course content might cover such concerns, the question remains as to how the teaching of criminology prepares its students for negotiating these areas and their potential impacts in and on the ‘real world’. Encouraging students in the classroom to think about such matters is a starting point. Fostering critical thinking and critical reflection skills however, offers more important, long-term attributes that graduates can apply to their professional and personal lives. As Wals and Jickling (2002) contend, “Universities in particular have a role in developing in their students so-called dynamic qualities that allow them to critique, construct and act with a high degree of autonomy and self-determination”. It is through transformative learning approaches that such qualities can be developed. Transformative learning seeks to change, or transform, student attitudes and beliefs by helping students uncover their beliefs and biases and the sources of these (Wals and Jickling 2002; Mezirow 2003; Huber and Hutchings 2004, 2005; Nagda et al. 2003; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015; Howes 2017). It does so by engaging students in critical thinking and critical reflection, the wider benefits of which provide students with the ability to challenge their own ideas and attitudes (Mezirow 2003; Nagda et al. 2003; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). This provides a basis from which students and graduates can critically consider the foundations of their field of study, their profession, and society more widely. Ultimately, transformative peda-

20 

M. THURGOOD

gogy seeks to produce graduates able to not only analyse these arenas but who can contribute to positive change within them (Nagda et al. 2003; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). In considering the benefits of transformative pedagogies to criminology, this chapter begins with an examination of some of the challenges confronting criminology and its graduates. It then considers how transformative pedagogy can help in relation to these, including how critical reflection and dialogue can be integrated into, firstly, experiential learning and secondly, assessments and classroom activities. Discussion of the latter will utilise examples from within criminology.

Twenty-First Century Challenges Whether the twenty-first century offers a more complex set of challenges than times previous is debatable. One could argue that the Industrial Revolution posed as many, if not more, dilemmas for governments, professions and citizens as the more recent ‘cyber revolution’. Arguably, however, the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries offer a new set of challenges for these realms, requiring adaptive thinking by those navigating and seeking to shape society. As Huber and Hutchings (2004: 3) suggest, “complex conditions of twenty-first century life make high demands on our capacities for moral judgment and practical reason”. For criminology, this translates to challenges pertaining to crime itself and its seemingly more complex nature, for example, cyber and transnational acts. In turn, these challenges pose difficulties pertaining to responses to crime and the professions responsible for these. For instance, while Grabosky (2001) questioned whether virtual crime was merely ‘old wine in new bottles’, the advancements of cyber-­ technologies and emergence of related aspects such as ‘blockchains’ and crypto-currencies suggests a rather different space in which the nature of crime has changed. As Wall (2009, cited in Franko Aas 2013) contends, while much cyber-crime activity is traditional crime occurring in a new space, there are behaviours, like hacking for instance, that are specific to the online environment. Even the online illicit drug website ‘Silk Road’, while still reflecting a basic supply and demand model, requires a different mode of thinking in terms of how authorities might disrupt such activities. Such issues reflect the changing nature of crime and the resulting challenges to criminology and criminal justice.

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

21

In her 2007 article entitled Pre-crime and post-criminology? Zedner contends that in the ever-emerging pre-crime society, the focus of ­authorities has shifted from crime to risk in which “security is a commodity sold for profit”. A key feature of the pre-crime society is the increasing privatisation of crime control, marking the temporal shift of this activity from post- to pre-act, thereby reinforcing prevention as a core aim of the criminal justice system (Zedner 2007). In the post-9/11 world however, Zedner (2007: 264) argues that this has coalesced in attempts to ‘manage’ or respond to threats via ‘pre-emption’, protection and security rather than prevention per se. The overall impact of this is a society “governed through security” (Zedner 2007: 266). While security may be considered a ‘good’, the questions raised by Zedner’s (2007) analysis relate to whose good is sought, and through what methods security is achieved. Zedner’s ideas, together with the challenges posed by the globalised world such as a wider variety of information flows, cybercrime, and transnational crime illustrate the need for higher education to equip graduates with a skill set which enables them to navigate the twenty-first century world. More so though, criminology graduates need to be able to acknowledge, unpack and work through the complexities of twenty-first century society, the changing nature of offences and offenders, and responses to crime. In light of such developments and the growth of criminology as a field of study, an increasing set of sub-fields has emerged, many with critical foundations. From the bed of social and interactionist approaches has emerged cultural criminology (Ferrell et  al. 2015). Concerns around migration and border enforcement has resulted in Pickering et al. (2014) suggesting the need for a ‘criminology of mobility’. Integrating concerns around the environment and race respectively are green criminology (see Ruggiero and South 2010; White 2003, 2008), and southern criminology (see Carrington et al. 2016; Carrington and Hogg 2017). Many of these more recent approaches reflect a broader, more global view in which criminology’s inward focus, both in terms of individual offenders and domestic environments, is challenged. Southern criminology presents a case-in-­ point whereby ‘northern’ traditions are questioned in terms of their applicability to other countries and cultures. In doing so, southern criminology provides a more considered focus on race than previous theories, therefore proving apt as a foundation for examining indigenous justice/injustices (Carrington et al. 2016; Carrington and Hogg 2017) and concerns raised

22 

M. THURGOOD

by minorities, such as those represented by the Black Lives Matter movement (Currie 2017). How might students approach such theoretical ideas though? How might they reconcile broader, structural concerns with those at the local or individual levels? One challenge I anticipate here is that undergraduate students tend not to study criminology to understand its place in the world or the structural issues that influence crime and responses to it. Rather, they want to understand such things as ‘the criminal mind’, the criminal law, or how to become a police officer. While these aspects remain relevant to criminology and are reflected by the units of study offered in many undergraduate courses, there is benefit in challenging students to look beyond their ‘backyards’ as it were, and consider questions which impact more broadly. As Zedner (2007) and others (Andreas and Nadelmann 2006; Loader and Percy 2012; Hamilton 2013) argue, there is benefit simply in directing students to fields wider than criminology by adopting an interdisciplinary approach. Hamilton (2013), for instance, suggests it strange that criminology has not better integrated human rights, or consideration of crime and responses to it from the viewpoint of other disciplines. While the former is slowly changing, both present an opportunity for greater interdisciplinarity, which in turn can provide students with a more holistic education as they are encouraged to consider the reality of issues such as social inequality. This can also embed in graduates a wider commitment to human rights and social justice, and in turn, mould socially engaged citizens (Nagda et  al. 2003; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). In light of the already numerous disciplines from which criminology draws, including its strong sociological basis combined with influences from psychology, anthropology, history and other fields, adopting a multidisciplinary approach is not a difficult ask. Many criminology courses in Australia, the United States and United Kingdom already employ a multidisciplinary approach. This, however, tends to be at the level of offering separate units of study from each discipline across a degree. Interdisciplinarity can be taken further to achieve a more direct ‘entwining’ of disciplines (Zedner 2007). Given concerns around transnational crime and terrorism for instance, international relations and security studies become natural add-ons to criminology units engaged in these areas (Andreas and Nadelmann 2006; Zedner 2007; Loader and Percy 2012). An interdisciplinary approach not only broadens the content-base to which students are exposed, but it also encourages teaching staff and thereby students to

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

23

adopt a more critical approach to the field of criminology by acknowledging its short-comings, such as areas it is either yet to sufficiently cover or is not able to cover. For example, as Zedner (2007: 272) suggests, in order for criminology to better equip itself in relation to the security society, criminology needs to entwine with international relations “to think ‘critically’ about security; to eschew statism; to widen the security agenda” and to anchor the study of security in an emancipatory approach. By suggesting an ‘emancipatory approach’, Zedner, (2007) is referring to an educational experience in which students are exposed to ideas which challenge the status quo and seek positive social change (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). More than this, Nouri and Sajjadi (2014: 81) describe emancipatory education as empowering whereby it has the capacity to enable students, as citizens, to “select and transform their world”. A basis for this is exposing students to a global context, such as that made evident via interdisciplinary approaches, or involving them in critical discussions on theoretical models (Huber and Hutchings 2004). This not only provides students with a content or knowledge base, but with higher order, critical skills (Mezirow 2003; Nagda et al. 2003; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). It is these skills, such as critical thinking and critical reflection, which enable graduates to navigate the complexities of the twenty-first century, whether in relation to the workplace or society (Huber and Hutchings 2004). As such, it is necessary that criminology seek to develop such skills in its students, something that is possible via transformative pedagogy.

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and Transformative Pedagogy As Huber and Hutchings (2005: 13) state, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is not a choice, but rather “an imperative for higher education today”, as it provides a way for teaching staff to “take ownership of the challenges posed by shifting circumstances”. Herein, the issues and challenges posed by this chapter thus far, both in relation to higher education widely and to the field of criminology, can be seen as “problems and puzzles to be systematically explored and addressed” (Huber and Hutchings 2005: 14) rather than insurmountable hurdles. Central to the SoTL is that teaching in higher education goes beyond mere “routine function” (Boyer 2012). Instead, the SoTL encourages teaching staff to

24 

M. THURGOOD

consider and reflect on their classroom practices in order to better engage students in their learning (Huber and Hutchings 2004, 2005; Schulman 2011). As Huber and Hutchings (2004, 2005) and Schulman (2011) describe, research in the SoTL has highlighted a number of approaches that seek to maximise student engagement and learning and in doing so, expand higher education beyond mere information transfer. These include: ‘active learning’ (e.g. breaking traditional lectures down into segments, with activities interspersed throughout); ‘authentic assessment’ (e.g. using ‘real-world’ tasks which prepare students for professional work); and transformative pedagogy (seeking to change student’s worldviews by encouraging critical thinking and reflective practice) (Mezirow 2003; Huber and Hutchings 2004, 2005; Nagda et al. 2003; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Howes 2017). These approaches invariably draw from Freire’s (1970) critique of what he saw as the ‘banking model’ of education. In fact, Freire’s work has long stood as a beacon against which higher education has been compared (Huber and Hutchings 2005; Nagda et al. 2003; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). Urging significant change to the traditional educational model in which the teacher ‘deposits’ ideas in the learner’s mind and ‘withdraws’ them via assessment, Freire (1970) argued for a student-­ oriented approach. In essence, this involves a dialogue-based approach in which students are actively engaged in emancipatory education (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). As Huber and Hutchings (2005) suggest, Freire’s decades-old critique remains valid as higher education remains a largely passive learning experience for students. This is reflected by the ongoing reliance on the lecture-based model in which it is simply assumed that students will soak up the information being transmitted and apply it as required via assessment tasks (Huber and Hutchings 2005; Clark 2009; Kim 2014). Whilst explanation of content and knowledge transfer remain important to higher education, the teaching process in this context requires adaptation to not only go beyond knowledge transfer, but also to better suit the nature and needs of twenty-first century learners (Huber and Hutchings 2004). Deeper skills require instilling if students are to be successful as critically thinking professionals in an increasingly complex arena. This includes producing graduates who can challenge the discipline, their profession, and wider society. “Universities should develop in their students the competencies which will enable them to cope with uncertainty, poorly defined situations and conflicting or at least diverging norms, values, interests and

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

25

reality constructions” (Wals and Jickling 2002: 224). This means providing an educational experience which goes beyond producing ‘work-ready graduates’, again underlining that higher education is more than just knowledge transfer and provision of basic skills such as time management and communication (Mezirow 2003; Nagda et  al. 2003; Huber and Hutchings 2004; Clark 2009; Kim 2014).

Transformative Pedagogies and Experiential Learning While employability skills might be considered a starting point in terms of graduate outcomes, the increasing complexity of twenty-first century society and the already complicated nature of many criminal justice roles means that students need to develop higher level thinking (Huber and Hutchings 2004; Bartels et al. 2015). The focus in recent times has tended to be on ‘job-ready’ graduates (see Bentley 2018 for example). However what of critically discerning citizens with the ability to challenge sources of information (Huber and Hutchings 2004)? For instance, in criminology, we already put forward a sceptical view towards mainstream media sources, however in an age of ‘alternative truths’ and ‘fake news’, this is more important than ever (Hogg 2018). As Bartels, McGovern and Richards (2015: 145) suggest, “Key to this discussion is an understanding of the potential disjuncture between what we imagine we are preparing criminology students for and what they ultimately do after graduating”. This relates to not only the professions they take up, but the society and world they will inhabit. As such, developing critical thinking skills within students is deemed central to transformative learning (Huber and Hutchings 2004; Glisczinski 2007; Babacan and Babacan 2015; Howes 2017). As Howes (2017: 893) argues, a focus on critical thinking enables students to identify and question “their own taken-for-granted assumptions and engage in developing their worldviews”. Central to this is extending questions to students, from those that merely require the identification of personal attitudes and beliefs, to those that encourage them to challenge their own norms, biases and assumptions and those of others (Babacan and Babacan 2015). Howes (2017) suggests that this enables graduates to navigate the workplace and the broader philosophies and worldviews that shape the organisational context. The development of critical thinking skills in stu-

26 

M. THURGOOD

dents helps them understand varying philosophical perspectives, and even reconcile differences between these and their own worldviews. Further, Babacan and Babacan (2015) argue that critical reflection and dialogue is central to placement experiences and work integrated learning. They contend that critical reflection of the real-world environment is pivotal to enabling students to query their discipline and profession, which in turn is key to experiential learning and transformative education. For example, it is one thing to consider a workplace role and what one has done whilst undertaking work experience or placement, and quite another to consider how the workplace structure might impede action or change. By asking students to contextualise their placement experiences, for example by having them apply theories and concepts they have learnt in the course or by facilitating classroom discussions around the challenges facing those working in organisational contexts to which students have been exposed, work placements can transcend basic ‘work experience’ and deeper learning can be facilitated. It is this latter aspect that graduates can apply to the professional arenas in which they find employment, reflecting a key benefit of applying the transformative approach. The importance of dialogue as a central activity around which such transformative education can take place is made evident through classroom activities in which students are given opportunities to learn and engage in critical reflection (Mezirow 2003; Nagda et al. 2003; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). As Babacan and Babacan (2015: 177) suggest, “Structuring dialogue effectively can enable contestation of beliefs, foster an openness to presenting and assessing arguments about problematic and contentious issues and pave the way for the setting aside of biases”. Dialogue is therefore more than a lecturer or tutor posing questions that test student knowledge of lecture content or reading materials. Rather, dialogue requires a space in which students’ attitudes and beliefs are uncovered, the reasons for these examined, and their validity challenged. This self-reflection provides a foundation for critical reflection in which students consider “the social, political and historical aspects of experience” (Babacan and Babacan 2015: 174). This provides students with the opportunity to transform their biases and attitudes by exposing them to wider contexts they are unlikely to have previously considered. Throughout, students are the primary focus, with the teacher-student relationship placed on a more equal level, rather than traditional higher education in which a significant power differential occurs between lecturer and student (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). This includes

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

27

opening to critique the lecturer’s ideas, as well as those of a theory or conceptual framework. Engaging in  dialogue such as this to achieve transformative teaching and learning reflects a commitment to student empowerment (Hamilton 2013). This involves recognising students “as carriers of accumulated experience engaged in dialogue with their instructor” (Hamilton 2013: 24) and includes providing opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with one another. The benefit of such activities lies in exposing students to more diverse viewpoints, some of which might challenge those of the lecturer and tutor. Central to Hamilton’s (2013) focus on student empowerment is, as per Freire’s (1970) work, moving beyond teaching practices that treat students as passive learners. For example, in challenging this more traditional approach, Hamilton (2013) encourages an active learning model in which students are engaged in dialogues via activities such as group work and critical reflection. Work placements provide an opportunity for active learning to take place. Schon (1983, cited in Huber and Hutchings 2005: 114) emphasises “the connection between thought and action as a key foundation for learning in which ‘doing and thinking are complementary’”. Central to this is engaging students in reflective practice in which they are tasked with exposing the day-to-day activities and structures evident in a workplace or organisation and challenging these, particularly in light of uncertainties or situations that may expose organisational failings (Schon 1983, cited in Huber and Hutchings 2005). Drawing from Schon’s work, Babacan and Babacan (2015) emphasise the benefit of engaging students in ‘reflection-­ on-­action’ whereby reflective practice occurs after a work placement has occurred. As these authors suggest, “Reflection provides meaning to individual experience gained in the workplace, provides a link between the ability to think critically and professional identity” (Babacan and Babacan 2015: 174). If effective, deeper learning can take place in which students go beyond reflection and engage in critical reflection. This means students not only consider their own ideas and attitudes, but proceed to modify their biases and assumptions and in doing so, critically challenge the status quo (Babacan and Babacan 2015: 175). Herein lies the potential for the true change in learners which transformative pedagogies seek to achieve (Nagda et al. 2003; Huber and Hutchings 2004, 2005; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). Whether in relation to their professional or social lives, this transformation seeks to provide graduates with

28 

M. THURGOOD

the ability to make sound judgements, even when faced with complex situations (Mezirow 2003). Extending this outcome, transformative teaching through critical reflection seeks to inspire students to continue to learn and to contribute to their profession and society (Nagda et  al. 2003; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). As Babacan and Babacan (2015: 173) state, “Education has the potential to produce active and engaged citizens, committed to not only actively participating in their professions and communities, but also transforming it”. To achieve this, these authors suggest the need for a two-pronged approach that, firstly, provides students with the content needed to learn the discipline and the skills associated with higher education. The second ‘prong’ draws on transformative pedagogy and focuses on the ‘public good’ or humanising function of higher education (Babacan and Babacan 2015), as proposed by Freire (1970). In short, we must question the type of graduates we are producing, not in terms of the professionals they might become, but whether they are better able to negotiate challenges and make a positive contribution to society as engaged citizens. Transformative pedagogies, through a focus on critical thinking and critical reflection, can produce graduates who play a role in society as actively engaged citizens, identifying and challenging disadvantage and inequality and seeking to generate positive change (Nagda et  al. 2003; Hamilton 2013; Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Babacan and Babacan 2015). For example, Zedner’s (2007) suggestion to expose students to an emancipatory approach is in line with transformative practices, whereby exposing students to such an approach can help them to acknowledge and understand societal issues and inequities and their effects (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014). This, in turn, can nurture in students what Nagda, Gurin and Lopez (2003: 166) denote as “democratic sentiments and capacities”. According to these authors, this refers to abilities “to think actively and structurally about people’s behaviours and social issues, to understand the perspectives of other people, and think about actions to resolve intergroup conflicts” (Nagda et al. 2003: 166). Herein lies the crux of the transformative approach—providing students with higher order skills (Nagda et al. 2003) which apply not only to classroom content, but also to students’ professional and social lives. For criminology graduates, the ability to consider the behaviours of others and the structural factors that might influence those applies to a number of possible career options, from law enforcement and legal work, to case management and correctional roles.

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

29

More so, it provides them with a core understanding of societal structures and inequities, and potentially, the impetus to challenge those structures and enact change which engenders social equality. Notably, not all criminology courses provide direct experiential learning such as a work placement opportunity (Bartels et al. 2015) upon which students can reflect. Transformation through critical reflection and dialogue remains possible however, via the assessments and classroom activities students undertake.

Employing Transformative Criminology in the Classroom Applying key aspects of transformative approaches in the classroom context requires rethinking classroom activities and assessment tasks. These should provide opportunities for students to engage in activities that develop and apply critical thinking and critical reflection, primarily via dialogue. Hamilton (2013) for instance, suggests criminology be taught via what she terms ‘public criminology’. This seeks to involve students in a “more engaged and outward looking criminology” (Hamilton 2013: 21) in which they interact with different ‘publics’. These publics include texts, teaching staff and each other, as well as wider publics such as the media, community and professional contexts (Hamilton 2013). Engaging students in these varying spheres exposes them to the political aspects of criminology policy and the associated contrasting viewpoints, and provides them with ‘real world’ skills such as writing for different audiences and contexts. For example, Hamilton (2013) encourages a cross-­ disciplinary approach by suggesting criminology students write media releases or government-style reports. Central to Hamilton’s (2013) public criminology is teaching that is ‘applied’ in orientation via the use of ‘real world’ examples. Criminology is a field blessed in this regard, with an abundance of actual crimes and cases, legal and policy developments, and the like which can be integrated into lecture content, tutorial tasks and assessments. Similarly, there is an ongoing stream of real-world issues in which students can be engaged. This includes a wide range of debates including drug policy, such as the use of injecting facilities or pill-testing kits, government surveillance, law enforcement methods, sentencing of offenders and the role of victims in criminal justice processes. Such matters are significant, not just in relation

30 

M. THURGOOD

to conceptual aspects, but because practical experience or exposure, whether through work placements, excursions or otherwise, is not always possible. As such, exposing students to such issues, for example through case studies, simulations or the viewing of documentaries (Nagda et  al. 2003) provides an opportunity for them to apply theories and concepts to real-world concerns and, in doing so, assess their validity. Immediately a critical perspective becomes possible from which students can consider their own position, that of others and more widely, why laws or criminal justice policies take the form they do. As Nagda et al. (2003) describe, a dialogic approach such as this can engage students in the action and reflection encouraged by Freire, which enables them to take their learnings from the classroom to the outside world and vice-versa. Online learning technologies provide opportunities for students to engage with more of their peers than previously possible and thereby expose them to a wider array of ideas and attitudes (Huber and Hutchings 2005; Sitren and Smith 2017). This furthers opportunities for critical reflection whereby exposure to a more diverse set of perspectives broadens students’ learning experiences by deepening understanding of issues and bringing about effectual actions (Nagda et  al. 2003). A simple method through which wider discussion can be facilitated is to utilise online discussion forums (Huber and Hutchings 2005). Here, students can be asked to interact around a specific question, case or example. While such discussion is likely to be at a more superficial level, particularly early in a degree program, the ideas and issues raised by students can be used as the basis for classroom-based dialogue in which the lecturer or tutor urges students to think more critically about the whys and wherefores of their ideas. Depending on the nature of the forum, for example whether it is being assessed, teaching staff may themselves engage in forum discussions in order to facilitate deeper-level discussion and thinking. In my own teaching, I have found the use of online forum discussions successful in a number of units across undergraduate year levels. For example, in ‘Deviance’, a third-year level unit exposing students to the sociology of crime and deviance, students are asked to engage in an online discussion forum in which they identify an example of deviance taken from a media source, whether fictional or non-fictional. Students are directed to avoid examples involving explicit criminal activity, with previous posts having considered everything from positive portrayals of illicit drug use, the role of traditional gender-norms in relation to body image or intimate relationships on ‘reality television’ programs, through to the nature of

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

31

‘California stories’ at the conclusion of nightly news bulletins. The task requires that students consider each other’s examples, in particular the nature of the deviance presented and whether they agree with the assessment made. I generally do not engage in the online forums beyond monitoring posts for appropriateness, language and the like, unless I deem it necessary to return a discussion to task or to provoke further debate. I do however, take debates from the forum space into the classroom to further engage students. Such discussion is facilitated via questions including ‘why is this behaviour or actor considered deviant?’ ‘What are the rules which govern the context in which the behaviour has occurred?’ These questions are also used to drive discussion around ‘real-world’ examples that students observe in their daily lives, from queuing and public transport etiquette, through to more significant social issues such as homelessness. From a pedagogical viewpoint, these debates engage students in critical reflection of societal rules and structures, and therefore their own attitudes and beliefs. The focus on examples from media sources and real-life observations seeks to provide students with a critical eye towards what they experience every day. Ultimately, these tasks and discussions seek to embed in students a critical view of government and society and why these institutions, and the people who make them up, act as they do. This is achieved by drawing on students’ own experiences and observations, and steadily helping them build a framework via which to question themselves, as well as wider societal structures (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014; Howes 2017). To some extent, this reflects Schon’s (1983, cited in Huber and Hutchings 2004) work relating action and thinking, even if the action undertaken by students in the Deviance unit is observational. In fact, observation as action holds significance whereby critical frameworks challenge students to question how they see and interpret the world around them. This provides a basis for transforming attitudes and biases. The Deviance unit’s assessment culminates in a written assignment in which students examine observations of deviance through the application of theoretical perspectives, including symbolic interactionism, structural functionalism, Marxism, Feminism and post-modernism, to which they have been introduced in classes and via reading materials. These theories, particularly in the context of the unit and the examination of deviance, motivate students to query the world around them and challenge the status quo, aspects that are drawn out through classroom discussions and unit assessments. From a criminological standpoint, such analyses transfer to questions around the law’s validity, the structure and operation of the criminal justice

32 

M. THURGOOD

system and its various branches, and the nature of authority, government, and social control. Further, the overall approach taken in the unit seeks to inspire in students a life-long critical perspective that they can apply to their own lives, their professions, and the world in general. This, in turn, hopes to produce not only graduates who acknowledge social issues and disadvantage, but also socially active citizens who generate positive change. Students demonstrate strong attendance and participation in Deviance classes, often reporting the unit as one of their favourites from throughout the course. The critical perspective developed has many reporting that they see the world in a different way, namely in relation to how deviance is constructed on a day-to-day basis, exposing the social rules that govern our lives. From a transformative viewpoint, students are equipped with the ability to question these rules and therefore, their own attitudes and biases. Employing transformative pedagogy, Howes (2017) embedded critical reflection into an introductory criminology unit titled ‘Crime and Criminal Justice’. Specifically, Howes (2017) integrated a case study relating to Indigenous issues across content, tutorial tasks and assessment in order to determine the extent to which students utilised critical thinking, including in relation to power imbalances. Assessing the outcomes of this approach by drawing on students’ “critical reflections-on-reflection”, Howes (2017) found that students questioned their own assumptions and even shifted positions on issues. This was particularly the case in relation to media and crime, social inequality and crime, and the use of prison as punishment. Students developed more nuanced thinking by using evidence to support their positions. These included students reporting a greater scepticism of media reports and attributing shifting positions to persuasive evidence, for example recidivism rates indicating that prison fails as a deterrent (Howes 2017). Significantly, the case utilised provided students with an opportunity to explore power structures. Although a more difficult area for most students, Howes (2017) reports that some were able to effectively link issues of crime and criminal justice to power. This included linking social inequality to social responses to crime, and discussion relating to the vulnerability of prisoners due to institutionalised racism, mental illness, and other factors. Lastly, Howes (2017) achieved a transformative aspect with some students describing themselves as potential agents for change. This was in relation to areas including underdeveloped research, policy development, and sentencing dispositions. The approaches by Howes (2017), Hamilton (2013) and myself demonstrate possible methods and benefits for applying transformative

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

33

elements to the teaching of criminology. These prove particularly effective for equipping students with skills relating to critical thinking and critical reflection. Each is achievable through re-orienting the focus of teaching from information transfer to student engagement and dialogue (Nouri and Sajjadi 2014), thereby providing students with opportunities to examine their attitudes, acknowledge their own and others’ biases, and develop a critical perspective. As Babacan and Babacan (2015) describe, this provides a foundation for perspective transformation and the moulding of graduates able to challenge, and possibly alter, the status quo and wider criminal justice system and societal structures in which inequality and unfairness present.

Conclusion The twenty-first century raises a number of challenges for higher education. This includes the changing nature of students as well as questions around how institutions engage them. Whilst online study is often flagged in this regard, different modes of study mean little if the prevailing paradigm in which teaching staff engage is the passive transfer of knowledge. Criminology departments share these challenges, as well as others specific to the field itself, such as an increasing number of critical frameworks for teachers and students to consider and apply, as well as the growing complexity of crime, evident through transnational organised crime and cybercrime. These developments have given rise to equally complex analyses of crime control, such as Zedner’s (2007) notions of pre-crime and governance through risk. A question raised by each of these challenges is how criminology effectively engages students in theoretical debates and practical matters such as policy development, whilst also producing the job-ready graduates sought by institutions, industries and students themselves. A more significant question for higher education institutions and criminology though, is whether this is all we are wanting for our graduates, especially when there are opportunities to mould individuals capable of making a more significant impact on their profession and society. Transformative pedagogies provide such opportunities through focusing on the development of higher order skills, namely critical thinking and critical reflection. This starts with providing students with a space to engage in dialogue in which they challenge their own, their teacher’s and each other’s attitudes and biases. Critical reflection is made possible by

34 

M. THURGOOD

challenging students to question the field and its theoretical constructs, the professions they are s­ eeking to enter, and more widely, the status quo and societal structures they experience daily. As demonstrated, this can occur in physical or virtual settings, via work placement opportunities, and through classroom activities and assessment tasks. There is clearly space though for those teaching criminology to expand the breadth and depth of learning opportunities available to students that emphasise transformative critical reflection. When effective, the application of transformative pedagogies to criminology can shape graduates who are able to contribute positively to their professions and to society. Whether it be in relation to inequities in the criminal justice system brought about by societal structures, the challenges associated with newer or more complex forms of crime, or ineffective crime control methods, criminology graduates will be equipped with the higher order skills necessary to tackle such concerns. Furthermore, these graduates will potentially engender the change required for criminal justice agencies and systems to respond effectively to the challenges of the twenty-first century. For higher education more widely, transformative pedagogies are valuable for developing graduates who are life-long learners, professionals and socially engaged citizens capable of critical thought and critical reflection. These graduates will be able to acknowledge the complexities of the twenty-first century, but more importantly, actively engage in those complexities and bring about positive change for the betterment of society.

References Andreas, P., & Nadelmann, E. (2006). Policing the Globe: Criminalisation and Crime Control in International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Babacan, A., & Babacan, H. (2015). A Transformative Approach to Work Integrated Learning in Legal Education. Education & Training, 57(2), 170–183. Bartels, L., McGovern, A., & Richards, K. (2015). Degrees of Difference? A Preliminary Study of Criminology Degrees at Australian Universities. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 119–146. Bentley, D. (2018, February 27). How Universities Can Make Graduates Employable with Connections to Industry. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-universities-can-make-graduates-employablewith-connections-to-industry-91838.

2  TRANSFORMING PEDAGOGY IN CRIMINOLOGY 

35

Carrington, K., & Hogg, R. (2017, March). Deconstructing Criminology’s Origin Stories. Asian Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417017-9248-7. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern Criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 1–20. Clark, J. (2009). What Use Is SoTL: Using the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning to Develop a Curriculum for First Year University History Classes. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(2), 1–17. Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2015). Cultural Criminology: An Invitation (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. Franko Aas, K. (2013). Globalisation and Crime (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Reprint, Continuum, New York, 2005. Glisczinski, D. J. (2007). Transformative Higher Education: A Meaningful Degree of Understanding. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(4), 317–328. Grabosky, P. N. (2001). Virtual Cybercrime: Old Wine in New Bottles? Social & Legal Studies, 10(2), 243–249. Hamilton, C. (2013). Towards a Pedagogy of Public Criminology. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 5(2), 20–31. Hogg, A. (2018). Fake News: Identifying, Debunking and Discussing False Narratives with Your Learners. Navitas Learning and Teaching, Webinar, March 15. Retrieved from http://learningandteaching-navitas.com/ fake-news-identifying-debunking-discussing-false-narratives-learners/. Howes, L. M. (2017). Critical Thinking in Criminology: Critical Reflections on Learning and Teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 891–907. Huber, M.  T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. In The Academy in Transition. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Israel, M. (1997). Teaching Criminology Through Interview-Based Assignments. Legal Education Review, 8, 141–159. Kim, D.-Y. (2014). Adopting Problem-Based Learning in Criminology and Criminal Justice Education: Challenges and Response. SAGE Open, July– September, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014542086. Loader, I., & Percy, S. (2012). Bringing the ‘Outside’ in and the ‘Inside’ Out: Crossing the Criminology/IR Divide. Global Crime, 13(4), 213–218. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. Miller, J.  M. (2009). Preface. In J.  M. Miller (Ed.), Twenty-First Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

36 

M. THURGOOD

Nagda, B.  A., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G.  E. (2003). Transformative Pedagogy for Democracy and Social Justice. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 165–191. Nouri, A., & Sajjadi, S.  M. (2014). Emancipatory Pedagogy in Practice: Aims, Principles and Curriculum Orientation. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 5(2), 76–87. Pickering, S., Bosworth, M., & Franko Aas, K. (2014). The Criminology of Mobility. In S. Pickering & J. Ham (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook on Crime and International Migration (pp. 382–396). London: Routledge. Ruggiero, V., & South, N. (2010). Critical Criminology and Crimes Against the Environment. Critical Criminology, 18(4), 245–250. Schulman, L. (2011). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Personal Account and Reflection. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050130. Sitren, A. H., & Smith, H. P. (2017). Teaching Criminal Justice Online: Current Status and Important Considerations. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(3), 352–367. Wals, A. E. J., & Jickling, B. (2002). ‘Sustainability’ in Higher Education: From Doublethink and Newspeak to Critical Thinking and Meaningful Learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(3), 221–232. White, R. (2003). Environmental Issues and the Criminological Imagination. Theoretical Criminology, 7(4), 483–506. White, R. (2008). Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. Cullompton: Willan. Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-crime and Post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 261–281.

CHAPTER 3

Learning Behind Prison Bars: University Students and Prisoners’ Experiences of Studying Together Marietta Martinovic and Marg Liddell

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide key information on innovative teaching and learning scholarship in criminology, specifically the first Inside Out Teaching Prison Exchange program (from here on referred to as Inside Out) in Victoria, Australia. This chapter showcases Inside Out as a transformative learning environment which increases opportunities for students inside and outside prison, to have learning experiences that emphasise collaboration, dialogue and innovative problem-solving, across social barriers. Students are encouraged to become leaders and address issues of social concern specifically related to crime and justice (Boyd 2013; Inside-Out Centre 2017). The inaugural Australian Inside Out program commenced in two Victorian prisons in 2015. It is now offered yearly in three Victorian prisons. The program is delivered by RMIT University in collaboration with Corrections Victoria (Department of Justice and Community Safety). M. Martinovic (*) • M. Liddell Criminology and Justice Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_3

37

38 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

Inside Out is a blended learning pedagogy where incarcerated students and university students come together as equals to undertake a subject taught in prison (Long and Barnes 2016; Pompa 2002; Van Gundy et al. 2013). Inside Out offers both student groups a deeper, more meaningful and mutually beneficial egalitarian way of learning. For instance, the focus of the learning is student centred as it enables students’ insights to be at the forefront of the teaching experience (see King et al. 2019). Whilst undertaking Inside Out university students reconsider what they know about crime and justice based on lectures and textbooks and come to understand the human and social elements of incarceration before they begin criminal justice careers (Long and Barnes 2016; Pompa 2013; Pompa and Crabbe 2004). At the same time, incarcerated students have the opportunity to discuss their lived experiences of the criminal justice system and provide personal insights about how that system could improve (Martinovic et al. 2017; Werts 2013). Link (2016) discusses the benefit for inside students in becoming more critically aware and enlightened during classes as well as “knowing that at least some people on the outside are actively involved in improving the current system of criminal justice” (52). Further, King et al. (2019) state that the teaching program allows inside and outside students to critically explore their own beliefs and identities to foster social change and overcome social barriers. Hence, as the semester progresses the learning experience becomes unifying with dialogue deepening between the inside and outside students. Inside Out originated 20 years ago in Philadelphia, United States as the ‘brainchild’ of Paul Perry, a prisoner serving a life sentence (Long and Barnes 2016). The resulting program, Inside Out, was founded, designed and implemented by Lori Pompa at Temple University in 1997 (see King et  al. 2019). In 2002, Pompa and a group of ex-Inside Out students, known as the Graterford Think Tank, developed the Inside Out training package as a response to racial injustice and mass incarceration (King et al. 2019). The training package was the genesis for national and international program expansion of Inside Out. As of mid-2017, nearly 700 Inside Out subjects have been taught, with more than 30,000 students having participated in classes (Inside-Out Centre 2017). More than 800 educators/ teachers in colleges and universities across the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Norway have taken part in the Inside-­ Out Instructor Training (Inside-Out Centre 2017).

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

39

In Victoria, Australia the Inside Out classes have been provided as part of the RMIT University Criminology and Justice Studies discipline. It commenced in Victoria in 2015 in two prisons, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (DPFC) and the Marngoneet Correctional Centre (MCC), and in 2018 extended to include Ravenhall Correctional Centre (RCC). DPFC houses female prisoners only and MCC and RCC accommodate male prisoners only. The chapter commences with key literature about higher education and the impact of Inside Out. Following this we present information about the establishment of Inside Out in Victoria, the teaching program and the corresponding evaluation of the teaching program. The evolution of the Think Tanks is testament to the success of the teaching program and its impact. The chapter concludes with information on the benefit of the transformative learning experience for both inside and outside students.

Higher Education and the Impact of Inside Out A study by Batiuk et al. (2005) showed the importance of education in prisons. It compared the likelihood of prisoners returning to prison after receiving a college degree, high school diploma, vocational training qualification or obtaining no education/training. It found that a college qualification had the strongest impact on reducing recidivism. An earlier study by Steurers et al. (2001) specifically found that the rates of re-arrest (50%) re-conviction (26%) and re-incarceration (24%) for prisoners who were involved in an educational program were lower than those who were not (re-arrests 58%, re-conviction 33%, and re-incarceration 31%). Davis et al.’s (2014) research showed that any education in a correctional environment has positive outcomes for prisoners in prison and upon release. More specifically, university level education programs in prisons have many benefits (Allred et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2014; Long and Barnes 2016; Shoemaker et al. 2014). The primary benefit is reduced recidivism as educated prisoners are more likely to obtain employment (Allred et al. 2013; Shoemaker et al. 2014). A meta-analysis by the RAND Corporation (2013) showed a 43% reduction of recidivism for offenders who are involved in prison education programs. Education also leads to higher wages upon release, enabling individuals to better support their families and contribute to tax (Steurers et al. 2001). Hence, it increases the likelihood of prisoners pro-socially contributing to society (Shoemaker et al. 2014).

40 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

The key difference of Inside Out to other prison based higher education programs is its unique structure (Pompa and Crabbe 2004) which emphasises community building, dialogic learning and leadership development (Crabbe 2013). Research has shown that when prisoners learn with university students in programs they increase their ability to engage with educational material (Allred et  al. 2013; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer 2014; Werts 2013). They are therefore better able to self-reflect and self-­ assess their own values and beliefs (Conti et al. 2013; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer 2014). Further, Allred (2009) and Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer (2014), believe that the structure of Inside Out facilitates the breakdown of existing stereotypes, and reconstructs the meanings associated with commonly held stigma and labels. Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer (2014) and Werts (2013) also showed that students experienced an increase in their understanding of the issues and the challenges facing the Criminal Justice System. Long and Barnes’ (2016) evaluation, which included pre and post-­ subject surveys of 248 students and 13 facilitators in 10 different Inside Out subjects in the Philadelphia area, found that all students were able to improve their critical thinking skills and ability to engage with key learning materials. In addition, it was reported that inside students obtained higher academic outcomes than outside students, whereas outside students more significantly increased their ability to challenge stereotypes, connect to community, and become aware of structures of power and privilege (Long and Barnes 2016). Of interest however was that they found 60% of inside students did not complete the Inside Out programs. Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer (2014) found that Inside Out results in university students critically analysing their own values and beliefs especially relating to crime and punishment. Simultaneously the program positively engages prisoners in learning and creates positive behavioural changes. In addition, Allred et al.’s (2013) study found a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy among incarcerated individuals who were involved in Inside Out. Self-efficacy involves a person’s belief in their own abilities to meet certain demands of their life (Allred et al. 2013). All the studies have shown varied but positive benefits of Inside Out for both inside and outside students.

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

41

Establishing the Inside Out Program in Victoria, Australia Planning for the development and implementation of Inside out in Victoria commenced in 2008 and continued until final approval was obtained in 2014. Similar to Link (2016) and King et al. (2019) significant challenges occurred in establishing trust and good will to develop the program. In 2013 approval was obtained from Corrections Victoria for piloting the program at two prisons. Following this, protracted discussions occurred with different divisions of the university to obtain recognition of the value of Inside Out and address the university’s concerns about risk and duty of care to all involved. To appease these concerns a complex risk assessment and risk management tool was developed. The outside student selection process commenced immediately after approval was obtained, with information sessions held in late 2014. Students then submitted an expression of interest application. They were interviewed via a panel of RMIT academics and senior prison personnel. Their selection was based on their life experience, completion of relevant subjects at distinction level (corrections, community corrections and case management practice) and their suitability to be a part of a challenging learning and teaching environment within a prison. In addition, outside students needed to understand the controls that would be placed on their learning in a prison setting. Outside students signed a professional conduct, ethics code and confidentiality agreement. Further, the risk management strategy also controlled for any contingencies that could have arisen related to student safety and inappropriate conduct of both inside and outside students. Education officers in prisons, in consultation with case managers/clinicians selected prisoners for participation in Inside Out.

The Inside Out Teaching Program in Victoria, Australia All inside and outside students are enrolled in the RMIT subject Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, a semester-long undergraduate subject. In this subject, students examine the evolution and operation of police, courts and corrections in different societies and communities and compare these to the Australian criminal justice system. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems was selected as the subject matter for two key reasons. First, whilst both sets of students have knowledge about the

42 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

Australian criminal justice system (prisoner students based on personal experience, and RMIT students on the basis of lectures and textbooks), they are generally unfamiliar with other countries’ criminal justice systems. So, in undertaking Comparative Criminal Justice Systems, both sets of students are studying subject material from a ‘level playing field.’ Second, the subject material is very engaging, as students are required to critically think whilst comparing the different criminal justice systems. Weekly classes for the entire semester take place in a very complex and fragile prison environment. This has meant the need for the teacher to be flexible about late starts, class cancellations, removal of prisoners from the program without notice, and negotiating prisoner students’ emotional responses when discussion topics are ‘too close’ to their personal stories or experiences. Apart from the obvious that half of the students in Inside Out are incarcerated, classes are composed of two very diverse student groups. For instance, RMIT students are mostly young females aged between 19 and 21, with a privileged background while prisoner students are older, mostly aged between 30 and 35, and have a history of disadvantage in terms of poverty, abuse and marginalisation. On the other hand, there is a similarity between the two student groups in that they are culturally and linguistically diverse. An added layer of complexity is the fact that prisoners are often concerned about being shunned and looked down upon. Hence, these factors need to be considered and managed carefully (Martinovic et al. 2017). There were differences in the management of inside students in the first Inside Out teaching program at DPFC and MCC. The differences were the result of male prisoners having lengthy periods of incarceration, limited education and limited life skills. In contrast, whilst the women prisoners came mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds their sentences were shorter and they had positive experiences of education and training. They were however more reticent in embracing the teaching style. While there was a connection to the students in both groups, the female inside students did not engage with the material and initially challenged the purpose of the teaching program. This was not surprising because their experiences of being treated equally and inclusively were limited, they had actual and perceived issues with authority, as well as views of being judged negatively (Martinovic et al. 2017). To address these challenges, advice and strategies to ameliorate these were sought from an experienced colleague. This enabled the teacher to develop collaborative arrangements for future teaching programs to ensure that from the start all students were

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

43

c­ ommitted, encouraged and engaged with the aims and objectives of the Inside Out teaching program. The main goals of Inside Out are for students to listen and respect each other, critically think, collaboratively problem solve and become empowered to act as agents of social change. In achieving these, Inside Out employs constructivist, transformative and critical pedagogies (Hyatt 2009; Pompa 2013). Active and social construction of knowledge occurs through multiple student views that are critically reflective. In this learning environment students are encouraged to become questioning agents of social change. Critical discussions include “lived criminal justice-related experiences,” allowing students to understand the content in tangible ways that theoretical underpinnings alone cannot replicate. Classroom discussions, according to students “get the best out of everyone” (Inside student DPFC). The effect of participation in Inside Out on students’ learning is illustrated by this outside student at DPFC: “even though I have been sitting in classes at RMIT for almost four years being taught a range of different criminal justice approaches and teachings, my experience in Inside Out has taught me more than any subject or book ever could.” Further, Inside Out provides a transformative educational experience for all participants—inside and outside students alike. The student cohorts are treated the same being referred to as students and people. The class atmosphere fosters an environment where the prison walls are transcended and all students feel like they are in a university classroom. For example, one strategy is the use of icebreaker exercises at the start of semester. These aim to make all students feel included and at ease, promoting the notion that all are in an equitable and comfortable learning environment. It is important to establish such an environment from the commencement of the teaching program so that inside and outside students share the learning together philosophy (as indicated above this was initially a challenge for the first DPFC Inside Out program). Such a philosophy results in a shared, inclusive and respectful teaching and learning space were all students can critique academic material, share ideas and have open discussions often about complex material. For example, as an inside student MCC, said: …that initial sense of ‘otherness’ that we as prisoners always feel quickly disappeared and by the end of only our second class it no longer mattered who was in green and who was not (referring to the prison uniform). If you

44 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

had an opinion or an idea you offered it and it was the validity of those ideas and your contributions that mattered. We were all equals. We were graded equally, we were treated equally and as equals we navigated the horrors of some of the world’s criminal justice systems.

All students are required to undertake university standard assessments. The completion of Inside Out is celebrated with graduations where students present their critical analysis of different aspects of the criminal justice system in various countries to family, friends and senior personnel from RMIT and Corrections Victoria. All students receive a certificate of participation. RMIT students’ assessments are independently marked within their degree, and prisoner students (if they satisfactorily completed all the required assessments) also receive a document outlining successful completion of the subject. This document could provide an exemption from future academic study for that subject at an institution of their choice. The strongest evidence that Inside Out is a distinctive and transformative educational experience lies in students’ results and attendance. Students’ results have averaged well above distinction for both RMIT students and prisoner students across all years of delivery. Such evidence is further confirmed by comments and feedback from both inside and outside students in booklets and speeches at their graduation.

Evaluation of the Inside Out Teaching Program in Victoria, Australia The Inside Out program was independently evaluated in Victoria at DPFC and MCC in 2015. Approval was sought and obtained for the evaluation from the Justice Human Research Ethics Committee and RMIT Human Research Ethics Committee. A mixed method approach (a combination of both quantitative and qualitative techniques) was used to ascertain if the Inside Out met its objectives.

Mixed Method The quantitative component of the evaluation was undertaken by two independent researchers, one criminologist, the other a statistician. The tools used were based on the United States’ Inside Out program evaluation (Martinovic et al. 2017; Owen 2006). Camp et al. (1986) cite critical requirements of training needs assessment that are applicable to program

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

45

evaluation in an educational setting. In their discussions, they point out that anyone who trains, educates or facilitates the learning and knowledge development of others must have some way of knowing whether their efforts are successful. The qualitative component was undertaken by the independent criminologist and included the Inside Out teacher. This was necessary to combat the possible suspicion and mistrust often felt by incarcerated people towards those with whom they are not familiar. The qualitative component provided a deeper knowledge of students’ experience of learning together in prison. The evaluation analysis was then undertaken by the independent statistician and a research assistant. Data was thematically analysed then amalgamated collaboratively in the co-authored report (Martinovic et al. 2017). The evaluation encompassed the following: • Anonymous questionnaires. Pre-test (prior to the commencement of Inside Out) and post-test (following the completion of the Inside Out) questionnaires completed by both inside and outside students. • Four focus groups. These were conducted at the completion of Inside Out: one focus group at DPFC and one at MCC for inside students; one focus group at RMIT for outside students who attended DPFC; and one for outside students who attended MCC. The questionnaires and focus groups addressed key questions about the pedagogy and understanding of the criminal justice system. Data was also collected on the value/benefits of the teaching program, what worked well/did not work well for inside students and outside students as well as required improvements.

Participants’ Profile and Response Rate At DPFC, the female inside students spanned twenty to forty years of age. They had attained a higher level of education than the MCC inside students and were mostly employed at time of their arrest. Their life-time experience of imprisonment ranged from 4.5 to 66 months with an average of 32.9 months. At MCC, the male inside students spanned twenty to fifty plus age range. They had attained a lower level of education and were mostly unemployed at time of their arrest. Their life-time experience of imprisonment ranged from 78 to 132  months with an average of

46 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

125.5 months. Many inside students at MCC were incarcerated on multiple occasions. Twenty-seven out of 30 outside students who participated in the 2015 Inside Out were young women. All outside students were working part-­ time and had studied corrections-related subjects. The profile of inside and outside students involved in subsequent Inside Out teaching programs has remained the same. Pre and post-test response rate: Initially it was expected that each program would comprise of 15 inside and 15 outside students, with 30  in each program, equalling a total of 60 students across MCC and DPFC. However, in the MCC inside student group one student withdrew before the commencement of the program. Further, eight of the MCC inside students left or were removed from the program during the 14-week program, leaving only six who completed post-test questionnaires. DPFC also suffered inside student attrition, due to release or movement of prisoners to a lower security prison, with 10 inside student completing post-­ test questionnaires. Outside student post-test returns numbered 15 and 14 for DPFC and MCC respectively. Focus group participation: A total 25 students volunteered to participate in the focus groups. This number included 12 inside students, seven from DPFC and five from MCC and 13 outside students, seven from DPFC and six from MCC. Focus group participants were identified related to whether they were inside or outside students as well as the respective prison where they attended Inside Out.

Findings and Discussion from the Evaluation The key findings from the quantitative and qualitative data have been amalgamated and presented thematically. Understanding of the Criminal Justice System All the outside students discussed how the Inside Out program added to their practical learning and experience of the criminal justice system. They were able to share their knowledge of criminological theories and in return they gained knowledge from the inside students’ criminal justice lived experiences. Additionally, both the DPFC and MCC outside students felt Inside Out challenged what they thought they knew about crime, justice and offending. Most outside students felt the learning content was ­relevant

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

47

and beneficial to both them and the inside students. They believed the inside students were able to gain a greater understanding of the Australian Criminal Justice System by comparing their experiences to the criminal justice system in other countries explored in the Inside Out classes. There was a significant difference of understanding of the criminal justice system at the programs’ completion for the inside students at DPFC and MCC. At DPFC there was a considerable growth in student understanding. For example, the DPFC inside students’ growth in understanding of the criminal justice system was significant (174%) compared to the increase of understanding for outside students (31%). In contrast, at MCC inside students reported a decrease in their understanding. While the most recent evaluation of Inside Out by Long and Barnes (2016: 13), reported higher academic gains for inside students compared to outside students the differences were not as dramatic as in the evaluation of the Inside out program at DPFC. In contrast to Long and Barnes (2016) the disparity between inside and outside student’s knowledge of the criminal justice system at MCC was concerning with outside students increasing their level of understanding (44%) and the inside students decreasing their level of understanding by 10%. The variation between inside students at MCC and DPFC could be attributed to the loss of morale when other inside students were removed or left the program at MCC. A contributing factor was also that many MCC inside students had negative life experiences given they were predominantly unemployed at the time of incarceration, had longer incarceration periods than the DPFC inside students and were repeat offenders. Such factors would impact on their education and employment prospects (see Steurers et al. 2001). In contrast to the MCC students, DPFC inside students were mostly employed at the time of their arrest and appeared to have a positive outlook for the future. Of interest, was that inside students at DPFC were difficult to engage at the commencement of the program (as indicated above) but started to embrace the learning mid-teaching program. In contrast, the outside students at MCC reported a greater understanding than DPFC outside students (>13%) even though they were selected equally on the basis of their grade point averages in the degrees, life experiences and so on. Such increased understanding of the criminal justice system for outside students was attributed to them providing additional assistance to the inside students throughout the program which led them to obtain higher gains in their understanding of the criminal justice system. They talked of being grateful to the six inside students who

48 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

remained throughout the program. As a result, the outside students at MCC worked harder to ensure that the inside students did not leave the program. At both DPFC and MCC inside and outside students expressed feelings about law-breaking and law-breakers, mainly in terms of empathy and sadness. Views about law breaking related to desperation, drugs/alcohol, family deficits and self-centredness. Further, prison life was considered to be dehumanising, boring, isolating, ‘violent’ or ‘hard’ at both DPFC and MCC.  Many students, both inside and outside, also reported feeling uncertain or unconvinced about the value of punishment. Overall, outside students were more frequently supportive of punishment than inside students. Most inside and outside students believed rehabilitation for incarcerated people was essential. Of interest is that the dearth of existing research on Inside Out programs does not include such an in-depth critique, predominately due to being quantitative with a few qualitative questions (see for example Long and Barnes 2016). Stigma and Negative Stereotypes The DPFC and MCC inside students felt Inside Out was able to challenge the stigma and negative stereotypes that surrounds people in prison. They believed it gave outside students an opportunity to see them as everyday people, not just prisoners. Both groups of inside students wanted the outside students to see past the ‘prisoner’ label and view them as normal people with families, lives and stories, consistent with Long and Barnes (2016) and Pompa (2013). Inside students believed the outside students seeing them as “everyday people” was crucial as most outside students will become criminal justice practitioners. Overwhelmingly, the inside students in both groups felt the outside students seeing past the negative stereotypes was a positive of Inside Out. While they wanted to be viewed as everyday people, the DPFC inside students reflected on how and why the outside students may view them negatively and worked hard to counteract this. Allred (2009), Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer (2014) and King et al. (2019) showed that the structure of the teaching program facilitates such in-depth interaction. The DPFC inside students felt it was important for the outside students to know that there are a multitude of complicated and interrelated factors which can lead to offending. Further, being in prison does not automatically make the inside students ‘bad people’. On the other hand, the MCC

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

49

inside students were surprised and relieved the outside students could see and like them for who they were but did not consider how or why the outside students may view them negatively. Allred (2009) and Long and Barnes (2016) referred to outside students significantly increasing their ability to challenge stereotypes about people in prison. In contrast, however, this evaluation showed outside students developed a greater understanding of themselves as they reported that the teaching program challenged them to consider stereotypes about prisoners that they did not know they had. The depth of data obtained from the focus groups enabled the students to share experiences that were more reflective and detailed than those reported in more quantitative research even when these include some qualitative questions (see Long and Barnes 2016). In addition, the outside students were able to challenge their own implicit biases towards people in the criminal justice system and recognise the complex individual differences that can lead people to offending. The DPFC and MCC outside students attributed being able to overcome these negative stereotypes to the equality between both student groups in the Inside Out. They felt that using the term ‘inside student’ instead of ‘prisoner’ helped to remove the boundaries between the two groups allowing them to just be ‘students’ in Inside Out (see Allred 2009; Hilinski-Rosick and Blackmer 2014). The outside students contended that inside students initially believed all people in the community would judge them and perceive them negatively because they were incarcerated. The outside students believed that Inside Out challenged the inside students’ assumptions and enabled them to see that there are people in the community who can see them for the person they are. Additionally, Inside Out enabled the inside students to see that some of the outside students could become better informed and emphatic future criminal justice practitioners. Transformative Learning Experience The research showed Inside Out has a profound transformative impact on student learning in three key ways. First, it was genuinely a life changing experience, with feedback from the majority of RMIT students indicating “this was once in a life-time opportunity,” and they were inspired and motivated to “do exceptionally well” in Inside Out because of their own and prisoner students’ “personal growth.” They also commented on being “in awe” of the relentless commitment of the inside students and provided

50 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

an example of one inside student translating the entire weekly reading material into Chinese. This took the inside student between 14 to 20 hours per week. Second, inside students were so motivated to maximise their involvement in learning at both prisons that they established regular learning groups to improve their writing skills and comprehension of the material presented in Inside Out. Third, the lasting impact on student learning is evident for the majority of inside and outside students who voluntarily sign-up to continue to learn and collaborate with each other in prison-­ based Think Tanks (see below). The DPFC outside students also said they gained valuable and surprising insights into the complexity of incarcerated people’s lives. They learnt that the inside students had both positive and negative experiences related to their incarceration. They also gained a deeper understanding of the complexity of criminal justice policy making. For example, the outside students learned that often criminal justice policy changes that occur as a result of highly publicised crimes make the inside students feel stigmatised by crimes committed by other people. This was a common finding in Long and Barnes’ (2016) research. The MCC outside students stated that in Inside Out they developed professional practice skills. Inside Out was seen as a safe educational setting, where they were able to establish those skills before applying them in the real world. Further, outside students learned how to appropriately and professionally respond when someone discloses something personal or confronting. They also learned how to build rapport and engage with incarcerated people. Overall, the MCC outside students discussed gaining a greater understanding of the challenges and struggles faced by people in the criminal justice system and as a result they developed greater empathy towards them. Finally, many MCC outside students stated their families began to understand and value their career choices at the graduation night of Inside Out. DPFC and MCC inside students valued being able to share their lived criminal justice experiences with the outside students and relate it to the content in Inside Out. Both groups of inside students felt the Inside Out helped them have a voice on criminal justice issues. They stated this was a rare event as they were often subjects of public discussion but were rarely able to participate in them. The inside students also felt Inside Out was an opportunity to bring about positive change in an area that directly affects them, that is the criminal justice system. The DPFC and MCC inside students revealed important similarities in their experience of the

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

51

Inside Out. Both groups expressed gaining confidence in themselves and their abilities through the Inside Out. They found they were capable of undertaking higher education as well as engaging in intellectual discussions (see Long and Barnes 2016). Consequently, this helped the inside students improve their perceived self-worth and self-image (Conti et al. 2013). The DPFC and MCC inside students said they could “drop the prison mask” or “persona” (which they had developed in prison to protect themselves from the harsh environment) and just ‘be themselves.’ It is documented in research that most people in prison adopt a tough persona to survive the harsh prison environment (see Haney 2003). Further inside students were able to see other inside students, as the people they are, rather than the prisoner they are. Challenges to the Learning Experience Inside and outside students at both DPFC and MCC cited few program challenges. At MCC, university level readings and inside student attrition (see above) were seen as problematic by outside students, although MCC inside students were largely silent on these issues. Similar issues of attrition were experienced in Long and Barnes’ (2016) research. MCC inside students did however feel “embarrassed” and “guilty” that so many inside students left or were removed from Inside Out. Nevertheless, the outside students were pleased that the remaining inside students “worked even harder” to maximise outside students’ Inside Out experience. DPFC and MCC outside students noted there were some challenges to the Inside Out learning experience. No computer access was a challenge for students as they were unable to work together on the PowerPoint presentations. These challenges are unique to the Victorian Inside Out program as students are required to develop a PowerPoint presentation as part of their assessment. In addition, the group presentations were a mixed experience for the outside students. For some it was the most enjoyable part of Inside Out, while others faced challenges. The experience seemed to depend on the willingness of the inside students to contribute to Inside Out. The outside students were often able to overcome these challenges and in doing so improved their problem solving and team work skills. Inside and outside students suggested that Inside Out could be improved through longer sessions and enhanced communication between the teacher and prison staff. Further, all students should be provided with instructions about reflective writing and inside students should be ­provided

52 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

with a dictionary and a thesaurus at the beginning of classes. In addition, the classrooms should be conducive to student learning and enable inside students to have extra study spaces as required.

Think Tanks Following the teaching program at DPFC in 2015 a Think Tank was approved for commencement in July 2015 by Corrections Victoria Executive and RMIT’s Global, Urban and Social Studies Executive. Prison-based Think Tanks are usually established after the completion of Inside Out Prison Exchange teaching programs. Approximately 20 students [10 inside students (prisoners) and 10 outside students (RMIT’s Criminology and Justice students)] meet fortnightly to discuss current or topical issues as they relate to the criminal justice system. In the Think Tank inside students have open and honest discussions about their incarceration experience and the aspects of those that work well or do not work well. Inside and outside students then brainstorm and develop practical ways to make improvements to the incarceration experience. As discussed above exchanges between inside and outside students in the Inside Out program provide outside students with an unparalleled, first-hand, real-life experience of seeing the human element of incarceration, the specific struggles, the complexities and impacts. This leads to them developing a passion and drive to make a difference by improving the incarceration experience, and hence increasing the likelihood that offenders will desist from further crime. This aligns with the central purpose of the Think Tanks, which is to provide practical strategies to reduce the likelihood of people returning to prison and improving their quality of life upon release. The following information about the policy initiatives that have been developed at DPFC highlights the practical output achieved and confirms the comments made above about the value and opportunity the Think Tanks provide to all those who participate. For example, over the three years, the DPFC Think Tank students have collectively produced reports which outline practical strategies to reduce the likelihood of women returning to prison and generally to improve their quality of life upon release. The policy initiatives with abridged titles from DPFC are included in Table 3.1. The initiatives and the corresponding responses provide some evidence of the value of the policy issues, challenges and changes that are required

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

53

Table 3.1  DPFC policy initiatives: 2015–2018 Date Policy initiative

Who initiated Corrections Victoria response

2015 Strategies to increase success of parole 2015 Empowerment strategies to avoid being victims or perpetrators of domestic violence

Think Tank

No action taken at this time

Prison management

2016 Strategies for abstinence from drug use (particularly ICE) inside the prison and upon release.

Prison management

2016 Practical strategies to reduce recidivism

Think Tank

2017 Recommendations for encouraging transfer of women from DPFC to the low security prison in country Victoria 2017 Induction booklet for new admissions to DPFC 2017 Development of the first incentive-­ based approach to reward positive behaviour of women prisoners 2018 Response to Ombudsman’s OPCAT Reporta 2018 Practical strategies to enhance women’s equity

Prison management

Discussed at prison executive and several recommendations implemented Discussed at prison executive and some recommendations implemented Considered beyond the ability of Corrections Victoria Booklet implemented

Prison management Prison management

In the process of implementing this booklet Pilot program commenced in 2018

Prison management Prison management

Recommendations implemented Some recommendations implemented

a OPCAT stands for Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

for the prison management to respond more effectively to incarcerated people’s needs which may in the long-term result in reduced rates of re-­ offending. As these policy initiatives show, incarcerated people are provided with the opportunity to contribute to and influence the discussions and debates about areas that directly impact upon them. An example of the powerful impact of the DPFC Think Tank relates to the role it was given in Corrections Victoria’s response to the Ombudsman’s OPCAT report. The Ombudsman’s OPCAT report, based on the inspection of DPFC’s operation, raised deficits that Corrections Victoria were required to respond to. Think Tank participants were invited to contribute to

54 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

Corrections Victoria’s response and DPFC management facilitated this by providing two extraordinary Think Tank sessions to ensure a timely response. Following the success of the DPFC Think Tank a Think Tank was implemented at MCC in July 2017. This Think Tank has resulted in the policy initiatives outlined in Table 3.2. Of interest, in the MCC Think Tank the strategies to reduce recidivism were very different to those written on the same topic in the DPFC Think Tank. The initiatives suggested by the MCC Think Tank were small, practical and required few monetary resources. In contrast, DPFC Think Tank’s while very important, were wide-ranging, resource intensive and required significant funding, hence these were considered beyond the ability of Corrections Victoria. The prison management saw it as important for the MCC Think Tank to brainstorm re-framing the ‘tough on crime’ policies which have now become key policy platforms for all governments Australia-wide. Such views permeate through the media to the community and form negative attitudes towards incarcerated people (Sarre 2017). This becomes particularly pertinent for incarcerated men upon release as the community are suspicious, judgmental and unwilling to provide key services such as employment and housing. These are essential for released prisoners to lead a pro-social life, hence reducing their likelihood of re-offending (McNeill et al. 2012). Students’ motivation for participating in Think Tanks relates to creating a better future for offenders in which they are more likely to live pro-­ socially and crime-free. To this end, a Think Tank has been approved at RCC for commencement in July 2018.

Table 3.2  MCC policy initiatives: 2017–2018 Date Policy initiative

Who initiated

Corrections Victoria response

2017 Strategies to reduce the likelihood of men returning to prison 2018 Creative ways to educate the community about crime and justice

Think Tank

Think Tank presented these initiatives to the prison executive and some initiatives are being considered Some recommendations implemented

Prison management

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

55

Conclusion The evaluation showed that Inside Out had strong, positive impacts on all student groups, educationally and personally. Inside and outside student groups acquired substantial new knowledge, with inside students benefiting with a much better, although generalised comprehension of the criminal justice system, while outside students developed more sophisticated detailed understandings, over the teaching period. Further, inside students benefited in self-esteem, self-confidence and talked of renewal of hope and commitment to a law-abiding future, once released. Inside students were also able to see other inside students as people of value rather than people with a tough ‘prison persona.’ Finally, outside students gained an ‘inside’ appreciation of the inside students’ lived experience of the criminal justice system. Inside Out showed inside students they can overcome the challenge of engaging in higher education, especially studying alongside university students and sharing knowledge and their life experiences. In addition, the inside students referred to the power of Inside Out to break through the negative stereotypes of the way prisoners and offenders are frequently viewed. Further, Inside Out had the potential to humanise prisoners as outside students would see prisoners as ‘normal’ people who have lives and stories, not just as good or bad people, but instead as those who have made poor choices. The outside students believed treating prisoners inclusively rather than excluding them was more effective in reducing offending. Similarly, just as Inside Out enabled the DPFC outside students to see past negative stereotypes, the outside students believed Inside Out also helped the inside students overcome negative assumptions they held about people from the community. Inside students from MCC commented: “it makes us real …part of society …not just a number…” and overall, “when you walk through the door of an Inside Out class you are no longer a prisoner or an inmate, you are a student.” In contrast, outside students from MCC commented: “I saw that criminals are just like us—people. They (meaning inside students) are part of us and the broader community.” Further, Inside Out puts a face to the challenges and needs of people who have broken the law. In addition, as an outside student MCC commented: these people are not just a news headline, these are real people with real lives who have made mistakes, and together we can make a difference. Hence,

56 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

this program demonstrates inclusiveness not only amongst the students but the wider community and the human race as a whole.

Evidence of the benefit of Inside Out to both inside and outside students relates to the transformative learning experience, referred to throughout this chapter, which has resulted in many students wanting to join prison-based Think Tanks. Here they have had and will continue to have, the opportunity to input into policy initiatives that could improve prison life, prison operation and therefore enhance the possibility for incarcerated people to live pro social lives upon release.

References Allred, S. (2009). Inside Out Prison Exchange Program: The Impact of Structure, Content, and Readings. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60(3), 240–258. Allred, S., Harrison, D., & O’Connell, D. (2013). Self-efficacy: An Important Aspect of Prison-Based Learning. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 211–233. Batiuk, M., Lahm, K., McKeever, M., Wilcox, N., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Disentangling the Effects of Correctional Education: Are Current Policies Misguided? An Event History Analysis. Criminal Justice, 5(1), 55–74. Boyd, C. (2013). Opened Arms, Eyes and Minds. In S. Davis & B. Roswell (Eds.), Turning Teaching Inside Out: A Pedagogy of Transformation for Community-­ Based Education (pp. 79–82). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Camp, R., Blanchard, P., & Huszczo, G. (1986). Toward a More Organizationally Effective Training Strategy & Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Conti, N., Morrison, L., & Pantaleo, K. (2013). All the Wiser: Dialogic Space, Destigmatization, and Teacher-Activist Recruitment. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 163–188. Crabbe, M. (2013). Inside Out in Oregon: Transformative Education at the Community Level. In S. Davis & B. Roswell (Eds.), Turning Teaching Inside Out: A Pedagogy of Transformation for Community Based Education (pp. 27–34). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, L., Steele, J., Bozick, R., Williams, M., Turner, S., Miles, J., Saunders, J., & Steinberg, P. (2014). How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Haney, C. (2003). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-­ prison Adjustment. (From Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Re-entry on Children, Families, and Communities). United States: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

3  LEARNING BEHIND PRISON BARS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS… 

57

Hilinski-Rosick, C., & Blackmer, A. (2014). An Exploratory Examination of the Impact of the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(3), 386–397. Hyatt, S. (2009). Creating Social Change by Teaching Behind Bars: The Inside Out Prison Exchange Program. Anthropology News, 50(1), 24–28. Inside-Out Centre. (2017). Inside-Out at 20: The Power of Connection and Community. A Snapshot of the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program. Philadelphia: Temple University. King, H., Measham, F., & O’Brian, K. (2019). Building Bridges Across Diversity: Utilising the Inside-Out Prison Exchange to Promote an Egalitarian Higher Education Community with Three English Prisons. International Journal of Bias, Identify and Diversity in Education, 4(1), 66–81. Link, T. (2016). Breaking Down Barriers: Review of the Implementation of an Inside/Out Prison Exchange Program in Jail Setting. Journal of Prison Education and Re-entry, 3(1), 50–54. Long, D., & Barnes, M. (2016). A Pilot Evaluation of the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program in the Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Research for Action. Martinovic, M., Liddell, M., & Muldoon, S. (2017). Evaluation of the Inaugural Australian Inside Out Prison Exchange Program. Melbourne: RMIT University. McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). How and Why People Stop Offending: Discovering Desistance. Glasgow: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services. Owen, J. (2006). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Pompa, L. (2002). Service-Learning as Crucible: Reflection on Immersion, Context, Power, and Transformation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(Fall), 67–76. Pompa, L. (2013). One Brick at a Time: The Power and Possibility of Dialogue Across the Prison Wall. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 127–134. Pompa, L., & Crabbe, M. (2004). The Inside Out Prison Exchange Program: Exploring Issues of Crime and Justice Behind the Walls (Instructors Manual rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University. RAND Corporation. (2013). Evaluation the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation. Sarre, R. (2017). How to Cut Australia’s $48 Billion Crime Bill? The Conversation. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from https://theconversation.com/ how-to-cut-australias-48-billion-crime-bill-73272?utm_source=twitter&utm_ medium=twitterbutton. Shoemaker, R., Willis, B., & Bryant, A. (2014). We Are the Products of Our Experiences: The Role Higher Education Plays in Prison. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 23(1), 31–55.

58 

M. MARTINOVIC AND M. LIDDELL

Steurers, S., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study. Lanham, MD: Correctional Educational Association. Van Gundy, A., Bryant, A., & Starks, B. (2013). Pushing the Envelope for Evolution and Social Change: Critical Challenges for Teaching Inside Out. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 189–210. Werts, T. (2013). Tyrone Werts: Reflections on the Inside Out Prison Exchange Program. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 135–138.

CHAPTER 4

Teaching Crime Prevention and Community Safety Garner Clancey

Introduction I have taught crime prevention and related subjects at six Australian universities over the last 15 years—mostly as a casual or sessional lecturer. As is well known, casualization is extensive within the tertiary sector. Rothengatter and Hil (2013: 51) note that casual staff are responsible for in excess of 50 per cent of all undergraduate teaching in Australia, a trend that has only intensified further in the past few years. The life of a casual or sessional staff lecturer can be precarious with no ongoing certainty of contracts, with little or no investment in professional development, little or no payment to attend faculty or school meetings necessary for organizational learning, and pay that rarely covers all of the hours invested in preparing classes, delivering lectures and seminars, marking essays and meeting with students. However, for me, being a casual was more by choice than an outcome of working in the neoliberal university environment and it had benefits. One benefit of being a casual was the opportunity to deliver broadly

G. Clancey (*) School of Law, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_4

59

60 

G. CLANCEY

s­ imilar course content across numerous locations. Not only did this help to increase the return on time invested in developing course content, it also provided insight into different universities, faculties/schools and student cohorts. Moreover, I was able to work as a crime prevention consultant during the time not spent teaching. This greatly informed my teaching and ultimately aided the development of the teaching materials that are discussed in this chapter. The table below provides a summary of the crime prevention and community safety courses. It is noteworthy to observe some of the differences in course names, course delivery formats and level (undergraduate or postgraduate) at which the units were offered. The differences in part speak to different degree structures, delivery formats favoured by the various universities and the programs in which the courses are offered (i.e. part of undergraduate criminology degree). The diversity in course titles goes to a point raised by Bartels et  al. (2015) when they reviewed criminology and/or criminal justice degrees offered by Australian universities. They observed considerable diversity of course names and structures, largely due to the absence of clear guiding principles (such as the Priestly 11 which dictate content offered in law degrees). As outlined in Table 4.1, delivery mode has varied from distance/online materials to weekly lecture/tutorial format to intensive delivered over four to six days. While each has required different preparation and had different demands, the following are some of the common tasks associated with preparing a subject: • Creating a course structure and course outline (including student attributes, administrative requirements and obligations of students); • Identifying appropriate readings and packaging them in relevant formats (previously this meant copying articles and book chapters for collation into reading materials, but increasingly this just means hyperlinks from library and online resources embedded into learning management systems); • Developing lesson plans and class content, including lecture materials and tutorial exercises; • Delivering content, including responding to student learning styles, language proficiency, knowledge and preparation, group size, and room layout (tiered lecture theatre or flat classroom);

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

61

Table 4.1  Crime prevention and community safety courses taught University Subject title

Years taught

UG/ PG

Delivery mode Role

CSU

Juvenile Justice 2 and Crime Prevention

2003– 2004

UG

Distance

WSU

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

2003– 2008

UG

Weekly

UNSW

Crime Prevention Policy

2008– 2013

UG and PG

UNE

Crime Prevention

2013

UG

Weekly for UG and intensive for PG (4 days) Distance

UWA

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Policy Current Developments in Prevention and Control

2012

PG

Intensive (6 part-days)

2003, 2014– ongoing

PG

Intensive (4 days)

Sydney

Developed distance materials and then coordinated online course delivery Initially tutor only then subject coordinator (lecturing and tutoring) Subject coordinator for both courses

Developed distance learning materials (mostly voice recording and PowerPoint slides) Subject coordinator

Subject coordinator

• Identifying and liaising with appropriate guest lecturers; • Creating relevant learning management system content; • Developing assessment tasks; • Marking assessments and providing feedback; • Submitting grades to the relevant institution (which potentially involves marking to a normal distribution curve); • Allocating time to see students individually to discuss assessment items and any problems with the course content and responding to the increasing number of student emails; • Developing resources such as videos and other teaching materials; and • Integrating social media, where appropriate, and contemporary relevant issues into the course.

62 

G. CLANCEY

Generally these courses have been delivered to modest cohorts. Courses at the Western Sydney University were the largest, with cohorts often approaching 100 students. The smallest cohorts have been at postgraduate levels, with classes often as small as a dozen or so students. The size of the cohort impacts greatly on teaching methods adopted with particular implications for delivering applied case studies. Large cohorts, especially sitting in tiered lecture theatres can be especially hard to engage in applied case studies to achieve authentic learning experiences, an approach generally best completed in small groups. In almost all cases, there was generally limited guidance about what should be covered in these courses. Many were being developed and delivered for the first time as crime prevention and community safety concepts came to be included in criminology and/or criminal justice degrees or as new degrees were being created. Consequently, I have had considerable autonomy to design or re-design courses with little overarching guidance.

Common Course Content While course content has differed across the various units, topics routinely covered include the following: • Definitions of crime prevention (and related terms), particularly drawing on classic definitions like those provided by van Dijk and de Waard (1991); • Origins of crime prevention are considered, with reference to O’Malley and Hutchinson’s (2007) commentary regarding the late development of crime prevention; • Alternative approaches are considered, with particular reference to Hilyard and Tombs all harms approach (2007) and critical perspectives of crime prevention (such as Watts et al. 2008); • Crime trends and debates regarding contribution of crime prevention measures to crime decline, with heavy emphasis on exploring Farrell et al. (2008, 2011) discussion of potential mechanisms that have contributed to falls in crime in particular jurisdictions; • Models and typologies of crime prevention with a focus on Tony and Farrington’s (1995a, 1995b) typology—developmental, commu-

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

63

nity/social, situational (including crime prevention through environmental design) and criminal justice. Detailed coverage of each model is generally provided including focusing on relevant theories, methods of prevention associated with each model, the contribution of key relevant theorists and some of the criticisms of each; • Security and securitization are also covered, if somewhat briefly, as a means of considering the rise of ‘surveillance society’ (Lyon 2007; Zedner 2009) and the potential role played by crime prevention in advancing or legitimizing this development; • Crime problem-solving approaches are reviewed, with a key focus on Ekblom’s 5Is (2011) and Goldstein’s Problem-Oriented Policing (1979) and the SARA model developed by Eck and Spelman (1987); • Implementation challenges are considered in detail, drawing on issues associated with inter-agency and partnership approaches and the myriad of implementation failures highlighted by Homel and Homel (2012), Tilley (2009), amongst others; • The role of local government is explored in some detail, given the important coordinating role assumed by local government in many Australian jurisdictions (as highlighted by Homel and Fuller 2015); • Evaluation and evidence-based policy and practice are reviewed, with detailed analysis of the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (Sherman et al. 2002, 2006), meta and systematic reviews, particularly those undertaken for the Campbell Collaboration, and the realist evaluation framework (Pawson and Tilley 1997); • Climates of unsafety and iatrogenic outcomes are also considered in the wider context of considering negative unintended consequences, drawing on work from McCord (2003), as well as numerous feminist scholars such as Stanko (2000), Campbell (2005), etc. Recently, I have also given particular attention to the growing field of/ scholarship on prevention science. Prevention science is ‘interdisciplinary and combines life-course development, community epidemiology, and preventive intervention perspectives’ (Cordova et al. 2014: 1). Prevention science approaches ‘aim to direct evidence-based investment to modify early developmental pathways and influences that lead to adolescent health and behaviour problems’ (Toumbourou 2016: 434).

64 

G. CLANCEY

Applied and Vocational Orientation It has been my experience that students (specifically undergraduate students) are very vocationally oriented. Consequently, I give considerable attention to concepts that are likely to give them the best insight into crime prevention practice. Postgraduate students are often less vocationally focused (but not always, especially in recent years as more postgraduate students have recently completed their undergraduate studies rather than entering postgraduate studies on the basis of considerable professional experience). Accordingly, when teaching at the postgraduate level, the focus is more on the history of crime prevention, the framing and positioning of the field of study including focusing on impacts of neo-liberalism, risk society, surveillance studies, etc. The objective is more critical inquiry—less practitioner-centric. Nonetheless, a number of assumptions about applied and vocational issues undergird my approach to teaching crime prevention and community safety subjects include: 1. Most (if not all) of the students will ultimately be employed outside of the academy. They are more likely to be practitioners in the criminal justice system or related areas, rather than being academics in waiting. This means that career and vocational interests are included where appropriate throughout courses. 2. Many students will have a limited conception of the job opportunities and labour market opportunities. For those that do have some insight into criminal justice vocations, many will have greatest understanding of key criminal justice agencies—police, courts, corrections (both adult and juvenile). Expanding their understanding of career opportunities in the fields of community safety and crime prevention understood broadly is an objective of my teaching of these courses. 3. Some, probably a small percentage, will do some form of crime prevention work in the future. Consequently, it is beneficial to highlight job roles and positions in the crime prevention field. This includes highlighting roles in non-government and private organisations. Many students will have limited insight into roles in these areas. 4. Irrespective of future career options, skills and knowledge gained through crime prevention studies will be transferable to other

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

65

employment opportunities. Consequently, a focus on skills will be beneficial for those embarking on a career in criminal justice or crime prevention or some other area of work. Relatedly, a key objective in my teaching is to encourage a ‘crime prevention sensibility’. By this I mean that those students best prepared through a course on crime prevention are able to appreciate and respond to complex crime issues. It requires more than mastery of relevant theory and literature. It requires an ability to communicate, to assess and respond to situations, to motivate and manage people, to being creative in developing responses, to being reflexive to constantly reflect on potential negative unintended consequences. These are often regarded as ‘soft skills’ and considered outside the scope of criminology (but perhaps less so for criminal justice) degrees. Accordingly, content and exercises are designed to have application to a wide variety of contexts. Thus, I partly want to develop students who could easily step into the (few) crime prevention roles but provide others (likely to be the bulk of students) with skills that can be applied in policing, correctional, security, human service and other fields. In part, this ‘crime prevention sensibility’ reflects key competencies identified in the late 1990s. The final report from this project identified seven key areas of competence for crime prevention practitioners, including: 1. Develop projects/programs 2. Deliver and evaluate projects/programs 3. Negotiate and advocate sectoral interests 4. Enable/promote involvement of others 5. Provide information to internal and external clients/customers 6. Develop self and other staff 7. Manage resources and processes (National Crime Prevention 1999: 122–123) These competencies demonstrate the process oriented nature of much crime prevention work and the importance of non-theoretical insights and skills. Organising committees, chairing meetings, involving key stakeholders, consulting relevant individuals, developing programs to respond to specific crime problems, implementing and evaluating programs, managing resources, conducting information and education sessions, etc. all

66 

G. CLANCEY

demonstrate the process aspects of crime prevention work and all require more than textbook knowledge.

Case Studies In an attempt to develop and nurture this ‘crime prevention sensibility’, I have developed numerous resources drawing from real-world problems and case studies. These case studies (available at http://gclancey.com/) seek to present problems commonly experienced by crime prevention practitioners. There is no simple solution to the problems posed in the case studies, especially not one found in any criminological or crime prevention text. Students are required to debate, negotiate, analyse and apply theories and knowledge gained through the course (or their studies more broadly). These case studies are often used to encourage greater reading and to consider how key concepts can be applied in diverse contexts. Some of the case studies are included in this section. Electronic copies can be freely  accessed at the above website and used in teaching. The images contained here serve to demonstrate the nature of the resources and might not be easily read in this format. A critical starting point to preventing crime is understanding the nature of the crime problem. One case study (shown in Fig. 4.1) introduces crime data and some features of data analysis, raising issues with the sources and quality of crime data, the challenges associated with crime data being presented in Local Government Areas (LGAs), the political issues arising from tools that rank LGAs according to their crime rates and the benefits and limitations of crime maps for the purposes of crime prevention. Working through these issues and questions provides students with an introduction to just some of the challenges that arise in trying to quantify actual crime problems in a local area. These tasks will not make students proficient crime data analysts, but do expose them to the myriad of issues associated with using and working with crime data. A series of posters and case studies have been developed using Ekblom’s ‘Think Thief’ mantra (found at: http://gclancey.com/pdfs/cpp_ Criminal%20Mind%20Series%20White%20-%204%20Posters.pdf). These posters and case studies require students to consider the dynamics of particular offending and to explore possible prevention strategies. The graffiti artist poster is provided below (see Fig. 4.2) as an example of the nature of the exercise encouraged through this process. Students work in small groups and discuss the four elements of the exercise: motivations and rewards, opportunities, facilitators and tools, and prevention strategies.

2. Consider the reasons why the NSW Police Force is understandably reluctant to publish or disseminate crime data.

available on both websites.

Sources of Crime Data Exercise

1.

511

1054

70

493

958

81

6

9

5

20

Year 2

Year 1

81

1058

518

18

3

Year 3

90

1136

592

13

13

Year 4

79

1043

800

18

7

Year 5

98

957

764

9

2

Year 6

95

956

773

10

6

Year 7

85

908

788

3

3

Year 8

80

946

689

10

7

69

921

756

5

4

Year 9 Year 10

Stable

Down 0.4%

Up 4.9%

**

**

120 Month trend

137 14

Steal from dwelling

24 12

8

141

51

26

65

100

11

137

48

21

54

113

11

26

119

77

61

59

90

Year 3

15

140

46

26

57

109

13

30

125

102

55

68

96

Year 4

19

138

34

21

41

110

10

23

113

118

51

76

99

Year 5

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) Crime and Safety NSW, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.1, Canberra. O’Brien, K.; Jones, C. and Korabelnikoff, V. (2008) ‘What caused the decrease in sexual assault clear-up rates?’, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 125, BOCSAR, Sydney. Weatherburn, D. (2004) Law and Order in Australia: Rhetoric and Reality, Federation Press, Annandale, page 214.

1 2 3

1. How would you use this map if you were trying to prevent crime in this LGA? 2. What are the limitations of crime maps generally? 3. Search for a BOCSAR crime map publication. Review the selected publication.

Crime Maps Exercise

BOCSAR produces crime maps for LGAs. These maps reveal spatial concentration of particular crimes. Accompanying information also highlights the temporal trends (i.e. frequency of offences by time of day, day of week and month of year) for particular offences.

Crime Maps

1. For which offences does this LGA rank poorly? 2. How might these LGA rankings be useful? 3. What limitations exist with this form of measurement?

LGA Ranking Exercise

This table shows the ranking of a LGA across various crime categories.

Fraud

58 17 52

Steal from motor vehicle Steal from person Steal from retail store

23 12 83

Motor vehicle theft Robbery Sexual offences

121

78

72

50 81 115

Break and enter – Dwelling Break and enter – Non-dwelling Malicious damage to property

71

52

Assault – Domestic violence related

98

Year 2

91

Year 1

Assault – Non-domestic violence related

Offence

BOCSAR provides comparisons across LGAs by providing a ranking. The number of offences is divided by the population to give a rate per 100,000 people. This rate is compared across LGAs. The lower the number, the worse the picture is for that LGA.

LGA Ranking

1. What limitations exist for this data set? 2. What are the limitations of presenting crime data in table form? 3. What other options might be more effective?

Fig. 4.1  Introduction to crime data analysis. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

The above table shows the number of incidents of particular offences within a LGA. There are many more crime categories not listed here. Choosing which crime categories will be of interest and the number of years that you will access data for, are just two of the initial considerations. You will also have to consider how to best present the data.

Attempted murder Assault – Domestic violence related Assault – Non-domestic violence related Sexual Assault

Murder

Offence

Crime Trends

Determining if particular crimes are increasing; identifying the hot spot locations where crime is concentrated; understanding the temporal trends of offending and analysing potential reasons for crime trends will be critical features of crime data analysis. This analysis is often based on data provided by BOCSAR. The following table shows data outputs that you might access from BOCSAR.

Crime Data Analysis

•

and analysed. Weatherburn suggests that “in New South Wales ... crucial information about the precise location of a criminal incident, the precise nature of any weapons involved, whether the offender was intoxicated and the methods used to commit a crime can sometimes only be found (if at all) in the narrative section of police reports”.3

The sources of crime data will vary for each jurisdiction. In New South Wales, the most helpful sources of crime data include the following: • NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) – BOCSAR provides a range of crime data that is pertinent to crime prevention practitioners. Crime map publications, on-line data tools and annual crime statistics are just some of the useful resources provided by BOCSAR. • NSW Police Force – The NSW Police Force collect some of the most useful crime data in the state. However,

Sources of Crime Data

Consequently, any analysis of crime data should recognise the limitations of the raw data, due to the uneven reporting rates of particular crimes.

There are a many factors that limit an understanding of the ‘true’ picture of crime. Many offences will never be reported to the police. For example, • Only about one in three assaults, attempted burglaries and robberies of the person are ever reported to the police 1 • Even fewer sexual assaults are reported to police, with data from victim surveys suggesting that only 15 to 20 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police 2

Limitations of Recorded Crime Data

Crime Data Analysis Exercise

Developed by Garner Clancey

Introduction to Crime Data Analysis

Crime data analysis is fundamental to effective crime prevention. Knowing as much as you can about crime will help

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

67

68 

G. CLANCEY

Fig. 4.2  The criminal mind series: The Graffiti ‘Artist’. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

69

Discussing these four elements encourages engagement with diverse literature  and concepts, including journey to crime, crime script  analysis, cue-decision sequence, routine activities theory, rational choice offender model, and prevention approaches to remedy graffiti  (amongst others). This helps to introduce these concepts in the context of a tangible crime type and scenario rather than as isolated knowledge or information. As a way of encouraging deeper thinking about ‘root causes’ and motivations for offending, not just opportunities for crime, a series of case studies encourage engagement with risk factors for offending (including alcohol and other drug use, family dynamics, peers, education and employment and cognitions). These case studies (see Fig. 4.3 for one of these) have been developed using autobiographical and biographical sources that speak to some of the circumstances that have been identified by offenders as contributing to their later offending and imprisonment. Students work in small teams and are allocated a case study and instructed to discuss the issues relevant to their case study (i.e. alcohol and other drug use, family dynamics, peers, etc.). Time permitting, each group will consider a number of the different dimensions and the larger group will discuss the combination of issues that frequently confront young offenders. Discussion about the background of young offenders provides a good introduction to considering developmental and community crime prevention. The following case study (see Fig. 4.4) encourages students to consider risk factors and the challenges of actually delivering robust developmental crime prevention programs. To further explore the complexity of working in neighbourhoods, which is introduced through the developmental crime prevention case study, information is presented about an unnamed public housing estate. This case study combines descriptive information with an aerial image and photos from the estate. A series of questions are then posed to prompt class discussion about situational, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and social approaches to crime prevention. Issues associated with partnership working, community engagement, cultural diversity, police-community relations and approaches to prevention are routinely discussed with divergent perspectives often raised, and themes arising from relevant readings introduced. This then provides a platform to explore CPTED in greater detail. To this end I have developed a series of posters containing images and commentary on aspects of CPTED (see the web site). These posters can be used to replace working through numerous slides and can be given to small groups of students to dissect and discuss various features of CPTED.

70 

G. CLANCEY

Photos that I have taken covering issues such as natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, access control and space managed are included with brief commentary provided in text below each image. The limited text means that these resources can be used in contexts where English might not be the first language of students. The images provide a link to important scholarly work including that of Jane Jacobs (1961), Oscar Newman (1972) and other CPTED theorists and commentators. They also invite discussion about the role of diverse disciplines and roles in creating the built environment and the often The Life of a Persistent Young Offender Peers

Developed by Garner Clancey

Research (and experience) tells us that young people, who are persistent offenders, will often have offending or antisocial peers. We know that peer acceptance is an important need of adolescents. Family r lives of young people and peers assume greater importance. Often, ‘treating’ the young person in isolation or without an understanding of the context of offending dynamics (i.e. within peer structures) will have few positive outcomes. The following provides some excerpts taken from various books (criminological or sociological texts) about offenders. These excerpts have been taken to demonstrate how some offenders are introduced to offending through their peers and swer the questions below. “... around eleven, I wanted to run around and do what I wanted to do, breaking into houses and takings things off the line - that’s what everyone did; there was nothing there, absolutely nothing for people. We haven’t got a tennis court, we haven’t got a youth centre. So the only thing that we could do was to make our own fun” “You got to be part of the era, you know, what the boys are doing. You’ve got to copycat or else they’ll just, you know, they’ll push you aside, you’ll not be part of the group anymore. And you want to prove to yourself that you’re just as capable of doing what they do, make a name for yourself ... You didn’t want to miss the action. It made you feel like you were part of the boys” “No dreams, no career, nothing, no goals. Just to prove yourself, just to prove to your mates that, you know, you’re someone good to hang around” “My friends had been doing it for maybe eighteen months before me and they’re like, ‘We’re doing a house, come and try it’. And I couldn’t say no” “It turned out they used to drink every day so I started drinking... Another habit they I started getting into that too ... For two weeks I just blacked out and did nothing except drink and sniff all this glue” “I had started hanging around with other street kids... and we were stealing cars and doing the usual petty stuff”

References:

Marshall, P. (2002) Scarred for Life: the true story of a self harmer Korn, N. (2004) Life Behind Bars: Conversations with Australian Inmates

Questions:

• If you were describing a persistent young offender, based on your experience, when would they start hanging around with antisocial young people? • What behaviour would they display at school and in the neighbourhood? • Who will be their role models? • Will they behave differently in groups than if on their own? • Will they have any non-offending peers?

Fig. 4.3  The life of a persistent young offender peers. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

While this information provided by Farrington and Welsh (2007) is particularly helpful in understanding critical risk

1. Empower individuals and community 2. Employ local people and train them 3. Involve the community in planning activities 4. Support existing programs and services 5. Build partnerships between services, researchers, local institutions & the community 6. Facilitate access to services by culturally diverse groups 7. Demonstrate commitment to the community 8. Communities cannot do it all: use external expertise 9. Work for sustainability: changes in institutional practices

Engage in Community Development

1. Develop evidence based interventions (based both on research and effective practice) 2. Focus on preventive interventions 3. Commit to the achievement of measurable goals 4. Use both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods 5. Focus on outcomes – avoid the usual drift to outputs 6. Generate new knowledge – how were the outcomes achieved?

Do Good Science

Given that many developmental crime prevention programs take a considerable period before results can be observed, how would you maintain political will in these interventions?

3.

Despite the guidance provided by Homel et al (2006) and depicted in the above table, what challenges would you expect to confront in developing a developmental crime prevention program?

2.

1. How could the ‘Do Good Science’ suggestions help with program development?

Exercise

1. The needs of the community take precedence over the interests of the partner organisations 2. Use multiple methods to understand local needs and resources: a) Risk factor analyses b) Qualitative surveys c) Local histories (including oral) d) Focus groups e) Build on knowledge of community workers

Understand Community Needs

development 4. Focus on building connections between key developmental contexts 5. Use a strength-based orientation – build on families’ personal and cultural assets

1. Emphasise universal, non-stigmatising programs 2. Focus on life transitions and related developmental issues 3. Use a multi-contextual approach with programs

Think Developmentally

and implementing a developmental crime prevention program. These tasks can be especially challenging. Ensuring the right groups and individuals participate in the program; ensuring that the mechanisms for change are well understood and addressed through the intervention; having appropriately trained program staff and closely monitoring the impact of the intervention are just some of the challenges of implementing developmental crime prevention programs. The table below provides helpful guidance on aspects of program development and implementation. iii

Fig. 4.4  Doing developmental crime prevention. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

i

Homel, R. (2005) Chapter 4: ‘Developmental Crime Prevention’, in Tilley, N. (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Willan Publishing, Devon, page 71. ii Farrington, D. and Welsh, B. (2007) Saving Children From a Life of Crime, Oxford University Press, pages 159-161. iii Homel, R.; Freiberg, K.; Lamb, C.; Leech, M.; Batchelor, S.; Carr, A.; Hay, I.; Teague, R. and Elias, G. (2006) ‘The Pathways to Prevention project: doing developmental prevention in a disadvantaged community’, Trends and Issues No. 323, AIC, Canberra, page 2.

2. Less is known about effective protective factors. How might the greater focus on risk adversely impact upon our thinking in this area?

1. What challenges might exist in effectively isolating key risk factors for later offending behaviour?

Exercise

Environmental Risk Factors: a) Growing up in a low socio-economic status household b) Associating with delinquent peers c) Attending high-delinquency-rate schools d) Living in deprived areas Environmental: a) After school (involving a heavy dose of social competency skill development) and community-based mentoring appear promising b) School-based interventions – school and discipline management, classroom or instructional management, reorganisation of grades or classes, increasing self-control or social competency with cognitive behavioural or behaviour instructional methods

Family: a) Parent education plus daycare services b) Parent management training programs c) Home visiting programs

Family Risk Factors: a) Criminal or antisocial parents b) Large family size c) Poor parental supervision

e) Disrupted families

Individual: a) Pre-school intellectual enrichment b) Child skills training

Evidence-Based Interventions

Individual Risk Factors: a) Low intelligence and attainment b) Personality and temperament c) Empathy d) Impulsiveness

Risk Factors

guide our understanding of the critical risk factors associated with later offending and the types of intervention which appear to be most effective, through the following ii:

An Australian expert on developmental criminology, Ross Homel, notes: “Developmental prevention involves the organised provision of resources in some fashion to individuals, families, schools or communities to forestall the later development of crime or other problems … The twin challenges, of course, are to identify exactly what it is in individuals, families, schools and communities that increases the odds of involvement in crime i (emphasis added). and then to do However, assessing who is at risk of future offending, isolating the reasons for this increased risk and then

Developed by Garner Clancey

Doing Developmental Crime Prevention

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

71

72 

G. CLANCEY

c­ompeting perspectives regarding what is important in such a process. Similarly, the images provide a platform to explore planning regulation and relevant policy instruments that shape this work in practice. Exercises focused on doing crime prevention flow from the public housing estate case study and considerations of CPTED. In particular, case studies on implementation, partnerships and evaluation require students to engage with the complexity of developing, managing and evaluating crime prevention initiatives. Working through these case studies introduces students to numerous elements of crime prevention practice, as well as different crime-types/problems. Topics covered include: public space closed circuit television (CCTV) systems, youth mentoring, alcohol-­ related crime, crime prevention committees, working with police, and prisoner reintegration. Covering these diverse topics encourages students to consider the diversity of stakeholders engaged in this work, the array of ethical issues encountered in practice, questions around funding and the technical skills required to conduct evaluations of initiatives. Below (see Fig. 4.5) is an example of the case study on implementation. A further dimension explored through the use of these case studies is that of local government involvement in crime prevention. The poster/ case study below (see Fig. 4.6) focuses on the role of local government in preventing crime. Generic data and information have been used to provide context for understanding the role and challenges faced by local government in seeking to prevent crime. By using generic data, it is intended to remain fit-for-purpose for many years to come rather than dating quickly with a new census release or local government boundary change or changes in crime statistics. This poster/case study is again used in small groups. Discussion arising from this poster/case study frequently covers numerous concepts such as what role local government can rightfully assume in crime prevention efforts; the political influences invited through such an arrangement; resourcing considerations and whether this is a form of cost-shifting by higher levels of government; the remit of local government and the associated range of crime prevention activities that can be undertaken by local government; and inter-agency arrangements which raises questions about local-state-federal government relations. The final poster/case study to be considered here is associated with the unintended consequences of crime prevention (see Fig.  4.7)—a theme that runs through every discussion and activity.

Line

Church

Station

recidivism; program participation; comparison between those selected suitable and unsuitable for the program; and impact of other interventions.

3. How will you measure the success of this program? Consider key issues like measurement of

2. What documentation will be required to ensure that this program is implemented consistently?

like recruiting, training and supervising mentors; assessing which young people should enter the program; what mentors will do with the young people to help them prevent further offending; and how mentoring relationships will be monitored.

1. What steps would you undertake to implement a program of this nature? Consider key issues

Case Study 2 Exercise

Research has revealed a high proportion of young people in the local government area (LGA) are engaged in crime. There are very few programs designed to help these young people to associate with non-offending peers or to develop relationships with successful role models. An inter-agency group (comprising youth workers, council, police, and youth corrections personnel) has decided to develop a mentoring program for young people aged between 12 and 15 years of age who are coming to the attention of police for involvement in crime. It is decided that mentors will be matched with young people receiving police cautions as a means of preventing further engagement with crime.

Case Study 2 – Youth Mentoring Project

4. What are some of the key risks to the smooth implementation of this project?

3. What would be the main cost drivers for this project?

2. List all of the key stakeholders that you would need to engage in this project.

and operating a CCTV system in the pedestrian mall.

Fig. 4.5  Applied crime prevention case studies—crime prevention implementation. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

Precinct

A Council has decided to install closed circuit television (CCTV) in the pedestrian mall. You have been appointed to oversee the installation and operation of the CCTV system.

Case Study 1 – Closed Circuit Television

numerous agencies, require diverse skills, and demand ongoing commitment. Managing this array of program elements is why many good crime prevention policies and programs fail to deliver the desired results.

prevention initiatives effectively. Implementation has received rather less attention in academic research than the formulation of methods of reducing crime” (Tilley, N. (2009) Crime Prevention, Willan Publishing, page 146).

Implementation

opportunities to work through a series of steps relevant to applied crime prevention work.

Case Study 1 Exercise

1. Develop a project plan for implementing a CCTV system in this pedestrian mall. List all of the key steps that you would undertake in installing

Applying crime prevention knowledge and techniques in a real world context can be challenging. Numerous

Developed by Garner Clancey

Applied Crime Prevention Case Studies – Crime Prevention Implementation

Introduction

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

73

Arabic

Cantonese

Spanish

81

Sexual assault

511

70

1054

81

1058

518

18

3

Year 7

90

1136

592

13

13

Year 6

79

1043

800

18

7

Year 5

98

957

764

9

2

Year 4

95

956

773

10

6

Year 3

85

908

788

3

3

Year 2

80

946

689

10

7

Year 1

69

921

756

5

4

Current Year

86

67

1943

185

1048

0

529

588

1943

95

2008

224

1037

0

475

657

2218

2454

1269

2940

413

353

43

393

106

2090

272

1226

0

499

545

2311

2312

1636

2815

411

387

96

425

101

1819

231

1567

462

411

499

1839

1610

1038

2043

512

177

48

250

193

1783

177

1294

465

354

582

1436

1263

1059

1608

514

180

48

253

107

1856

156

1271

358

318

509

1318

1167

802

1420

522

134

51

185

104

1773

201

1193

268

303

436

1339

919

551

1458

564

123

41

153

96

1956

207

1189

223

255

457

1396

946

477

1235

629

122

48

177

90

1865

177

930

217

296

492

1335

896

438

1461

618

89

38

164

Review existing and previous crime prevention plans and associated plans Review local crime data (including police data, where available) Consult with key stakeholders (which might involve community groups, government agencies, local government personnel, etc.) Prioritise the key crime problems for attention Develop strategies to tackle key crime problems and allocate responsibilities for associated tasks Develop and implement the crime prevention plan

6. 7. What ongoing measures will be required to ensure that the crime prevention plan is effectively implemented? 8. How will you evaluate the effectiveness of the crime prevention plan?

Make mention of how you will address the issues of cultural and linguistic diversity in your consultations.

3. How would you prioritise the crime problems to be addressed in the crime prevention plan? 4. How will you address the geographical size of the LGA in developing the crime prevention plan? 5. Develop a consultation schedule, identifying agencies and individuals to be consulted, methods of consultation and challenges for each consultation.

that you might encounter in accessing this data.

1. Review the relevant legislation and policies in your jurisdiction and identify the key features pertinent to developing a local crime prevention plan. 2. Explain how you would use the crime data provided here and highlight what further crime data you would seek. Also identify the challenges

Exercise

7. Evaluate the impact of the plan

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The legislative and policy framework of the jurisdiction will often dictate what is required to develop a local crime prevention plan and the content of the plan. Despite these differences, the following are a small number of steps that would generally be followed:

Crime prevention plans can be developed by local government. These plans help to coordinate local crime prevention

Developing a Local Crime Prevention Plan

201 1687

Arson

0

Steal from person

Malicious damage to property

457

Steal from dwelling

874

591

Fraud

1698

Steal from motor vehicle Steal from retail store

2286

1268

1372 2662

Break and enter – non-dwelling Motor vehicle theft

2638

293 3365

389

292

Harassment, threatening behaviour and private nuisance

330

103 343

Break and enter – dwelling

Robbery with a weapon not

Robbery without a weapon

Fig. 4.6  Applied crime prevention case studies—local government crime prevention planning. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

493

958

Assault – Non-domestic violence related

9

20

Assault – domestice violence related

Attempted Murder

Year 8

6

Year 9

5

Murder

Offence

Table 2: Recorded crime data for the last 10 years

The median individual and household incomes are approximately half of the national levels.

5.6% 4.3%

Vietnamese

Income

6.4%

English Only

Main Language Spoken at Home

10.5% (Double the national rate)

17%

Australia

Country of Birth

Unemployment Rate

27.5%

179,893

Total Population 41.5%

104 square kilometres

Total Area

Table 1: Socio-demographic data taken from the most recent census.

geographical area, while others will have a small population dispersed over many thousands of square kilometres. Some will experience high crime, while others will experience low levels of crime. All LGAs will have their own unique characteristics that shape the nature of crime in the area and enable particular crime prevention strategies.

Much crime prevention work is coordinated at the local level. In Australia, this means within and across a local

The Local Government Area

government in the prevention of crime: • Governance and leadership – local government is in a strong position to coordinate service delivery, show leadership and to lobby higher levels of government for resources, legislative change and coordinated responses to crime. • Planning and design – the consent authority role of local government shapes the built environment. Crime can be designed out or minimised through planning controls that consider crime prevention. • Amenity and maintenance – local government is responsible for maintaining local amenities. Well maintained areas suggest a level of capable guardianship that can help to prevent crime and encourage use. • Social and community – local government provides numerous social and community services. These services can support people with diverse and complex needs and help to build social capital. • on local community members. Local government can facilitate, support and regulate (where necessary) local economic activity, including the late night economy.

There is considerable international literature that highlights the important role that local governments can assume

The Role of Local Government in Crime Prevention

97 424

Indecent assault, act of indecency and other sexual offences

Table 2: continued...

Developed by Garner Clancey

Applied Crime Prevention Case Studies – Local Government Crime Prevention Planning

Applying crime prevention knowledge and techniques in a real world context can be challenging. Numerous The following case study provides opportunities to work through a series of steps relevant to applied crime prevention work.

Introduction

74  G. CLANCEY

4. Are there positive unintended consequences that might also derive from particular crime prevention initiatives and programs?

3. How can you ensure that any evaluation of a crime prevention initiative or program is sensitive to capturing data on unintended consequences?

2. How can you anticipate negative unintended consequences of crime prevention when designing or developing a program or initiative?

of crime prevention programs and initiatives.

1. These are just some of the unintended consequences of crime prevention initiatives. List other examples of unintended consequences

Exercise

Paul Ekblom (1997) Gearing up Against Crime: a Dynamic Framework to Help Designers Keep up with the Adaptive Criminal in a Changing World. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention, 2: 249-265). Consequently, consideration needs to be given to the potential unintended consequences of crime prevention initiatives that might assist offending.

It has been suggested that on seeing a sign of this nature, commuters check their valuables (i.e. pat locations of

Source of image: http://www.thevancouverite.com/pictures/pickpocket-vancouver.jpg - accessed on 8 July 2010

Some crime prevention measures have had the opposite effect of what was intended. Sadly, some crime prevention initiatives have made it easier to offend. For example, signs were installed in certain stations in the London Underground advising patrons that pickpockets were active in the area. What reaction would you have to a sign of this nature?

Facilitating Offending

Fig. 4.7  Unintended (negative) consequences of crime prevention. (Developed by Garner Clancey)

of safety outside of this terrace house is an interesting question.

Some forms of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and situational crime prevention strategies can contribute to a fortress mentality. By installing fences, gates, locks, security cameras and other access control measures, people can become more fearful and less willing to venture outside of their safe cocoons.

Fortress Mentality

Despite the good intentions of the Neighbourhood Crime Prevention Handbook, it is possible that the unintended consequence of some of the information provided is to make people more fearful and less inclined to leave their homes. Inadvertently, this might make public space less safe, because there will be less natural surveillance due to less eyes on the street. Some of the messages contained also infer that women are inherently vulnerable and perhaps provide excessive reference to crimes committed by strangers, when crime statistics tend to suggest that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, for example, will frequently know the perpetrator.

Daley, P. (1987) The Neighbourhood Crime Prevention Handbook: The Comprehensive and Indispensable Guide to all aspects of Personal and Child Safety, Home Security, Community Policing, Small Business and Motor Vehicle Protection, Angus and Robertson Publishers, North Ryde.

“A very large percentage of crime throughout the Western world is committed against older people ... It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that there are those in our society who prey on the elderly – seeking any opportunity to take advantage of older people who are less capable of defending themselves and who are often more trusting because they are so much more vulnerable” (page 77)

vacant lots – particularly at night” (page 15)

“Never admit that you are alone in the house, to either a caller at the front door or to somebody on the telephone. If you are alone, always give the impression that there is a man about” (page 14)

Some efforts to prevent crime have resulted in victim blaming. Rather than focusing on deterring the offender, some crime prevention campaigns have advised ‘potential victims’ to modify their behaviour to avoid victimisation. Advice of this nature can promote fear and negatively impact upon the lives of the people targeted by these ‘educational’ campaigns.

Victim Blaming

It is often suggested that by implementing a crime prevention initiative in a particular area, crime will simply be displaced to an adjacent area. For example, the installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) in a pedestrian area might push crime to a neighbouring area without CCTV or improved access control measures (including swipe card access to the building, concierge security and swipe card operated elevators) in an apartment complex might result in greater targeting of less secure neighbouring apartment complexes. While the research evidence tends to suggest that (geographical) displacement is less of a problem than might be anticipated, it should no doubt be considered when a crime prevention initiative is being developed.

Displacement

Developed by Garner Clancey

Unintended (Negative) Consequences of Crime Prevention

A major challenge facing crime prevention practitioners is preventing unwanted and unintended negative consequences of their actions. There are many examples of crime prevention programs and initiatives that have had detrimental and deleterious outcomes and consequences, despite their good intentions. The following examples highlight just some of the unintended consequences that have been associated with some forms of crime prevention.

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

75

76 

G. CLANCEY

This is designed to stimulate consideration and discussion of the ‘cures that harm’ (McCord 2003). It is critical that students consider and understand the negative unintended consequences that can arise from attempts to prevent crime. ‘Doing no harm’ is a critical value encouraged during my courses and the exercises in this poster/case study place this consideration at the heart of crime prevention. In addition to the 40 posters/case studies available for free at http:// gclancey.com/, I have also developed some videos that provide an introduction to various aspects of crime prevention. These videos can be found at: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5MdnRrEUzg—this video provides an overview of crime prevention routinely adopted and encountered in public spaces, residential developments and commercial environments. • https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/14164—this video also provides an introduction to crime prevention but focuses on Tony and Farrington’s (1995a) typology of crime prevention. Examples are provided to illustrate the nature of each form of crime prevention covered in this model, including situational, community/social, developmental and criminal justice approaches to crime prevention. • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Ne-Qic5r4&feature=youtu. be—this video provides an overview of commonly used crime problem-solving models, including Ekblom’s 5Is and Goldstein’s SARA model. • h t t p s : / / w w w. y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = 0 _ R 2 c A b X M v A & feature=youtu.be—this video provides an overview of some elements of crime data. Given the central importance of crime data to crime problem-solving approaches, this video covers some introductory concepts such as what data is routinely available and some of the problems of accessing these data. Many of the resources were created with a view to visually communicating concepts, which has been useful in contexts where literacy is low or where English is a second (or third or fourth) language. Moreover, these case studies have been designed to be used in diverse geographical contexts (i.e. not site-specific) and with limited material that easily dates them. That said, a particular flavour of my teaching is a real focus on the local and the specific. This can be difficult for international students. It can

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

77

detract from a sense of universality, leaving some with a sense that much is contingent rather than generic. My motivation in presenting local case studies and content is to concretise the information. It very much helps to bring concepts together. Another way of doing this is through site visits and through the use of guest lecturers. I often attempt to involve a small number of guest lecturers generally centred around a case study. This helps to concretise the information; it allows students to play with local crime data; to hear from local actors and workers; to review relevant policies and documents; as well as to meet and network with those already in the field. It can also lead to contributing, even in a small way, to helping local actors. The case studies encourage an engagement with the myriad of practical problems often confronting crime prevention practitioners, such as urgency, competing political and ideological perspectives, the need for knowledge and insights drawn from a broad range of disciplines or industry groups, and the need for resources to analyse and respond to particular crime issues. The case study resources also lend themselves to being printed and used in small groups which has the benefit of augmenting any theoretical content or didactic delivery. Engaging with these case studies also encourages, even if momentarily, engagement with real-world problems that can then help students to critically interrogate relevant literature. Spending even a moment thinking about how to design a mentoring program for young people in contact with the criminal justice system or how a public space CCTV system would be developed, forces students to engage with the many decisions that are routinely made in any form of crime prevention program or initiative. This grounds student thinking which can then help in critically engaging with relevant literature. It also helps students to expose gaps in the literature and helps to identify the frequently limited utility of the literature to a practitioner needing to mount a campaign against a new liquor licence application or to respond to calls for excluding young people from a local park due to perceived antisocial behaviour—tasks common to many local government crime prevention practitioners.

Assessment Assessment has varied across courses/levels, but generally consists of a theoretical assessment item and a more applied assessment task. The former might engage with different approaches to crime prevention and/or

78 

G. CLANCEY

considered impacts on recent crime declines; the latter has traditionally been focused on assessing crime risks of a local area and proposing potential recommendations for improvements. The latter has been well received because it encourages engagement with applied concepts and issues such as the challenge of accessing crime data relevant to an audit location; the need to consider different perspectives on the nature of perceived crime problems; the difficulties of crafting recommendations that can be easily implemented; and the associated inter-agency dilemmas that routinely operate when considering local social programs and environmental infrastructure. Wimshurst (2011: 308) documented the experience of one student completing a similar assessment task in the following way: Tanya identified the successful completion of a practical crime prevention project in the 2nd year as her transformative experience … The project explored a problem in her local area, and she contrasted this real world activity with sitting in classrooms soaking up theory.

Anecdotally, this has often been the experience of students. Engagement with applied, practical concepts through an assessment task can really bring subject material to life and can trigger a passion for the topic more than traditional assessments can or do (in most instances).

Pedagogical Influences My interest in developing applied case studies, teaching materials and employing applied assessment tasks has been particularly influenced by three concepts: a recognition of diverse adult learning principles, the Harvard case method (HCM) and problem-based learning approaches. Firstly, I very much seek to respond to different adult learning principles. All courses taught, whether to undergraduates in the initial years or postgraduates with extensive careers, have been to adults who, whether they appreciate it or not, have experienced forms of crime prevention. Consequently, they are encouraged to participate and to share insights. Teaching materials, such as those shown above, have been crafted around different learning styles. Traditionally university students have been exposed to textbooks, readings and lectures. These forms are important but do not engage all students equally. Learning by doing or kinaesthetic learning is also important.

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

79

Exercises designed to engage students in analysing a crime problem, developing solutions, considering implementation issues and testing whether outcomes can be easily evaluated help to augment readings and lectures. I have found that these exercises are useful for engaging students who might not be well suited to visual and auditory learning; exercises allow students with different insights and understandings to discuss their approaches and to share relevant information and insights gleaned from reading; and to consider practical application and impediments. One important practical consideration rarely mentioned in relevant texts or scholarly on crime prevention is cost. Invariably crime prevention approaches have cost implications. Even if in a limited way, students can be encouraged to think about budgets and which agencies/entities might contribute to funding a crime prevention initiative. Secondly, the Harvard case method (HCM) has influenced my thinking about how to present thorny public policy problems. The HCM is “one of the instructional approaches that emphasise participant-centred learning” (Shieh et  al. 2012: 149). The HCM encourages students to develop a “professional sense of management actively, interactively and collaboratively through discussions of real world cases” (Shieh et al. 2012: 150). While the HCM generally adopts a very structured and often competitive approach, I have tended to create a more relaxed and less pressured environment that promotes exploration of issues rather than definitive resolution. Thus, the HCM has influenced my approach rather than being my approach to teaching crime prevention and community safety. Thirdly, problem-based learning methods have also impacted my approach to teaching. Pete and Fogarty (2018) note that: Traditional models of instruction assume that students must master content before applying what they’ve learned to solve a problem. Problem-based learning (PBL) reverses that order and assumes that students will master content while solving a meaningful problem … The problem provides the purpose for learning the content, and the content becomes the vehicle that carries values life skills. Both content and process are on equal ground as ­students learn such rigorous skills as thinking, organising, collaborating, and communicating across various disciplinary areas. (1–2)

Kim (2014: 1) suggests that while “problem-based learning (PBL) has been successfully used in many disciplines for over 30 years, it has not yet been widely adopted by criminal justice instructors”. Kim also notes that

80 

G. CLANCEY

“[i]n criminology and criminal justice education, PBL can offer many advantages over traditional teaching methods” (2014: 9). I believe that the applied nature of crime prevention and community safety topics lend themselves to a problem-based learning approach. Together, these approaches have influenced the development of numerous teaching materials and resources which seek to combine real-world problems with theoretical and empirical research.

Limitations and Challenges While I have invested considerable time and resources in developing these teaching materials and have used them successfully in numerous settings, I am conscious of various limitations. Firstly, they are static. While they have mostly been designed not to date quickly, it has inevitably occurred. Photos can date due to signage and other images that are linked to particular periods. References date as new publications become available and are not easily incorporated. Local references, crucial to some case studies, are not always well understood, especially by international students. This can place some students at a disadvantage when discussing particular locations or scenarios. Beyond these limitations of the teaching resources, I have faced and continue to face a number of challenges in delivering crime prevention and community safety courses. Some of the most pressing are described below: • Striking the balance between critical and applied approaches—I have observed a tendency to pitch more applied content to undergraduates and more critical content to postgraduates. This has often resulted in the undergraduate students being crime prevention zealots and the postgraduates being crime prevention nihilists. Ultimately, striking a better balance is preferable. • A frequently faced challenge is pitching a course at the right level and responding to the different learning styles, knowledge and capacity of students. Invariably there will be great diversity within any one student group in relation to learning styles, motivation, knowledge and capacity (both intellectually and time available to focus on the specific subject). It is a constant challenge creating course content that adequately responds to the diverse learning styles, interests and capacities of students.

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

81

• Another key challenge is selecting content to include and deciding what content will be excluded. Given the burgeoning literature, the diverse contexts in which crime prevention is applied and the different approaches that can be adopted to teaching crime prevention and community safety, invariably decisions are made about what is covered and what is not. I am acutely aware that important issues such as Indigenous models of crime prevention, approaches to preventing key crime types, and the complex policy processes underpinning crime prevention policies are not adequately treated in many of the courses that I have taught. • A key personal challenge is not foreclosing student discussions based on my own perceptions or experiences. In many instances I have a close relationship with particular content by virtue of a project that I have worked on. This closeness can be problematic as it can result in a tendency to stifle rather than stimulate debate and discussion. • Having now taught crime prevention and community safety subjects for over 15 years, there is a degree of fatigue that arises. Repetition of delivery can make it difficult to find the desired energy and enthusiasm essential for quality teaching. I have found that the case studies can help overcome this problem as new ones can be developed to provide colour and movement and discussions stimulated through the use of the case studies invariably introduces novelty.

Conclusion I have provided some insight into my experiences teaching crime prevention and community safety subjects over the last 15 years. Much of the discussion has focused on my approach to teaching and on the resources that I have developed to augment my teaching. This has been provided in the interests of providing insights that are rarely discussed outside of individual institutions and ideally to share resources so that they might be used elsewhere (even if only to be critiqued). In concluding this chapter, it is important to reflect on some of the wider developments that have provided a backdrop to my experiences. There has been much commentary and debate about changes to the higher education landscape in Australia. While these have been well rehearsed elsewhere, it is worth noting some key features of the current tertiary sector and key changes in recent years. Thornton (2013) observed that:

82 

G. CLANCEY

… universities are no longer the élite institutions they were when attended by a mere five per cent of the population. While ‘massification’ appears to be good for democracy, the transmutation of students into customers means that their primary aim is credentialism, not a liberal education, despite the best endeavours of committed lecturers. (2013: 72)

This ‘massification’ and transforming of students into customers has occurred alongside rising costs of living. Many tertiary students now face unprecedented challenges in balancing study and work commitments. This detracts from the time and energy able to be dedicated to study and places increasing pressure on vocational outcomes of degrees. Students need to be employed to work off the debts accumulated during their studies. This places greater pressure on students to get good marks, which often has numerous negative consequences for students including increased anxiety and pressure. Pressure to get jobs after completing tertiary studies has been severely impacted in the criminology and criminal justice arena by the surge in numbers of criminology graduates. The growth in criminology and criminal justice degrees has been well documented by Bartels et  al. (2015). They noted that 23 of the 39 Australian universities (at the time of their research) offered criminology and/or criminal justice degrees (2015: 122), with others signalling their interest in following this trend and capitalising of growing student enrolments for criminology and/or criminal justice degrees. This has mostly been driven by the advent of undergraduate criminology degrees. Historically, criminology degrees were only or predominantly delivered at the postgraduate level in Australia. With the advent and proliferation of undergraduate criminology and/or criminal justice degrees, there has been a significant increase in the number of criminology/criminal justice graduates who now compete for relatively few jobs. In many instances, this has resulted in students enrolling in postgraduate courses (often with similar content to their undergraduate degrees) to help with their employment prospects. This can increase student debts and does not always lead to improved vocational outcomes or prospects. Consequently, I believe that it is crucial that criminology and criminal justice degrees engage with real-world problems and promote not just theoretical mastery but also the development of skills that will equip students for life beyond the academy. I have attempted to do this through a series of case studies, some of which have been presented in this chapter,

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

83

videos and other materials that require students to engage with the mess of program design and implementation. Anecdotally students enjoy learning through problems and case studies and a number have reported the benefits of these exercises in future employment. However, despite positive anecdotal feedback, there remains a gap in researching employment outcomes of criminology students, and those completing crime prevention and community safety subjects more specifically. Research of this kind will help to shape future teaching criminology degrees and specific units such as crime prevention and community safety.

References Bartels, L., McGovern, A., & Richards, K. (2015). Degrees of Difference? A Preliminary Study of Criminology Degrees at Australian Universities. Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Journal, 48(1), 119–146. Campbell, A. (2005). Keeping the “Lady” Safe: The Regulation of Femininity Through Crime Prevention Literature. Critical Criminology, 13(2), 119–140. Cordova, D., Estrada, Y., Malcolm, S., Huang, S., Brown, C., Pantin, H., & Prado, G. (2014). Prevention Science: An Epidemiological Approach. In Z.  Sloboda & H.  Petras (Eds.), Defining Prevention Science. Advances in Prevention Science. Boston, MA: Springer. Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in newport News. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Ekblom, P. (2011). Crime Prevention, Security and Community Safety Using the 5Is Framework. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Farrell, G., Tilley, N., Tseloni, A., & Mailey, J. (2008). The Crime Drop and the Security Hypothesis. British Society of Criminology Newsletter, 62, 17–21. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailey, J., & Tilley, N. (2011). The Crime Drop and the Security Hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 147–175. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 236–258. Hilyard, P., & Tombs, S. (2007). From ‘Crime’ to Social Harm? Crime Law and Social Change, 48(1), 9–25. Homel, P., & Fuller, G. (2015). Understanding the Local Government Role in Crime Prevention. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 505, Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Homel, R., & Homel, P. (2012). Implementing Crime Prevention: Good Governance and a Science of Implementation. In B.  C. Welsh & D.  P. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

84 

G. CLANCEY

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New  York: Vintage Books. Kim, D.-Y. (2014). Adopting Problem-Based Learning in Criminology and Criminal Justice Education: Challenge and Response. Sage Open, 4, 1–13. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press. McCord, J. (2003). Cures That Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 16–30. National Crime Prevention. (1999). Crime Prevention: Training Needs Assessment. Canberra: National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General’s Department. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press. O’Malley, P., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Reinventing Prevention: Why Did “Crime Prevention” Develop So Late? The British Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 373–389. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Pete, B., & Fogarty, R. (2018). Everyday Problem-Based Learning: Quick Projects to Build Problem-Solving Fluency. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, e-book. Rothengatter, M., & Hil, R. (2013). A Precarious Presence: Some Realities and Challenges of Academic Casualization in Australian Universities. Australian Universities Review, 55(2), 51–59. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & Mackenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-­ Based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & Mackenzie, D. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-­ Based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge. Shieh, A., Lyu, J., & Cheng, Y. (2012). Implementation of the Harvard Case Method Through a Plan-Do-Check-Act Framework in a University Course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(2), 149–160. Stanko, E. (2000). Victims R Us: The Life History of “Fear of Crime” and the Politicisation of Violence. In T.  Hope & R.  Sparks (Eds.), Crime Risk and Insecurity. London: Routledge. Thornton, M. (2013). Inhabiting the Neoliberal University. Alternative Law Journal, 38(2), 72. Tilley, N. (2009). Crime Prevention. Devon: Willan Publishing. Tonry, M., & Farrington, D. (1995a). Preface. In M.  Tonry & D.  Farrington (Eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategies Approaches to Crime Prevention, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 19). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

4  TEACHING CRIME PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY 

85

Tonry, M., & Farrington, D. (Eds.). (1995b). Building a Safer Community: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Toumbourou, J. (2016). Prevention of Adolescent Risk Behavior and Promotion of Positive Youth Development. In M. Israelashvili & J. Romano (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of International Prevention Science (pp.  432–455). Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, J., & de Waard, J. (1991). A Two-Dimensional Typology of Crime Prevention Projects. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 23(4), 483–503. Watts, R., Bessant, J., & Hil, R. (2008). International Criminology: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Wimshurst, K. (2011). Applying Threshold Concepts to an Unsettled Field: An Exploratory Study in Criminal Justice Education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 301–314. Zedner, L. (2009). Security. London: Routledge.

CHAPTER 5

Trigger Warnings in Criminology Teaching Contexts: Some Reflections Based on Ten Years of Teaching a Sensitive Topic Derek Dalton

Introduction This chapter seeks to explore a practice that has arisen relatively recently in University teaching both in Australia and around the world that sees some lecturers feel compelled to give what is termed a “trigger warning” to students. Such a warning is typically given by lecturers when students are going to be exposed to material or content in a lecture or a reading that is perceived as having the capacity to upset, disturb, traumatise or otherwise deeply unsettle them. The practice of issuing trigger warnings is so new that many Universities in Australia have yet to formally implement policy about their use. Indeed, for many lecturers, their use is partly dictated by factors like familiarity with the practice and personal ethical issues linked to concern about student welfare. In this chapter I seek to do five things. Firstly, I will carefully explain precisely what a trigger warning is, taking some time to explore where the D. Dalton (*) College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_5

87

88 

D. DALTON

concept originated. Secondly, I will seek to juxtapose arguments proposed by both supporters and critics of trigger warnings. Here I seek to tease out the reasons why such warnings might be beneficial and contrast these with counter arguments that frame trigger warnings as problematic. My goal is not to convince the reader about the efficacy or morality of issuing trigger warnings. Rather, my goal is to present as balanced a view as possible so that the reader might glean a better understanding of the chorus of opposing voices that surround their use. Thirdly, I wish to draw upon ten years of experience teaching sensitive material to further elucidate my thinking about trigger warnings. This case study—based on my topic Crime, Law and Trauma—will enable me to tease out my opinion about the relevance and applicability of trigger warmings in a Criminology topic that was arguably primed to disturb, upset and unsettle students. I offer this case study not as an instruction on how to use trigger warnings, but rather as a cautionary lesson in how we should not blindly adopt a new concept, even when pressure exists to do so. It will become evident when reading this case study that deep seated ambivalence and suspicion about the value of trigger warnings guided my approach to their use. Fourthly, this chapter’s penultimate section will identify some challenges that cluster around the use of trigger warnings in contemporary criminology in Australian University environments. The pedagogical value of trigger warnings is still far for clear or proven, and yet risk-adverse teaching environments in modern universities may take the ‘choice’ about their use out of the hands of individual educators. In this section I seek to provoke the reader to carefully consider precisely how trigger warnings might fit in the contemporary teaching landscape of Criminology and Criminal Justice in Australia. Fifthly, the chapter concludes by advocating that there is true value in taking students out of their comfort zone and that trigger warnings pose the risk of foreclosing on this possibility. It also advocates that the choice about whether to adopt trigger warnings should be left to individual academics who are best placed to make an informed decision about the need and value for such warnings in their particular topic(s).

An Overview of Trigger Warnings: Origins, Definitions and Controversies The concept of the trigger warning first emerged in the United States in Online Feminist Blogs discussion forums in 1990s (Pigliucci 2015; Forstie 2016). The logic was that warnings were required to caution women

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

89

r­eading the blogs that topics like rape and themes of sexual violence detailed in the blogs might trigger pre-existing trauma or anxiety. Later, trigger warning debates arose in US College campuses in relation to a range of teaching contexts (see Robbins 2016). Chiefly, these contexts related to warnings about novels or classic texts whose plots or themes might trigger trauma amongst the readership. In one particular instance F.  Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby was signalled out as requiring a warning in relation to the theme of suicide ideation. In another instance Ovid’s classic of Greek mythology Metamorphoses was decreed as requiring a trigger warning because of the themes of rape. Soon, College campuses across the United States were embroiled in heated debates about the value and need for trigger warnings to be issued in a variety of educational contexts. The famous author of the controversial novel The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie, was disturbed by the notion of trigger warnings and remarked in the context of a pending NYU lectureship: I think I am a little worried about all this business of trigger warnings and so on. I mean, I was quite encouraged by the fact that Columbia decided not to put trigger warnings on its books and I would hope that most universities would make that decision because I think that the idea that a university is a place where young people are cocooned and protected from things that will challenge and upset them seems to me is the exact opposite of what a university should be. (College Fix 2015: unpaginated)

Irrespective of Rushdie’s personal misgivings, once trigger warnings emerged in the education landscape, they soon became a concept that attracted much controversy, heated debate and bitter disagreement about their adoption. Part of the problem is that the phenomenon of trigger warnings ‘soon mushroomed into a staggeringly broad advisory system’ that included ‘topics as diverse as sex, pregnancy, addiction, bullying, suicide, sizeism, ableism and homophobia’ (Lukianoff 2016: 58). The inclusion in some trigger warning regimes of ‘alcohol, blood and insects’ were labelled as infantilising (Lukianoff 2016: 59). Hume (2015) argues that since their inception, trigger warnings have eroded free speech because people are frightened of being accused of deliberately offending others. Here offence is marshalled as something negative for which the instigator of the offensive material (the teacher who presents it) is culpable. A rather unpleasant consumerist mentality has accompanied the emergence of trigger warnings. Writing specifically in the context of legal

90 

D. DALTON

e­ ducation, Chanbonpin (2015: 616) notes that ‘[t]houghtful educators have voiced their opposition to the use of trigger warnings in the classroom, citing the consumerist attitude and sense of entitlement that appear to drive student demands for these classroom concessions’. However, we should not distort this consumerist picture by asserting that all students are demanding the adoption of trigger warnings. Bentley’s UK study (2017: 481) recently found that ‘students are equally divided as academics and pedagogical writers on the issue of trigger warnings and for the same reasons’. This begs an important question that is often elided in the furore around trigger warnings, what precisely do we imagine is being ‘triggered’ by a trigger warning? The answer is not as simple one might imagine. Quite a few different things that vary in degree or severity of affect are imagined as being triggered in a student if they are exposed to problematic syllabi. At one end of the spectrum we have the trio of discomfort, anxiety and offence being imagined as potentially being triggered. The problem here, of course, is that these responses [to images, concepts or themes that students are exposed to] are quite subjective. What upsets or offends one student may not affect another student. At the other end of the spectrum, the same stimuli in the syllabus might trigger flashbacks, panic attacks and/or PTSD in an individual student. A suitable illustration of this situation would be the student who has been the victim of rape or sexual assault and finds themselves deeply upset and affected by the exploration of rape law themes in a Criminal Law class. And yet Harvard trauma expert Professor Richard McNally stridently argues that ‘trigger warnings are counter therapeutic because they encourage avoidance of reminders of trauma, and avoidance maintains PTSD’ (McNally 2016: unpaginated). Lukianoff cites further evidence for this contention in an article entitled ‘Treatment, Not Trigger Warnings’ by psychiatrist Sarah Roff who argues that ‘training students to avoid certain topics can be quite detrimental’ (2016: 63). In any event, we can perhaps all agree that students who are at risk of suffering PTSD harm as a result of exposure to educational ­material are those most deserving of protection, rather than students who might just suffer mild discomfort. Different religious, cultural and social beliefs may have a bearing on who gets triggered and what by. Similarly, people from minority groups may feel othered and uncomfortable when the syllabus happens to touch upon material that they feel a close personal affinity to. For example, a GLBTIQ student might have anxiety triggered by a history class that

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

91

‑documents the violence associated with Stonewall riots in New York in the 1960s. The one thing that educators should realise is that it is practically impossible to identify all potentially triggering themes in their teaching material. Rather, it is helpful to operate from a position of accepting that lots of different content can trigger some sort of adverse reaction in students. It is helpful to proceed by acknowledging that there are lots of different contexts where warnings are provided in life. These include a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material. Other common warning contexts include: • Before a TV show is screened [e.g. warning show contains graphic violence] • Before a film is screened [classification is advised in the UK] • Before a news segment depicts graphic content [e.g. famine and extreme suffering] • Before a news segment depicts images of deceased Indigenous people [as such a warning gives an indigenous viewer an opportunity to look away or turn off the TV] This rich and established culture of warning seems to have influenced the emergence of the trigger warning in educational contexts. Framed succinctly, in an educational context—as hitherto outlined—a trigger warning is an alert that teachers and lecturers are expected to issue if the content of a course might upset any student or prompts an adverse reaction. An attendant issue that is worth exploring is the question of when to warn? Conventional wisdom sees most teachers or lecturers issue a warning prior to exposure to the potentially triggering content. This is just common sense as it would not be beneficial to issue a trigger warning halfway through a lecture. Anyone heeding such an untimely warning would look conspicuous leaving the lecture theatre. Indeed, some affected ­students might reluctantly stay to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Clearly this would defeat the therapeutic logic of the trigger warning. Conventional wisdom for those who issue trigger warnings is that that they should be announced well ahead of time (e.g. a week before a lecture, printed on front page of a set reading item before students embarks on set reading). This gives the students ample opportunity to respond. That response is individual and may include:

92 

D. DALTON

• Avoiding the trigger material altogether (and perhaps communicating this decision to the lecturer if appropriate) • Exposing themselves to the material (with the ‘warning’ enabling them to psychologically prepare themselves so that the distress or anguish of the triggering material is minimised or ameliorated) • Seeking some sort of alternative reading from the lecturer that might be less ‘triggering’ Some of the most strident criticisms of trigger warnings, is that assuming that violent or explicit images will ‘trigger’ students is a rather simplistic view of how trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) work. Here—as will subsequently be explored in more detail later in this chapter—some psychologists and psychiatrists would say educators are working with a profoundly flawed understanding of how trauma is triggered. João Florêncio (2016: unpaginated) in his The Conversation piece, summarises the problem well, writing: As researchers have argued, anything can be triggering for someone with PTSD—from the odour of a perfume to a song, or an “innocent” pat on the back. So assuming people with PTSD will all be triggered by the exact same experience is overlooking the specificity of their pain and life story. And who am I, as an academic, to decide in advance what is or what is not triggering to others? What right do I have to make such assumptions?

Filipovic (2014) concurs, arguing that the trouble with PTSD is that its triggers are often unpredictable and individually specific. One could argue that certain themes like The Holocaust, sexual violence and racial violence might be safely presumed to upset general classes of students, but when it comes to individual triggers, lecturers are just not well placed to predict what these triggers are.

To Warn or Not to Warn: Competing Views Value of Issuing Trigger Warnings

of the Pedagogical

A review of educational blogs, educational opinion pieces published in newspapers and online, and the relative dearth of academic articles devoted to trigger warnings reveals some of the key arguments put forward for

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

93

using or refraining from using trigger warnings. These reasons recur frequently couched in slightly different language, so it is almost impossible to attribute who first raised them. Occasionally, a reason is so specific or unique that I have attributed it to a particular person. Arguments in Favour of Issuing Trigger Warnings • It demonstrates that the lecturer respects the welfare of their students • They are quick and efficient ways of giving students a ‘heads up’ warning (Manne 2015) • It is a practice of openness and transparency (allows students to anticipate exposure to particular content) • Such warnings fit into discourses of inclusivity and students support (Forstie 2016) • Warnings prevent students from being (re)traumatised in spaces where they should have the right to feel safe (Kyrölä 2015) • Warnings enable students to take steps to prevent their emotional and mental health being compromised Arguments Against Issuing Trigger Warnings • Triggers seem to act performatively, ‘not only describing but also producing audiences as ready to be mentally shot down and shattered’ (Kyrölä 2015: 137) • Warnings may promote anxiety or expectations for an unpleasant emotional learning experience (that may not be forthcoming) • Some students feel panicked in the face of receiving warnings • Some students will engage in avoidance activities once a warning is issued (and thereby miss a learning opportunity) • Labelling content as potentially triggering can effectively mark specific content as marginalized and overly-determine the course of class discussions • Warnings are a low stakes way of to identify yourself as person who is conscious of social justice issues (frames those who don’t issue warming as less caring educators) (Filipovic 2014) • Trigger warnings don’t exist in real life (so issuing semi-protects students rather than teaching them coping strategies) (Friedersdorf 2014)

94 

D. DALTON

• Trigger warnings make students ill-equipped to face the world full of offense and brutality (Westerand as cited in Lukianoff and Haidt 2015) • Being jolted out of one’s conform zone can open up new worlds (Kyrölä 2015) • Human representations of the world are often horrific and therefore painful to consume (Essig 2014) • The material that comes after the warning is so confronting and upsetting that the warning does not assuage the response

Making Some Sense of the Two Positions Advocated About Using Trigger Warnings The first thing to stress is this is not a numbers game in relation to the arguments outlined above in the bullet points. The relative numerical lack of ‘pro’ arguments is easily explained by the fact that they are general arguments. Chat forums devoted to trigger warning use are laden with comments and sentiment that are almost identical to the five key arguments situated in this section. The key ethical issue at play here is a concern for student welfare underpinned by an ethos of pastoral care. This is to be welcomed and respected. Those who issue trigger warnings do so according to an ameliorative logic. A warning lets students prepare themselves (harden their resolve as it were) for exposure to unpleasant and discomforting material. Proponents of trigger warnings are saying they are doing nothing more complex than merely issuing a warning. For those who choose to do this, it is signalling a desire to ready students for the difficult engagement that lies ahead. The ‘against’ arguments are much more complex and nuanced and run to four key tenets. Firstly, warnings are framed as useless or inert. The logic at play here is that however well-intentioned a warning might be, it does little to soften the blow of the exposure that will follow. This is invisible from the second key point, which is that world is a violent, ugly place where terrible things happen. Here warnings are seen as useless in the face of University courses detailing unavoidable brute facts pertaining to war, famine, genocide, slavery, racism, gendered and homophobic violence as delivered in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The third tier of arguments suggests that trigger warning can prompt avoidance by students who do not want to face the ugly realities of life that inevitably get

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

95

­ resented at University. A concomitant logic is that trigger warnings shut p down particular lines of discussion. That is the thing that is ‘triggered’ effectively becomes taboo. Here, trigger warnings are imagined as a type of censorship. The fourth clusters around the notion that the world is a brutal, painful place. Here learning is a painful task because it necessitates student exposure to realties that are profoundly unpleasant to face. I have long subscribed to this idea that the world contains unpleasant realties that are worth exposing students to. Filipovic (2014: unpaginated) asserts that colleges ‘are not intellectual or emotional safe zones. Nor should they be’. I concur with this view, not because I am some sort of educational sadist and wish to make students squirm when confronted with the ugly realities of history, but rather because I believe that there is something paradoxically worthwhile about teaching sensitive topics like genocide and The Holocaust (Shoah). In the following section—as outlined in the Introduction—I will discuss my experience teaching a topic that—for many observers—might have presented a strong case for issuing trigger warnings. In this section I will explain why I did not issue such warnings by way of explaining a somewhat different approach (that still goes some way to warning and preparing students) without using the formal terminology of issuing a “trigger warning”.

Crime, Law and Trauma: An Approach to Teachings Sensitive Topics I have taught Crime; Law and Trauma—a third year elective at my University—nine  times over a 14 year period. The concept of law is approached in an innovative manner. Students are accustomed to thinking that law is a regulatory tool that rights wrongs, protects people from harm and responds effectively to human suffering. Through a series of unique case studies, students are empowered to gain a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of socio-legal concepts. And by employing a ‘deep approach’ to learning (Biggs 1989: 12), students can satisfy their curiosity about the course’s themes by conducting their own self-directed research project. An extract from the Topic Guide summarises further elaborates what the topic is about: The law sometimes produces social wrongs, imparts harm and fails to assuage human suffering. This topic will prompt you (the student) to question the complex interrelationship between law, violence and trauma and to

96 

D. DALTON

critically explore the variety and extent of trauma associated with the imposition of law in various historical, contemporary, political, social and cultural contexts.

Crime, Law and Trauma covers an almost overwhelming breadth of material, but the syllabus was reined in using ‘trauma’ as an enduring theme. Each of the case studies selected identifies a unique approach to trauma or a distinctive example of it that is linked back to the theme in question (e.g. Individual, Collective trauma etcetera as indicated in the left hand column). Each of the case studies is designed to engage student interest and generate dialogue. As the table below indicates, the course engages with a diverse array of sensitive topics. Theme related to trauma

Case study

Individual trauma Individual trauma Collective trauma

The trials and tribulations of Oscar Wilde Mock Justice: The show trial of Sophie Scholl The Holocaust: The role of the law as a tool of genocide Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge and “The Killing Fields” Colonisation and the remnants of suffering (Aboriginal bones & artefacts in museums) McCarthyism in America Offensive art

Collective trauma The trauma of displacement

The trauma/fear of the ‘other’ Traumas of vision I: Law as arbiter of what we can view/see Traumas of vision II: Law as arbiter of Film censorship what we can view/see The trauma of legally sanctioned Death penalty in America killings Encountering trauma: The Memorials all over the world memorialisation of crime

A detailed overview of the assessment scheme attached to this topic is not warranted in this chapter but is outlined elsewhere (Dalton 2010). This innovative topic received three teachings awards (Faculty level, ­Vice-­Chancellor level at my Institution and an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Citation). I offer this information not to boast but to supply evidence that my peers have deemed the topic very effective in engaging student interest. When I first started teaching this topic, the notion of ‘trigger warnings’ had surfaced in America but was not circulating in educational discourse in Australia. Nevertheless, I understood that the material I was going to

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

97

be teaching had the capacity to shock, disturb, upset or unsettle students. An ethics of concern for the welfare of my students guided my approach to preparing students to engage with the sensitive material (see Rogers and Webb 1991; Held 2006). I embarked on a process of (1) Fully disclosing the sort of traumatic material the course will contain and (2) Negotiating the terms of exposure to this material. Full disclosure entailed attaching statements about the conforming nature of the material ‘up front’ in Topic Guides, in descriptions of the topic provided in handbooks and in email and Internet communications. The Introductory lecture provided an indication of the types of content and themes that would be covered in the course. In this lecture I took great pains to emphasise that students will be exposed to material that they might find unsettling, upsetting and confronting. Students were invited to peruse the course guide (and course reader) to make an informed decision about whether this was a course in which they wish to participate. In the nine iterations in which this topic was taught, no student was compelled to stay enrolled. On two occasions, students emailed me to say they had decided not to pursue the topic due to its challenging content. Of course, it is impossible with class attrition to accurately predict whether the material prompted other students to withdraw without providing an explanation. The process of negotiating the terms of exposure to the challenging material operated in this manner. In class—having clearly established that the course will entail exposure to sensitive topics and material—the students and I would try to negotiate how best students might take care of themselves in the face of the challenging material. Whilst each discussion is unique, in most years the following common protective strategies were raised and agreed upon: • No student will be compelled to attend a particular lecture that she/ he believes will be too distressing or confronting • Students will endeavour to show deference to the serious nature of the sensitive topics by couching their discussions in a respectful ­manner befitting the topic under consideration (e.g. no inappropriate joking) • Should a student suddenly find himself/herself becoming distressed or unable/unwilling to remain in a particular class, he/she can quietly leave without providing any reason or notice

98 

D. DALTON

• Because race, class, ethnicity, religion and sexuality are concepts that underpin some of the sensitive topics explored, students will be mindful of saying things that might offend other students These safeguards are by no means fool proof or perfect. For example, a shy student might feel very noticeable availing himself/herself of the advice provided in bullet point #3. Nevertheless, in Survey Monkey™ questionaries implemented to gauge student satisfaction, it was rare for students to criticise this dual process of full disclosure and negotiation. Indeed, over the years students who expressed reticence and reservations in Week One about the material they were going to encounter, wrote positive testimonials in the student feedback surveys administered after week 12 (as the following anonymous feedback outlines): I used to be a fan of the death penalty before I studied this topic. I thought ‘They get what they deserve’. Now I am aware of how shameful state-­ sanctioned murder is … and how barbaric the process is I liked the general warning about upsetting material provided in the Topic Guide. It helped prevent me getting emotionally upset or freaked out by the lecture content. I enjoyed the lecture about offensive art. Whilst I found some of the art pretty tasteless and ‘out there’, I can now appreciate where the artist was coming from and what he was trying to say to us I was relieved that we could choose to skip lectures that we thought might be too much for us. Allowing us to miss classes that might be upsetting was a great idea. I was able to miss the Holocaust class because I knew it would make me get emotional and possibly cry (So embarrassing!) I felt traumatised by the Holocaust lecture. It was shocking to learn the Nazis used horrid language to describe the number of corpses at Auschwitz, but after I reflected on it [the lecture] I came to appreciate that facing such unpleasant knowledge is important. I wanted to avoid the class about aboriginal bones as I am an indigenous person. I thought it would just upset me, but I found it so good because it covered how we are fighting back and making them [sic] museums in England listen to our demands for justice. I didn’t really want to go to the ‘Killing Fields’ lecture. It upset me and shook me up; especially the description about bashing babies to death

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

99

against trees, but I feel this atrocity deserves scrutiny. Even if we would rather not know. I thought that I knew all about Oscar Wilde having seen one of his plays in the city. I was going to skip the lecture but showed up anyway. I was surprised by his cruel treatment by the Victorian courts. It really upset me. Yet I felt better for learning how his trial ruined his life. That video clip of his life in prison was so moving. I felt an affinity with him and his suffering because I am gay. Thanks for including his story in the topic!

This last two student comments really resonate with me because they echo lots of student sentiment conveyed in person over the years. That is, they often articulated that whilst they didn’t want to go to a particular class, most were thankful they did, even if the educational journey had been harrowing. Some readers of this chapter may well be asking why didn’t you simply adopt ‘trigger warnings’ in this topic? Indeed, a student wrote to me in 2017 prior to the first lecture imploring me to adopt trigger warnings: Hi Derek I am hoping that you have planned to have trigger warning slides during lectures. There may be students who become feel uncomfortable during some of the topic discussions. I only ask because I have seen students become upset or panicked in lectures previously. Trigger warnings on the screen worked well in criminal law. I am just concerned about the mental health of my classmates [smiley face logo inserted into her email] Kind regards Laura -------

This was my reply: Dear Laura, I am very aware of trigger warnings but—to be honest—the entire topic is full of upsetting, discomforting and confronting material. Depending on ones’ background, it would practically be impossible to have appropriately placed trigger warnings. Instead, I will give a general warning at the start of the Topic and ask students to exercise their own discretion (e.g. If you are Jewish and don’t want to be exposed to the Holocaust lecture—stay away that day). Additionally, we will negotiate some terms around exposure in class. It’s very tricky. The title of this topic should well and truly give clear indication of the sorts of material that students will be exposed to. And, to

100 

D. DALTON

be honest, “Trigger Warnings” are not without controversy (as a recent ABC segment explored). The world is full of ugly realties that we cannot necessarily shield ourselves from. Still, I thank you for your concern. It is appreciated. Please understand that this is a profoundly challenging problem. I do my best to warn students that the topics are confronting, but the nature of this topic is not really one that lends itself to this concept (It’s easy in Criminal Law to give such a warning for rape content, but 100% of my topic content is confronting in one way or another). Thanks Derek

Lukianoff argues ‘Those who oppose trigger warnings area accused of being insensitive to the needs of vulnerable groups’ (2016: 63), but my professional practice—as demonstrated in the case study—demonstrates that an ethics of care in relation to exposing students to sensitive material is possible without having to explicitly employ the concept of the trigger warning.

Does the Existence of the Growing ‘Trigger Warnings’ Discourse Pose a Threat to Our Freedoms as Criminology Teachers? My future-looking answer to this question is ‘Yes’. I think they pose a real risk to lecturers in terms of our academic freedoms. The reality is that the disciplines of Criminal Justice and Criminology are littered with topics, themes and concepts that might readily be judged to be worthy of issuing a ‘trigger warning’. Policing and Corrections contain lots of material that might offend and upset students. Whilst the following list is by no means exhaustive, a few obvious examples include: • Indigenous issues (particularly Incarceration and Deaths in custody) • Colonisation (early White history of violence against indigenous population) • Treatment of Indigenous people by the police • Incarceration in general [for any student who has had a relative imprisoned] • The Stolen Generation • Use of lethal force by police

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

101

• Death penalty (use in America and other jurisdictions) • Treatment of women in court in sexual assault and rape classes • Sexual Abuse (by clergy) • Coronial court issues These concepts get woven into lectures in ways that are not necessarily readily applicable to the imposition of a ‘trigger warning’. Indeed, many students—in contributing ideas to class discussions—can introduce ideas that theoretically would warrant a trigger warning. Here, the lecturer has no opportunity to predict such an occurrence or prevent it. My personal concern—which may or may not be shared by other educators—is that if we pathologise learning environments as places of exposure to risky material, then this sets in pace a kind of self-fulfilling cycle of causation. That is, if ‘trigger warnings’ become the norm in University campuses all over Australia, they pre-empt the idea we (the lecturer or teacher) are somehow the agent of the students’ misery [depression, discomfort or anxiety] for not having adequately warned them about triggering content. The logical end point of such a situation is a future that looks something like this. If we fail to issue a ‘trigger warning’, we risk being disciplined or admonished for such a failure. Here, I stress the risk is not that we have done something, but rather failed to do something. Consider the following hypothetical scenario. You are a teacher who happens to regularly issue trigger warnings in relation to your Second year Policing course/topic. You inadvertently neglect to issue a ‘warming’ in connection to a particular class (either because you forgot or because you failed to predict ahead-of-time that the material had some latent potential to offend). Subsequently an individual or group of students takes offence. They make a formal complaint against you; accusing you of being insensitive. If a culture of mandating the use trigger warnings prevails, your behaviour might get construed as dereliction of professional duty. Lukianoff frames this issue as placing lecturers in an invidious position: [I]imposing on professors the duty to anticipate and be responsible for their students’ emotional reactions to material will simply create new rationales for students and administrators seeking to punish provocative instructors. (2016: 62)

I worry that the neo-liberal administrators who run our institutions (and are profoundly risk-adverse) may start decreeing that such warnings

102 

D. DALTON

be issued. Kyrölä (2015: 131) calls this a ‘culture of overprotection’ that is already emerging overseas. Lukianoff worries that ‘sometime in the not-­ so-­distant future—if it has not already happened—professors will be punished for not providing a trigger warning before discussing material that a student finds objectionable’ (2016: 63; original emphasis). Part of the problem is that the extreme end of the trigger warning continuum is linked to triggering PTSD, but the reality is that in most University classroom contexts, discomfort or offence is more likely to be the ‘thing’ being triggered. To the extent that PTSD resides at the extreme end of the triggering spectrum, it raises the stakes and pathologises all understandings of triggering scenarios, when often the resulting ‘harm’ is distinctly not medical (and does not require therapy, counselling or any therapeutic response). Indeed, Pigliucci (2015: unpaginated) points out that ‘trigger warnings conflate exceptional individual experience of trauma with the anticipation of trauma for an entire group’. If one was teaching a class of returned soldiers, one might envisage trauma for the whole group, but to anticipate this in a general population seems spurious. A recent ABC NEWS item reported that Monash University in Victoria has become the first University in Australia to implement a policy on ‘trigger warnings’. In its pilot program, 15 of the university’s course outlines carry the warnings of potentially emotionally distressing content. A critic named Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs claimed in the news article that the claimed goal of “protecting students” emotional wellbeing masked a political agenda: We’ve seen how this has played out in the US and it can turn into a censorious, highly politically correct [culture] and highly harmful to the mission of education that universities exist for. (As cited in Palmer 2017: unpaginated)

Another commentator, Newcastle University Associate professor Marguerite Johnson, remarked in the article that by using the threshold of “emotionally distressing” Monash University has set the bar ridiculously low. She elaborates: The world is emotionally distressing and I find it quite absurd that the universities may see themselves as the guardians of emotionally distressing situations. (As cited in Palmer 2017: unpaginated)

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

103

In the news item, Associate Professor Johnson pointed out the fact that material might disturb students can potentially benefit society. She pointed to the reform of sex assault laws in Australia as an example of student offence underpinning beneficial social change: Those young feminist students in the 70s who were reading law and looked at the way women were represented in the law, who studied rape cases, who then went on to be lawyers who advocated to change the legislation about rape in court—if they hadn’t experienced the horrors of reading the materials as students, how would they know what to fight against, how would they know what to kick against? (Cited in Palmer 2017: unpaginated)

The ABC news item stated that the Student Association at Monash University was satisfied with the list of subject areas the university has adopted for trigger warnings, but the article pointed out that at other campuses across Australia, students are drawing up much more extensive lists. It was speculated that some of these lists contain the following ‘trigger’ items: • corpses • skulls or skeletons • warfare • needles • drug use or talk of drugs (legal, illegal or psychiatric) • eye contact (scopophobia) • medical procedures • Nazi paraphernalia • paedophilia • spiders Some such triggers seem dubious or trivial to say the least. I have taught the Holocaust for over ten years and the idea that Nazi paraphernalia (SS uniforms and swastikas which feature in historic photographs of the Third Reich period) might require trigger warnings is quite frankly ludicrous, even for Jewish students. In any event, educators are worried that the only ways that a potential ‘list’ of trigger warning themes or concepts can evolve is for such a list to grow larger. As Roff argues ‘since trigger warnings are a contagious phenomenon, there will never be enough trigger warnings to keep up with them’ (as cited in Lukianoff 2016: 65). The plethora of

104 

D. DALTON

items that might trigger trauma or discomfort seems limitless and beyond the predictive capacities of the individual educator. Indeed, forensic psychologists Veraldi and Veraldi (2015: 5) concur, writing ‘the idea that university professors can predict and warn against trauma triggers in course materials runs counter to what psychological research has shown about trauma triggers’. The other niggling worry I have is this. If ‘trigger warnings’ end up getting adopted across the University landscape in Australia, they run the risk that their routine use will, paradoxically, divest them of their efficacy. That is, they will become so common place and ubiquitous as to be useless. Even advocates for using trigger warnings should be disturbed by this latent possibility that their effectiveness will be nullified.

The Value of Taking Students Outside Their Comfort Zone As researchers and teachers, we know learning does not happen without challenge and it often involves taking students outside of their comfort zones. The problem with trigger warnings according to Lukianoff is that ‘safety is conflated with comfort or even reassurance’ (2016: 59 original emphasis). Thus, many students perceive trigger warnings as a mechanism that they can use to justify themselves avoiding an encounter with uncomfortable material. Yet as Lukianoff argues that ‘discomfort is a necessary part of real, adult-level education’ (2016: 60). And as Gubkin (2015) asserts, we should avoid conflating emotional discomfort with emotional; harm. If trigger warnings were to become widely used in a university environment, it could lead to students not turning up to classes; meaning they avoid having their preconceptions and views of the world challenged because they want to remain ‘safe’. João Florêncio from Exeter University points out that another hidden threat linked to the adoption of trigger warnings is that of censorship; whereby material gets expunged from the curricula: Then there is also the risk that trigger warnings might end up leading to certain materials no longer being allowed in our classrooms. Materials that have, for decades, been themselves so central to discussions of violence, gender inequality, racial discrimination, or sexuality. I think this risk is very real. (2016: unpaginated)

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

105

Writing in The Atlantic, Friedersdorf express the most insidious concern that educators are expressing: [T]he future before us if the most sweeping plans for “trigger warnings” become reality, is a kind of arms race, where different groups of students demand that their highly particular, politicized sensitivities are as deserving of a trigger warning as any other. Everyone from anarchists to college Republicans will join in. Kids will feel trauma when their trauma isn’t recognized as trauma. “Trigger warnings” will be as common and useless as “adult content” warnings on HBO. (2014: unpaginated)

Although he was writing in the context of American College education, his concerns about an ‘arms race’ seem as applicable to Australia as they do to America. Lukianoff and Haidt (2015: 7) take this argument further, writing that trigger warnings teach students ‘that their emotions can be used as weapons’ against ideas that they don’t like. This, in turn, can ‘scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offence’ (Lukianoff and Haidt 2015: 6). This chapter has explored how an approach to sensitive topics—underpinned by pastoral care—need not make explicit use of trigger warnings. I am advocating that it is the connotations of ‘triggering’ and the anticipation of offence (flowing from the warning) that should be avoided. Instead, I advocate that the curricula should be permitted to speak for itself. Any sensible students studying a topic should be able to glean a sense of potentially personally problematic material by familiarising themselves with the set readings and topic syllabus. Indeed, I advocate that some sort of warning or explanation may well be placed on items in question, but that the term ‘trigger warning’ should not be employed. The practice of issuing a ‘trigger warning’ is far too loaded with connotations and expectations of an affect being forthcoming. As a recent news article about the use of trigger warnings in Australia asserted, trigger warnings have ‘come to fetishise and catastrophise’ course material (Sainty 2017: unpaginated). That is to say, to issue a trigger warning is almost to prescribe negative reactions. João Florêncio (2016: unpaginated) justifies the right lecturers have to eschew trigger warnings when he writes: So while I am fully invested in the pastoral responsibilities that come with my job, while I care for my students and their well-being—and I’m more

106 

D. DALTON

than willing to address individual learning requirements on a one-to-one basis—I will not adopt trigger warnings when teaching on visual cultures of war, gender, race, or sexuality. Because I want my students to feel challenged. And I want students to empathise with the lives of others which might be different to their own—even if this is at times uncomfortable.

Dr Marguerite Johnson from Newcastle University contributed to a recent article in The Australian where she passionately argued that trigger warnings stifle knowledge: You cannot have a trigger warning for navigating the world, the world doesn’t work like that—let’s be brave and face confronting things and talk about them, that’s how you change the world, not by recoiling from it. (As cited in Lane 2017: unpaginated)

Bravery strikes me as an important trope that is often overlooked in the educational debates about trigger warnings. I implore lecturers to make their own informed choice about when, how or indeed whether to employ trigger warnings in their teaching. As educators, they are best placed to make informed decisions about their use. As a cautionary note on which to end, the threat that trigger warnings will become mandated as a matter of policy by overzealous ‘crusading administrators’ looms as a real possibility in Australia (Chanbonpin 2015: 615). Clark Colley from the University of Tasmania says such a move would be ‘an anti-academic and extremely dangerous movement for universities’ (as cited in Sainty 2017: unpaginated). I concur with this view and advocate that we educators in Criminology continue to question the effectiveness of trigger warnings in an environment where one might decree—as Janet Albrechtsen (2016) has—a ‘cult of taking offence’ is fast developing in the Australian University landscape. Such a cult has undesirable implications for educators who appreciate that offence, discomfort and unease may—however paradoxical it might seem—be beneficial to learning.

References Albrechtsen, J. (2016). No-Offence Culture of American Campuses Hurts Australia Too. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com. au/…/nooffence-culture…/de4c9d490deb1468dcb942f1b.

5  TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CRIMINOLOGY TEACHING CONTEXTS… 

107

Bentley, M. (2017). Trigger Warnings and the Student Experience. Politics, 37(4), 470–485. Biggs, J. B. (1989). Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1), 7–25. Chanbonpin, K.  D. (2015). Crisis and Trigger Warnings: Reflections on Legal Education and the Social Value of the Law. Chicago Kent Law Review, 90(2), 615–637. College Fix Staff. (2015). Salman Rushdie is ‘A Little Worried’ About Trigger Warnings as a New NYU Instructor. The College Fix. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24198. Dalton, D. (2010). ‘Crime, Law and Trauma’: A Personal Reflection on the Challenges and Rewards of Teaching Sensitive Topics to Criminology Students. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 2(3), 1–18. https://doi. org/10.11120/elss.2010.02030008. Essig, L. (2014). Trigger Warnings Trigger Me. Chronicle of Higher Education, 10. Filipovic, J. (2014). We’ve Gone Too Far with “Trigger Warnings”. The Guardian, 5, 12–18. Retrieved May 1, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive. Florêncio, J. (2016). Why I Won’t Be Issuing Trigger Warnings to Students. The Conversation. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from https://theconversation. com/why-i-wont-be-issuing-trigger-warnings-to-students-66624. Forstie, C. (2016). Trigger Warnings. In N. M. Rodriguez, W. J. Martino, J. C. Ingrey, & E.  Brockenbrough (Eds.), Critical Concepts in Queer Studies and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Friedersdorf, C. (2014). What HBO Can Teach Colleges About “Trigger Warnings”. The Atlantic, 20. Gubkin, L. (2015). From Empathetic Understanding to Engaged Witnessing: Encountering Trauma in the Holocaust Classroom. Teaching Theology & Religion, 18(2), 103–120. Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. New  York: Oxford University Press. Hume, M. (2015). Trigger Warnings: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? London: William Collins. Kyrölä, K. (2015). Toward a Contextual Pedagogy of Pain. Lambda Nordica, 1, 131–144. Lane, B. (2017). Trigger Warnings Stifle Knowledge: Marguerite Johnson. The Australian. Retrieved March 17, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com. au/higher-education/trigger-warnings-stifle-knowledge-marguerite-johnson/ news-story/28d7793de3ff7d0e1971a78fba536833. Lukianoff, G. (2016). Trigger Warnings: A Gun to the Head of Academia. In T. Slater (Ed.), Unsafe Space. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

108 

D. DALTON

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015). The Coddling of the American Mind. The Atlantic, 316(2), 42–52. Manne, K. (2015). Why I Use Trigger Warnings. The New York Times. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from https://www.bu.edu/fafc/files/2015/10/Why-I-UseTrigger-Warnings-The-New-York-Times.pdf. McNally, R. (2016). If You Need a Trigger Warning, You Need P.T.S.D. Treatment. New York Times Opinion. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.nytimes. c o m / r o o m f o r d e b a t e / 2 0 1 6 / 0 9 / 1 3 / d o - t r i g g e r- w a r n i n g s - w o r k / if-you-need-a-trigger-warning-you-need-ptsd-treatment. Palmer, T. (2017). Monash University Trigger Warning Policy Fires Up Free Speech Debate. ABC NEWS, March 29. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from http:// www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/monash-university-adopts-triggerwarning-policy/8390264. Pigliucci, M. (2015). The False Dichotomy of Trigger Warnings. Scientia Saloon: An Archived Blog About Science & Philosophy. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-falsedichotomy-of-trigger-warnings/. Robbins, S. P. (2016). From the Editor – Sticks and Stones: Trigger Warnings, Microaggressions, and Political Correctness. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(1), 1–5. Rogers, D., & Webb, J. (1991). The Ethic of Caring in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 173–181. Sainty, L. (2017) Here’s What Australian Uni Students Think of Trigger Warnings. Buzzfeed News. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from https://www.theaustralian.com. au/higher-education/trigger-warnings-stifle-knowledge-marguerite-johnson/ news-story/28d7793de3ff7d0e1971a78fba536833. Veraldi, L., & Veraldi, D. M. (2015). Stressors, Triggers and Trauma: Considering DSM-5 in the Debate Over Campus Trigger Warnings. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 33(3), 5–17.

CHAPTER 6

Employer Expectations of Research Skills Provided in Criminology Undergraduate Education Tara Renae McGee and Li Eriksson

Introduction In recent decades, the number of universities offering courses in the study of criminology and/or criminal justice has grown rapidly (Bartels et  al. 2015; Hunter 2011). In Australia, there are currently 42 individual criminology and/or criminal justice degrees currently on offer across Australian universities (Bartels et al. 2015). These degrees are taught within a range of schools, including those focusing on law, criminology, criminal justice, social sciences, policing, psychology, and humanities (Bartels et al. 2015). Along with this growth, it has been recognised that degrees in criminology and/or criminal justice need to be developed in a way that produce graduates that are employable across the government, private and academic sectors (Bates and Hayes 2017). It has also been noted that one of the most effective methods of increasing student employability is to ensure

T. R. McGee (*) • L. Eriksson School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_6

109

110 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

that students have information literacy skills and an understanding of the research methods and analytical skills required to produce and critically evaluate quantitative and qualitative empirical research (Brown 1982). Specifically, research suggests that a knowledge and understanding of research methods will increase employment opportunities and success for undergraduate students (Fritsch et al. 2014; O’Donnell et al. 2015). In this study we specifically examine the research skills requirements from the perspective of potential employers (including potential postgraduate supervisors) of graduates from undergraduate criminology and/or criminal justice degrees. Throughout this chapter we use the term ‘criminology’ to include various degrees of, and degrees with majors in, criminology and/or criminal justice.

Background Importance of Information Literacy and Research Methods Training While traditionally research methods have been considered important only for those students who are considering a research pathway career, there has been a shift toward the realisation that even students on a practitioner pathway need to be able to grasp the basics of research methods, including how to pose research questions and the most appropriate methods to answer them (Bushway and Flower 2002). Indeed, evidence suggests that research methods are essential skills required in the criminology field (Meldrum and Stults 2012; Rhineberger 2006; Sundt 2010). As such, it is important that students learn and develop these skills in order to be successful in this field. Bordt (1999) argues that research methods are fundamental to a student’s ability to not only understand criminology and criminal justice literature but to critically evaluate it. Similarly, Fritsch et al. (2014) also argue that students must learn research methods in order to become informed consumers who can critically evaluate research. The teaching of these skills is not strictly confined to the classroom, as textbooks act as an additional tool to assist students in their learning. However currently, criminology textbooks are lacking in their coverage of research methods (Rhineberger 2006). Research methods provide key insights into crime and provide the foundations for empirical based findings and implications for theory and policy development (Meldrum and Stults 2012; Rhineberger 2006). A lack of coverage within course textbooks can

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

111

lead students to believe that these topics or skills are not as important, relevant or useful as other topics covered within textbooks (Rhineberger 2006). Consequently, it is important for criminology textbooks to include guidance on research methods and the ethical considerations for research, as they are key components of the criminology field, and are important skills that will shape future of the field (Rhineberger 2006). What is clear is that that a failure to provide students with adequate research training also has a range of negative consequences. As Fritsch et  al. (2014) argue, many criminal justice roles within government and private agencies frequently use and depend on data analysis. Therefore, if students are not equipped with these skills they may struggle to find employment or once employed, find it difficult to progress their careers within the workplace and succeed in roles that require these skills. Jenkins (2000) supports this contention, arguing that the employers require graduates that can not only locate new research but also ‘synthesise new knowledge’. In order to be a good consumer and communicator of research, students much have at least basic research methodology and analysis skills. For US based undergraduate degrees to be officially certified by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, research methods and analytic skills need to be addressed substantively in the curriculum (Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences 2016). There are no equivalent certification standards in Australia, although scholars have called for similar guidelines to be implemented to ensure criminology graduates are provided with sufficient research methods skills (Bartels et al. 2015). The criminology landscape is similar in Australia to countries like the US and UK but it also has its own unique historical landscape. Australia has seen rapid expansion of criminology degrees since the late 1990s but as Chappell (2017) has noted, Australia has had its own unique developments in criminology since the 1960s. Each university is able to teach whatever they collectively think constitutes a criminology degree. As Fishwick and Marmo (2018: 323) argue, this “lack of uniformity of curriculum allows for national fragmentation of basic skills”. The most common pathway from undergraduate into postgraduate study in Australia is via an Honours degree that is offered as an extra full-time year of study on the end of a Bachelor degree (Fishwick and Marmo 2018). This year is usually comprised of an independent research project written up as a research thesis and research methods and data analysis classes. This is often students’ first opportunity to conduct independent research. Those not completing the extra honours year enter the workforce without these more advanced research skills.

112 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

Extent of Research Methods Training in Criminology Degrees It has been argued that universities offering criminology degrees are often successful in providing students with basic information literacy skills, because skills such as writing, critical thinking and engaging with research literature are commonly included in curriculum learning objectives (Moriarty 2006; Zimbardi and Myatt 2014). A small amount of existing research shows that some courses within criminology degrees are providing students with the opportunity to learn and develop adequate information literacy training including instruction on how to locate scholarly literature, writing annotated bibliographies and literature reviews and the critical analysis of literature (Bates and Hayes 2017). For example, one university in Australia requires students to complete a course (‘Criminology Skills’) that specifically involves students learning skills such as academic writing, referencing and critical thinking skills (Bates and Hayes 2017). Similarly, a university in the United States requires students to complete a course (‘Professional Studies in Criminal Justice’) which teaches students academic writing and researching skills specific to the criminal justice field such as how to source and reference appropriate literature (Pfeifer and Ferree 2006). Further afield, there are a number of other required courses within criminology degrees similar to the two outlined above. Some universities believe that these degrees should offer courses specifically dedicated to developing these skills and subsequently have implemented (or trialled) degrees that specifically teach information literacy skills (see Ambery et al. 2005; Bouloukos et al. 1995; McCartin et al. 2017). Despite these efforts to increase information literacy, there are much higher level skills expected of criminology graduates. Research from the United States shows that despite an increase over the past few decades in the extent to which research methods and ethics are taught within the curriculum (Southerland 2002), many undergraduate degrees nevertheless often fail to provide students with the practical skills required to produce and analyse quantitative and qualitative research (Bordt 1999; Brown 1982; Proctor 2006). This is evidenced by the findings of research which show that some universities who offer criminology degrees do not place enough focus on teaching students about research methods and the research process including sample recruitment, data collection, data analysis and research report writing (see Brown 1982; Taylor et al. 2003). For example, a recent examination of all criminology degrees in the United States shows that quantitative data analysis is only covered

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

113

in 40 per cent of degrees, introduction to research methods is only covered in 76 per cent of degrees, and ethics is only covered in 38 per cent of degrees (Sloan and Buchwalter 2017). Given the importance of research training for success both within criminology degrees (understanding the material being taught and written about in assignments) and beyond (having successful access to employment opportunities) the authors of the study expressed concern that US criminology students can graduate from such a degree without having completed courses that cover research methods, statistics or ethics (Sloan and Buchwalter 2017). Australian research of the teaching of research methods has shown that these types of courses are widely taught within undergraduate criminology degrees (Bartels et al. 2015) and that the vast majority (80%) of graduates self-report that their degree helped develop their research skills (Wimshurst and Allard 2007). Nevertheless, while research methods are widely taught as core component of Australian criminology degrees, courses specifically educating students about data analysis (both quantitative and qualitative) are not taught as widely across all Australian degrees (Bartels et al. 2015). Of course, sometimes data analysis is embedded in more generic research methods courses, but for students to be proficient and highly skilled these types of skills more extensive training is desirable. This is currently missing in many criminology degrees both in Australia and abroad. Interestingly research conducted by Proctor (2006) shows that US students in criminal justice majors believe that they have better levels of understanding of statistics than non-criminal justice majors but achieve significantly lower grades in a summer school course on the topic. Also not explicitly taught in criminology degrees, is having an ethical orientation towards professional conduct and research. It is often embedded in many social sciences courses, but explicit consideration of ethics, particularly as it relates to research is not evident at the course level in criminology degrees in Australia (Bartels et al. 2015). Another key finding to emerge from existing research is that even when research methods courses are taught within degrees, they are often taught in just one or two courses of a student’s degree (Bordt 1999; Pfeifer and Ferree 2006). As Welch and Panelli (2003) note, the problem with this piecemeal approach is that lecturers often only have enough contact time to teach students about the theory of research methods. The consequence is that students are provided with very little training on applied quantitative and qualitative data analysis and research reporting techniques. Even if their future careers do not require data analysis skills, this deficit makes

114 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

them poor consumers of research who are unable to critically evaluate the published research that they read or proposed research that may be under development in their workplaces. Obstacles Preventing Adequate Research Methods Training Given that understanding research methods, techniques of data analysis, and having an ethical orientation in research are all so important, consideration must be given to why these skills are not currently being taught. There are a range of obstacles preventing adequate delivery of research training to students (see Brown 1982; Quarton 2003). Some students report to universities via course feedback that they should not have to study research methods because it is overly difficult or stressful. These courses are often viewed unimportant other than as a requirement for graduation or alternatively viewed as an obstacle to completion or source of potential failure (Briggs et al. 2009; Brown 1982; Bushway and Flower 2002; Sundt 2010). In this context, it is important that universities do not treat students as ‘customers who know best’ and ensure adequate training and support for learning is provided. Briggs et al. (2009) found that students often experience math anxiety, disinterest, and relevance argumentation towards research methods and statistics courses. This consequently negatively influences their own performance and also negatively influence other students exposed to their negative attitudes. These attitudes and reservations often impede student learning and performance and also make it difficult for lecturers teaching these courses (Sundt 2010). Indeed, Brown (1982) notes that some academic staff members find teaching research methods difficult because many students have a negative attitude towards studying these subjects. Underpinning many of these negative attitudes is also the argument of relevance. Many students do not understand the value or relevance of these courses and some even perceive research methods, specifically numeracy skills such as conducting statistical analyses, to be irrelevant to their future careers (Briggs et al. 2009; Chamberlain et al. 2015; Sundt 2010). Some students take the view that courses should focus more on providing them with content knowledge and developing key transferable skills such as communication skills, comprehension skills, analytical skills and team working skills (Chamberlain et al. 2015). This suggests that university educators are not currently successful in communicating the relevance and importance of understanding research, data analysis, and ethical

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

115

approaches to research in the likely careers of criminology and criminal justice graduates.

Aims of the Current Study Building on this small body of literature on research methods pedagogy, this study explored the views of prospective employers and prospective postgraduate supervisors of graduates from undergraduate criminology degrees. The focus was on their perceived importance of research methods training for students completing criminology degrees. A range of agencies and organisations who employ criminology graduates were approached and although the research was conducted within one State of Australia, the types of employment and responsibilities of criminal justice system agencies are similar across the States and Territories of Australia. The study also aimed to investigate the expectations that prospective employers have regarding the research methods, data analysis, and ethics skills of graduates of criminology degrees. Investigation of these topics was carried out because the findings have important curriculum and pedagogical implications for how undergraduate criminology degrees should be designed, in order to increase student receptiveness and understanding of the importance of obtaining research skills, and the implications for their future employability.

Methodology Potential Employers of Criminology Graduates Given the interdisciplinary nature of criminology, graduates of criminology degrees enter into a wide variety of professional organisations upon graduation. Options include, but are not limited to, state and federal government agencies, non-government organisations, and academic research environments. In conducting this research, the research team was conscious of ensuring a broad representation of the possible employers and their organisations/agencies were included in the study. Sampling Strategy Based on this goal, the sampling strategy was purposive. To recruit prospective employers, the researchers developed a list including a broad

116 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

range of known employers of criminology graduates. Employees within those organisations were then contacted and asked to participate in the project. If they believed that they were not a suitable participant or if they were unwilling to participate, they were asked whether someone else in the agency would be more appropriate to contact. Additional participants (potential employers) were recruited into the study until saturation point was reached. Accordingly, the researchers ceased recruiting participants once it became apparent that participants were providing similar information in interviews to previous participants. The final sample consisted of 10 prospective employers across 9 government and tertiary education institutions. To maintain anonymity no individual agencies’ names are reported in this study but to demonstrate the breadth of responses, the participants can be described in the following manner: an analyst of policing practices, a researcher in a policing and criminal justice research and evaluation unit, an investigator of misconduct and criminal matters, a manager of policy evaluation, a statistical analyst of government data, a statistical liaison knowledge manager between government and universities, and both junior and senior university supervisors of postgraduate research. Data Collection Procedures The interviewers met with the participants, the potential employers and supervisors, at a time and place convenient to the participant. Frequently, the location was the participant’s office or a coffee shop nearby. They were provided with an information sheet outlining the aim and structure of the research project and if they agreed to participate in the research, they were asked to sign a consent form. Information was collected through semi-­ structured interviews, which lasted approximately 20 minutes on average (range: 13–39  minutes). The interviewers were guided by an interview schedule that included questions about the needs and expectations of graduates from undergraduate criminology degrees (see Appendix). Given the focus on the research methods skills required of graduates, participants were specifically asked about the extent to which the organisation they worked for required particular research skills to carry out tasks related to employment within that organisation or where appropriate, skills required to undertake postgraduate study. A list of the skills that participants were asked to discuss is provided in Table 6.1.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

117

Table 6.1  List of research methods skills Skill

Ability

Research the literature

 • Conduct searches for scholarly literature both in libraries and online.   •  Critique approaches/conclusions made by other researchers. Ethical conduct  •  Identify and consider ethical issues involved with research. Design research  •  Plan research by constructing timelines and budgets.   • Design and write research designs/methodologies that effectively outline data collection methods, sampling techniques, analysis strategies and the limitations of the research approach taken.   • Write data collection instruments such as surveys, or interview schedules. Design tools  • Write data collection instruments such as surveys, or interview schedules. Collect data  • Collect data by for example administering surveys, interviews or observations. Analyse data  • Construct data sets using programs such as SPSS in the case of quantitative research.   •  Conduct statistical analyses using programs such as SPSS.   •  Code qualitative data using programs such as NVivo. Write reports  •  Write literature reviews   • Write reports detailing the results and findings of qualitative and quantitative research projects.

In addition, the participants were also encouraged to identify any additional research methods skills necessary for their organisations that had not been mentioned in the interview, allowing for new ideas and themes to emerge. Most of the participants gave consent for their interview to be digitally audio recorded. These were later transcribed prior to analysis. Two of interviews were not audio recorded. In the first instance the participant did not wish for the interview to be recorded and in the second instance the recorder malfunctioned. In these cases, detailed notes were taken during and after the interviews. Analytic Procedure The interviews were transcribed and the transcription entered into NVivo. The initial coding and analysis were deductive and thematic (see Boyatzis 1998; Braun and Clarke 2006) based on the research skills identified in Table 6.1. An iterative inductive coding approach was also

118 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

used to allow for any new themes to emerge. The interview structure guided the initial coding and analysis of the interview transcripts but as the reader will note when reading the results, new information was obtained in the interview beyond the categories of investigation in the interview schedule.

Results The focus of this study was to gain a better understanding of the perceived importance by potential employers and postgraduate research supervisors, of research methods (including data analysis and ethics) training for students completing criminology degrees. The findings in relation to each of the core areas of research methods training that were investigated, are presented below. While it would be good to be able to include lengthy quotations from the interview transcripts, space constraints mean that we have had to distil most of the findings down into summary statements about what was communicated in the interviews. Bachelor Degrees and Criminology Careers This study focused on the skills required of graduates, from undergraduate criminology degrees, by potential employers and supervisors. Unexpectedly, some of the participants emphasised that their organisation was only interested in employing graduates from Honours or PhD programs; Bachelor degrees in criminology are not viewed as sufficient. One participant noted that Honours and PhD graduates “have got [the] research skills” needed to work in a research based role in government. This is understandable because those who have graduated from an Honours or PhD program have demonstrated the capacity to undertake original research using primary or secondary data. In doing so they have applied their undergraduate research skills to ‘real research’ and also had the opportunity for additional research training. Furthermore, PhD graduates have met the criteria of making a significant contribution to knowledge in their area of expertise. It is noteworthy that Bachelor level graduates are not perceived to be provided with the skills necessary for some criminology jobs and this could be important information to impart to potential honours students, depending on their individual career aspirations.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

119

Researching the Literature Being able to access and distil the key research in a particular area requires not only information literacy skills but also research methods and data analysis training in order to be able to correctly assess, interpret, and distil research findings. The majority of participants in this study considered researching existing literature to be a basic skill that is expected from all criminology graduates. The expectation is that they will be able to access information including traditional academic literature (journal articles and books) but beyond, to also make use of government reports and articles and legislation relevant to the roles being undertaken. It was interesting that one participant noted that their organisation outsources literature searching and literature review writing to other agencies due to time constraints around the key responsibilities of the tasks for which their agency was responsible. Another participant pointed out that graduates would need the ability to “get on top of a subject quickly”. This highlights the importance of not just teaching a particular curated content to criminology undergraduate students, but also teaching the skills that allow graduates to rapidly gain knowledge and expertise in new content areas, as needed. Considering Ethics Collectively the participants of this study noted that a strong ethical orientation is an important attribute for all criminology graduates who are planning to work in criminology and criminal justice related careers. This is not surprising given: there are many opportunities for corruption in policing and other criminal justice agencies; the discretionary powers afforded to many who work in the criminal justice system; and the potential for dishonesty and other unethical behaviour when conducting research (to name but a few reasons). One participant noted that ethics “should be a part of every degree and if it’s not then it should be worked in”. Some participants placed more emphasis on ethics than others. In particular, organisations that deal with vulnerable populations emphasised the importance of criminology graduates understanding ethical issues. Potential employers noted that organisations generally provide ethics training on the job, which suggests that only foundational knowledge is required as part of university education.

120 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

In contrast, other participants reported that while ethics is important employees are rarely expected to have research projects go through formal ethics reviews. While on the one hand this means that graduates going into positions such as these would not need to understand the processes of, and matters considered by human research ethics committees. On the other hand the absence of these makes a thorough understanding of ethical considerations when conducting research a crucial part of university education, as there are no external checks and balances in the organisation in which they’re employed. In the absence of human research ethics committees in government research organisations, employees are still expected to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. This is governed by legislation and the operational procedures of the organisations. A thorough understanding of ethical concerns in research, being taught as part of an undergraduate curriculum in criminology, would appear to be warranted. Irrespective of the particular procedures in place in each organisation, all participants stated that criminology graduates should have a thorough understanding of ethics. Designing Research All participants reported that designing research is one of the most important skills that a criminology graduate could have. This was independent of whether the organisation collects primary data. Even in those instances where secondary data is used, graduates would need to understand the principles of research design in order to help other agencies with research and to understand other studies. In particular, participants expected graduates to understand sampling procedures, be able to develop a project plan, and understand advantages and disadvantages of using different methodologies (which includes knowing the strengths and limitations of different methods). Some participants also pointed out that graduates should have hands-on experience with research design that goes beyond understanding the theoretical underpinnings of research. Many recommended that this be integrated into in the undergraduate criminology curriculum. As noted earlier, most students do not have the opportunity to apply their knowledge of research design to conduct original research until they’re enrolled in an Honours or PhD program. Collectively the potential employers and postgraduate supervisors required that students could implement research methodologies that were both quantitative and qualitative in nature; criminology graduates possessing skills in both of these areas are preferred. Most participants did not

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

121

prefer one over the other but emphasised that graduates need to understand both approaches. The breadth of their expectations is reflected in one potential employer’s requirements: “…good understanding of different research methods in terms of experimental research methods, quasi sort of experimental, just case studies, yep, I’d just across the board in that area”. Demonstrating that participants believe graduates should have an understanding of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, one participant said that they should have a “…good understanding of what is robust research methodology plus the supporting qualitative and quantitative statistical skills, they’re all pretty integral, I wouldn’t rate one above the other”. This highlights the importance of ensuring that students are not disadvantaged in their education by selective teaching biased by philosophical arguments in relation to the production of knowledge and ways of knowing. Students should be well versed in all research skills so that they have a complete tool kit for conducting criminological research and the knowledge of when to apply particular research techniques. This applies even more so in evaluation research. The topic of evaluation research emerged spontaneously in nearly all of the interviews. We suspect that this is because many of the organisations from which participants come, conduct a great deal of evaluation research. It was noted by participants that in order to conduct evaluation research, criminology graduates need a good mix of both quantitative and qualitative research methods skills. One participant pointed out that although many universities cover basic quantitative and qualitative skills in courses, they do not teach students about evaluation research. This participant further argued that graduates should understand “the need for outcomes and recommendations”. This highlights the importance for government research to go beyond the generation of knowledge, which is the goal of a great deal of academic research. In these more applied situations, criminologists need to be able to make recommendations for policy and procedures based on findings. While evaluation research skills are widely used by potential employers’ organisations, another participant pointed out that although evaluation skills are important, their organisation is looking more for those “core, solid research skills” which can then be applied to evaluations. Participants also highlighted that it is important for criminology graduates to be able to design data collection tools (such as questionnaires and interview schedules). Related to this was the importance of being able to design the wording of questionnaire items and interview questions so that there were no “leading questions” that could lead to biased responses.

122 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

Other participants highlighted the importance of understanding the role of piloting data collection instruments and the role that this had in the research design process. Designing questionnaires, particularly scales with good measurement properties and the subsequent statistical testing required to establish their validity and reliability, is probably a skill that is beyond most graduates of criminology bachelor-level degrees. In this context, the importance of giving students a thorough understanding of the principles of validity and reliability, how they’re established and how they’re maintained becomes very important. In addition to this, it highlights the importance of teaching students how to access, assess, and use existing measurement scales in the data collection tools that they design. The participants had no expectations of criminology graduates to be able to construct research budgets, although some noted that assisting in this might sometimes be required, which suggests a basic familiarity would be optimal. In many of the organisations that were included in this study, there is a ‘budget section’ that takes care of research budgeting using programs and methods that graduates are not expected to be familiar with. Some participants noted that graduates need the ability to design timelines for a project. Quite importantly graduates need to understand the requirement of meeting project milestones. The timeframes in government organisations can be quite short and research needs to be conducted swiftly. Collecting Data The previous section highlighted how important it is for criminology graduates to be able to design data collection instruments. Related to this, they also need to have the ability to collect data when employed by organisations that conduct primary research. This includes distributing surveys and conducting interviews, as well as conducting “consultations with people in the field”. When conducting interviews, participants noted that it is vital for graduates to have good interpersonal skills in order to discuss sensitive topics with sometimes vulnerable populations. This highlights the importance of incorporating interpersonal skills and cultural sensitivity training as an integral part of research methods training in criminology degrees. Strong interpersonal skills are also necessary in order to build rapport with research participants or as one participant said, “win them over” in terms of building trust and ensuring that research participants’ view the project as worthwhile.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

123

Analysing Data While data entry skills were included as part of the interview schedule, they were not highlighted by any of the participants as a vital skill that criminology graduates should have. This is not surprising given that many surveys are now conducted on online platforms such as Survey Monkey and Qualtrics which skip out the data entry process by having collected responses going straight into downloadable datasets. Some of the participants identified that being able to spot inconsistencies in a data set was important. Again, in the context of online data collection platforms this makes sense. Skills around cleaning and screening of data before analysis become of even greater concern when the data have not been cleaned or coded prior to entry into a dataset as they would have been with traditional paper based surveys. Most participants state that while graduates are not expected to perform complex statistical analyses, they do need to understand the basics of univariate and multivariate statistics. One participant noted that: “we need what I would consider a medium level skills in research and stats in that because we don’t actually have to do it ourselves, you don’t know how, you don’t even know how to do multivariate statistics but you need to understand the concepts behind them for when you’re reading other people’s studies and for when you’re trying to explain those studies back into laymen terms for our audience…”. There are a number of statistical packages that are used for teaching statistics to criminology students; the most commonly used programs are SPSS and STATA but also SAS. Participants reported that the most commonly used software in the workplace was SPSS. Despite this many of the organisations that were represented in this study do not have access to this type of software due to its high licence costs. Instead, many participants use Microsoft Excel to generate basic descriptive statistics. Most participants in this study expected that criminology graduates would have Excel proficiency combined with basic SPSS skills. However according to some participants, many criminology graduates were lacking in the ability to proficiently use Excel. Qualitative research skills were less frequently identified as a graduate requirement but one participant said they’re extremely important. Case studies and focus groups were mentioned by a couple of participants as example of qualitative research design and data collection which graduates would need to understand. Qualitative programs were not often

124 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

­ entioned, when prompted only one participant noted that their organm isation uses NVivo, but proficiency in this program was not expected of graduates. Writing Reports The type of writing that is required for a typical written assignment for an undergraduate course and the type of writing required in many of the occupations that criminology graduates enter, is vastly different. The majority of participants emphasised that graduates will need to write in “government-speak” which they noted is very different to academic writing. This, for example, includes the ability to condense material in a very succinct manner, make it evidence-based, and write in dot points. Many participants pointed out that the ability to write reports for government is also something that is learnt on the job. Graduates are not expected to know this when they arrive at the job, but they are expected to be able to write clearly and succinctly. A couple of participants noted that if graduates could learn to write reports for government, at university, this would be an “added bonus” but it is not a necessity. This highlights a skill that could be taught to increase graduate employability.

Discussion The purpose of this project was to gain further insight into the expectations of potential employers and postgraduate supervisors regarding the research skills of graduates from criminology degrees at the bachelor level. This research has shown that potential employers think research skills are important graduate attributes. From this research and other sources (Sloan and Buchwalter 2017) we also know that not all criminology students are graduating with strong research skills. There is great scope to improve research methods training in our bachelor degrees in criminology. To do this, we need to move past philosophical debates about ways of knowing and revise curriculums so that research methods are embedded across all areas of teaching. The philosophical divisions that underpin differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research are important to both acknowledge and also to ensure students understand. However this should not lead to the exclusion of one particular approach. The importance of both of these ways of ‘knowing’ and conducting research, to potential employers and postgraduate supervisors, means that degree programs should be designed so that one particular approach is not favoured.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

125

Similarly it is important to ensure that qualitative approaches are taught well in degrees where academics are more commonly engaging in quantitative research and vice versa. Students should be provided with the skills to determine the appropriate research approach for the problem or research questions under investigation. Many undergraduate degree programs could also do a better job of ensuring that bachelor level students graduate with some applied research experience. For many Australian universities, this does not occur until the honours year. Brown (1982) argues that research methods curricula need to be not only theoretical but also applied by providing students with hands-on experience conducting research (e.g. collecting data, entering data into statistical programs, and running analyses). There are demonstrated benefits by ‘learning by doing’ for students’ future careers; and not just those who go on to have research based careers (Takata 1991). This is ideal for a number of reasons, including many students will end up doing applied research in their career; it reduces anxiety around research methods; and it increases knowledge retention. It is important to remember that students are not customers and research methods should not be excluded from degrees because students do not like it. It needs to be embedded across degrees as a core component of learning. Bordt (1999) has similarly argued that research methods need to be taught in a hands-on manner and incorporated into other courses, not just as a stand-alone non-applied course. Students need to be shown the relevance of research methods for issues in the real world. One way to achieve this would be to review criminology curricula to embed learning about research in every course. This would ensure that the curriculum provides a more comprehensive understanding of the role of research in criminology and would progressively develop the students’ research skills making them more employable on graduating from their degree. The teaching of skills across all years of the degree would reduce overlap, ensure scaffolding of learning, provide appropriate chunking of information, and support the learning of new/difficult tasks. Ultimately graduates with these applied skills will be much more attractive to employers. In the US, these issues are also being considered by those who teach criminology degrees. Sloan and Buchwalter (2017) highlighted the high proportion of criminology degrees do not require course in research methods for degree completion. This stands in stark contrast to similar social science disciplines such as psychology. One attempt at dealing with the gaps in training in the US, is the accreditation process introduced by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS). Similar calls for stan-

126 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

dardisation of teaching criminology have been called for in Australia (Bartels et  al. 2015). Research methods training would be part of that. This research can contribute to the conversation regarding what constitutes suitable research methods, data analysis, and ethics training for criminology undergraduate students in Australia and also more generally. It needs to be kept in mind, when designing curriculum that we don’t know where these students will go in their criminology careers. It is unlikely that even the students themselves will know at the time they’re studying, even though they may have some specific career ambitions. Criminology degrees needs to prepare graduates for many career options. It could be argued for those whose career ambitions are more applied that they don’t need to understand research methods therefore one option would be to have a tailored research pathway that not all students study. While this has positive aspects in terms of satisfying those who are resistant to studying research methods, while challenging and providing strong graduate skills to others, it would serve to weaken the employability and future career prospects in terms of career advancement for those who wanted to work in criminology and criminal justice and did not have those skills. Given the importance that potential employers place on the research skills of criminology graduates, a better option would be to embed skills across the degree in a structured and progressive learning approach. Acknowledgements  At various times in this project, the authors were assisted by a number of research assistants: Nicole Horstman, Denise Foster, and Michael Cerruto. The research was supported with research funding from Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University. An earlier version of this chapter was presented at Deakin University’s Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology (11 Dec 2017) and has benefited from the useful feedback from, and conversations with, participants at that symposium.

Appendix: Interview Schedule for Potential Employers and Academic Supervisors1 Introductions and Participant Information Sheet After introductions, the following points which must be made clear to participants before the interview begins. 1  Note: Different interview schedules were developed for  potential employers and  academic supervisors. In the interests of space, these have been combined here.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

127

As you know from your consent letter, I will be interviewing you today about the research skills that you as a potential employer/academic supervisor need and expect from graduates of criminology degrees.2 We are conducting this research in order to ensure that courses are adapted to the needs and expectations of potential employers and academic supervisors, and adequately prepare students for employment and postgraduate research-related studies. You can withdraw your consent to participate in this interview at any time. Also, if you do not wish to answer a particular question please feel free to ask me to move on to the next question. All of your responses will remain anonymous and all transcripts of interviews and publications of results will contain no information which could be used to identify yourself or your place of employment. Now, may I please have your consent to electronically record this interview? (The recording is being done in order to assist in the transcription process.) • NOTE IF THE PARTICIPANT DOES NOT WISH TO BE INTERVIEWED SAY—If you do not wish to be interviewed, may I take notes of what you say. • IF THE PARTICIPANT DOES NOT WISH YOU TO TAKE NOTES—You will need to take field notes after the interview. Interview Schedule S ection A: Participant and Organisation Background Ask the following questions: Question 1: What organisation do you work for? Question 2: What is your position within this organisation? Question 3: When did you first start working at this organisation? Question 4: (for supervisors) How many Honours and/or PhD students have you supervised throughout your career? Question 5: (for supervisors) How many students do you currently supervise? 2  All identifying information about the university in which this study was conducted has been removed.

128 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

Question 6: Could you please briefly describe to me your role in this organisation? Question 7: Have you worked with / supervised criminology graduates? S ection B: Employer Needs and Expectations Make the interviewee aware of the following: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your organisation’s needs and expectations from criminology graduates. With regards to this, could you please provide a summary of the research methods skills that your organisation needs and expects from the criminology graduates it employs? The aim here is to gain an understanding of the research-related roles that students perform in your organisation and the skills which they need to adequately perform these roles. If needed, assist or probe the interviewee to identify the skills which there organisation needs from employers. Such skills may include the ability to: • Literature search: Conduct searches for scholarly literature both online and in libraries. • Write literature reviews: on what is known about a particular topic and critiquing approaches/conclusions made by other researchers working in particular fields. • Ethics: Identify and consider Ethical Issues involved with Research. • Plan research by constructing timelines and budgets. • Design and write research designs/Methodologies which effectively outline: Data collection methods; Sampling techniques; Coding/Analysis; and Limitations of Data and Reliability and validity of findings. • The ability to construct data collection instruments such as surveys, interview schedules etc. • Collect data by administering surveys, interviews, observations, focus groups etc. • Data entry using programs like SPSS in the case of Quantitative Research. • Analyse data: The ability to analyse quantitative data using programs like SPSS in the case of Quantitative research.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

129

• The ability to code qualitative data using programs like NVivo. • Write reports: The ability to right reports detailing the Results/ Findings of Research Projects of both a quantitative and/or qualitative nature. Conclusion Do you have any additional comments that would like to add? Is there anything you feel I have missed? Thank you for your participation.

References Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. (2016). Certification Standards for College/ University Criminal Justice/Criminology Baccalaureate Degree Programs. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Retrieved May 11, 2018, from http://c. ymcdn.com/sites/www.acjs.org/resource/resmgr/certification/ACJS_ Certification_-_Bachelo.pdf. Ambery, D., Manners, J., & Smith, K. (2005). Embedded information literacy: A collaborative approach. Proceedings of the Critiquing and reflecting: LAS profession and practice, Language and Academic Skills in Higher Education Conference 2005, Canberra, Australia, pp. 1–21. Bartels, L., McGovern, A., & Richards, K. (2015). Degrees of Difference? A Preliminary Study of Criminology Degrees at Australian Universities. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 119–146. Bates, L., & Hayes, H. (2017). Using the Student Lifecycle Approach to Enhance Employability: An Example from Criminology and Criminal Justice. Asia-­ Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Special Issue, 18(2), 141–151. Bordt, R. L. (1999). Simulation as a Tool for Teaching Research Methods in a Criminology Course. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 10(2), 373–382. Bouloukos, A.  C., Benamati, D.  C., & Newman, G.  R. (1995). Teaching Information Literacy in Criminal Justice: Observations from the University at Albany. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 6(2), 213–233. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Briggs, L. T., Brown, S. E., Gardner, R. B., & Davidson, R. L. (2009). D.RA.MA: An Extended Conceptualization of Student Anxiety in Criminal Justice Research Methods Courses. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 20(3), 217–226.

130 

T. R. MCGEE AND L. ERIKSSON

Brown, S.  E. (1982). Research Methods and Criminal Justice Curricula: Surmounting the Obstacles. Criminal Justice Review, 7, 11–16. Bushway, S. D., & Flower, S. M. (2002). Helping Criminal Justice Students Learn Statistics: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Learning Assistance. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13(1), 35–56. Chamberlain, J. M., Hillier, J., & Signoretta, A. P. (2015). Counting Better? An Examination of the Impact of Quantitative Method Teaching on Students’ Statistical Anxiety and Confidence to Complete Statistical Tasks. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(1), 51–66. Chappell, D. (2017). Fifty Years of Australian Criminology. In A.  Deckert & R.  Sarre (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice (pp. 3–16). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Fishwick, E., & Marmo, M. (2018). Criminology in Australia. In R. A. Triplett (Ed.), The Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Criminology (pp.  321– 333). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Fritsch, E., Trulson, C., & Blackburn, A. (2014). The Importance of Research Methods and Becoming an Informed Consumer of Research. In E.  Fritsch, C.  Trulson, & A.  Blackburn (Eds.), Applied Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology (1st ed., pp. 1–27). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hunter, R. D. (2011). Presidential Address: The Future of Justice Studies. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 1–14. Jenkins, A. (2000). The Relationship Between Teaching and Research: Where Does Geography Stand and Deliver? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(3), 325–351. McCartin, L. F., Iannacchione, B., & Evans, M. K. (2017). Information Literacy Course on Their Success in Research & Writing Intensive Criminal Justice Courses. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 242–247. Meldrum, R. C., & Stults, B. (2012). Student Performance in Research Methods Classes: Assessing the Predictive Validity of the DRAMA Scale. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(3), 381–395. Moriarty, L. J. (2006). Investing in Quality: The Current State of Assessment in Criminal Justice Programs. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 409–427. O’Donnell, K., Botelho, J., Brown, J., Gonzalez, G.  M., & Head, W. (2015). Undergraduate Research and Its Impact on Student Success for Underrepresented Students. In M. Malachowski, E. L. Ambos, K. K. Karukstis, & J. M. Osborn (Eds.), Enhancing and Expanding Undergraduate Research: A Systems Approach (pp. 27–38). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Pfeifer, H. L., & Ferree, C. W. (2006). Tired of ‘Reeding’ Bad Papers? Teaching Research and Writing Skills to Criminal Justice Students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1), 121–142. Proctor, J.  L. (2006). Academic Achievement and Statistical Knowledge: A Comparison of Criminal Justice and Noncriminal Justice Majors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1), 143–161, 198–199.

6  EMPLOYER EXPECTATIONS OF RESEARCH SKILLS PROVIDED… 

131

Quarton, B. (2003). Research Skills and the New Undergraduate. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(2), 120–124. Rhineberger, G. M. (2006). Research Methods and Research Ethics Coverage in Criminal Justice and Criminology Textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2), 279–296, 398. Sloan, J. J., & Buchwalter, J. W. (2017). The State of Criminal Justice Bachelor’s Degree Programs in the United States: Institutional, Departmental, and Curricula Features. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(3), 307–334. Southerland, M.  D. (2002). Criminal Justice Curricula in the United States: A Decade of Change. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 589–601. Sundt, J. (2010). Overcoming Student Resistance to Learning Research Methods: An Approach Based on Decoding Disciplinary Thinking. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(3), 266–284. Takata, S.  R. (1991). The Importance of Integrating Research Experiences in Today’s Undergraduate Criminal Justice Curriculum. Journal of Crime and Justice, 14(1), 77–98. Taylor, R. B., Andersen, T., & McConnell, P. (2003). Competencies and Interest in a Problem-Focused Undergraduate Research Methods Criminal Justice Course: Two Assessments. Criminal Justice Education, 14(1), 133–148. Welch, R. V., & Panelli, R. (2003). Teaching Research Methodology to Geography Undergraduates: Rationale and Practice in a Human Geography Programme. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(3), 255–277. Wimshurst, K., & Allard, T. (2007). Criminal Justice Education, Employment Destinations, and Graduate Satisfaction. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(2), 218–235. Zimbardi, K., & Myatt, P. (2014). Embedding Undergraduate Research Experiences Within the Curriculum: A Cross-Disciplinary Study of the Key Characteristics Guiding Implementation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 233–250.

CHAPTER 7

Meta Review of Recent Scholarship on Learning and Teaching in Criminology (SCOLATIC) Darren Palmer

Background Australian Higher education has undergone several major structural reforms over the past 30 years. First, the ‘Dawkins revolution’ from 1988 shifted post-secondary education from a binary system of 19 Universities and 57 Colleges (the former ‘academic’, the latter more ‘vocational’— there is also the TAFE system—technical and further education) to a Unified National System where all became universities or parts of universities (Corden 2005). Several additional changes followed this structural change but are not the focus here (e.g. centralisation and political control of HE policy, the establishment of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), essentially fees on loans but only repaid via the taxation system when receiving income above a certain threshold—constantly being ‘adjusted’); and opening Australian universities to foreign students

D. Palmer (*) Criminology, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8_7

133

134 

D. PALMER

(Corden 2005: 2–3). Second, the ‘Nelson revolution’ opened Australian higher education to private providers through the extension of HECS, and made several HECS-related changes in 2005 (e.g. introducing full-fee paying domestic students and an associated ‘loan’ in the HECS-mimicking FEE-HELP system). In addition, universities have had to increasingly focus on the delivery of performance measures in a quasi-market of competitive performance and ongoing efforts of Australian Governments’ to identify greater efficiencies and effectiveness measures. Alongside these changes Australia has also introduced the Excellence in Research Assessments somewhat similar to the earlier model introduced in the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) measuring the “quality” of research output (Pidd and Broadbent 2015). However, while Australia has not yet followed the UK into the development of a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) measuring learning and teaching ‘quality’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2016) the tertiary sector does produce data on student satisfaction similar to the UK, and in both places the overall focus on defining and enumerating ‘excellence’ in different aspects of university performance (O’Connor and O’Hagan 2016) is part of the broader performativity demands within the corporatised university sector and broader ‘audit society’. We do not need to be detained with the elaboration of the changes occurring at macro, meso and micro levels except to indicate that this is a dynamic policy domain where the university sector has expanded dramatically (the ‘massification’ of higher education); there has been a growing policy emphasis on competition between service providers, and; following this an increasing emphasis on ‘evidence-based’ teaching excellence. It is the latter that raises important questions concerning how academics engage in establishing teaching excellence, particularly the extent to which scholarly research has been directed towards establishing key pedagogical issues and practices. It is against this background of extensive and ongoing structural reforms that this meta-review of scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology (SCOLATIC) occurs. This exploratory study examines academic peer review criminology journals for evidence of scholarship on learning and teaching in criminology—do generic criminology journals publish scholarship on learning and teaching? Subsequent research is examining Criminal Justice Education and broader higher education journals, the latter being numerous and voluminous with one estimate indicating that of 86 English language higher education journals identified over

7  META REVIEW OF RECENT SCHOLARSHIP ON LEARNING AND TEACHING… 

135

16 million words were published in 2016 alone, though many of the articles are ‘relatively small-scale focusing on a single case study or a small number of cases’ (Tight 2018: 617). Tight allocates the journals to four types: generic journals, topic-specific journals; discipline-specific journals; nation-specific journals (2018: 608 and see Table 1, p. 611). For the current study the journals are simply generic criminology journals. As this is a preliminary study beginning our exploration of this issue and will be subject to further research, the list used was reduced to three key journals. Other studies have previously focused on single journals (e.g. Tight 2011) or a comparison of a limited number of journals (e.g. Budd and Magnusson 2010) so the approach taken here is not an outlier. While the journals chosen are country-specific in the title all journals chosen publish research from other countries. Are these journals publishing research on learning and teaching?

Method The initial time period for the database search was five years (2014–2018 calendar years inclusive) for journals in criminology. The parameters for such journals are that they publish research from a range of countries and in particular published Australian-based research in order to be able to identify any shifts in the extent and content of Australian SCOLATIC materials. The journals chosen or this initial study were three key English language journals: the British Journal of Criminology; the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, and; the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. The case could be made for including several other journals in Australia (e.g. Current Issues in Criminal Justice) and beyond (e.g. Crime and Criminal Justice and the European Journal of Criminology) as well as the sole dedicated discipline-specific education journal Criminal Justice Education. However, as this is a preliminary study the number of journals chosen was limited in the first instance. As will be seen below, it will be necessary to broaden the scope of searches in terms of the number of journals and the timeframe. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-­ Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart was partly followed in organising the data presentation (Rodgers et al. 2019: 11). PRISMA highlights each step of collection and elimination and allowing replication of the research, updating and comparative analysis. This is particularly useful when conducting database searches using key terms or words. However, as this study was

136 

D. PALMER

limited to certain journals the full PRISMA flow chart is not required. In addition, while we have included meta-analysis articles these have not been subject to the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) protocols (Chambers et  al. 2012) due to the objective of analysing the extent of publications about SCOLATIC rather than the quality of the publications. DARE seeks to identify the extent that a metasynthesis is able to be coded ‘yes’ to five key questions: Was the database search adequate; were inclusion/exclusion criteria reported; were the data synthesised and a yes to at least one of the following two questions: was the study quality assessed and were adequate study details reported? (for an example see Rodgers et al. 2019, Appendix 6, p. 127).

Criminology Journals Each of these journals have their own histories that have been shaped by the historical development of criminology in each region, something beyond the scope of this chapter (on Australia see Carson and O’Malley 2016; Finnane 2006,  2008, 2012, 2016; Palmer 2017). However, we should acknowledge the importance of these histories as conditioning factors, along with the structural dynamics discussed above that shape what is submitted and what is accepted for publication. In addition, changing editors and editorial boards and the strategies and priorities they adopt (more of this, less of that, more or less emphasis on increasing the Impact Factor etc.) shapes the outputs in each journal. Each journal article title was scanned for possible inclusion, and where unclear a closer examination of the Abstract occurred. The initial search results for each journal over a five year period (2014–2018) produced a total of 551 articles (ANZJC—145; BJC—321; CJCCJ—96). As can be seen from Fig. 7.1, over a five year period there was a potential for 11 articles in the ANZJC and one in each of the BJC and CJCCJ addressing SCOLATIC content. However, after examining the full articles only one article (ANZJC) could be classified as SCOLATIC (Bartels et al. 2015). Is it any wonder then that, as the authors of that one article state, there is very little consistency in how criminology and/or justice degrees are named, the schools/faculties in which they are located or, especially, the core content that they deliver. (Bartels et al. 2015: 123)

7  META REVIEW OF RECENT SCHOLARSHIP ON LEARNING AND TEACHING… 

137

Criminology Journals ANZJC (n=145)

BJC (n=321)

CJCCJ (n=c)

Excluded at title/abstract n=134

n=321

n=96

Examine full publication n=11

n=1

n=1

Fig. 7.1  Adapted PRISMA flow chart for select criminology journals 2014– 2018. ANZJC—Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; BJC— British Journal of Criminology; CJCCJ—Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

This echoes earlier studies (Maddan and Hartley 2011). The lack of published articles on learning and teaching practices—on what criminologists practice in the transition of knowledge, what they are seeking to do in shaping future criminological ‘communities of practice’ is left largely to the research domain despite the self-evident fact that few of the thousands of students studying criminology today will end up in research-based careers, whether inside or beyond the academy. Research from the US has partly addressed this issue. In the main, research in this area has focused on undergraduate programs (Sever et al. 2008: 223) though still heavily shaped by the ongoing tension between ‘academic’ (theory and methods training) and ‘criminal justice’ (administration, management) in the US. In two studies of undergraduate course conducted a decade apart, Southerland (1991, 2002) “found little con­ sensus among the offerings in the criminal justice departments across” the US, though the second study found an increase in “research methods and statistics” (Sever et al. 2008). Sever et al found that the ongoing tension between whether a programme is academically or practitioner focus was not found in their analysis of course topic areas. However, they are

138 

D. PALMER

sanguine in their conclusion: “The fact that departments attempt to design curricula that cater to both practitioners and future researchers does not mean the old problems between academics and practitioners have been solved” (2008: 246–247). While Australia does not have such an entrenched division as exists in the US, detailed analysis of the kind started by Bartels et al. (2015) is needed.

Discussion The initial research interest was in the extent that SCOLATIC was appearing in criminology journals. The broad finding is that there are very few such articles in the recent past. How might this be explained? In part, this can be explained by not having examined the journal dedicated to SCOLATIC (Criminal Justice Education). However, this can only be a partial explanation as other disciplines with their own journals dedicated to SCOLAT also publish in broader, generic discipline journals (Tight 2018). There are two broad structural factors shaping this outcome. First, the evidence-based learning and teaching developments are relatively new in academia beyond education studies. In addition, it is only of recent times that it has become fairly common for academics to be promoted on the basis of learning and teaching performance. Bringing these two points together, funded research for scholarship in learning and teaching (SCOLAT) outside education studies only developed meaningfully just over a decade or so. Being able to obtain competitive grant funding to do SCOLAT and to publish research findings and the shifts in the reward structures have shaped the proliferation of SCOLAT. Yet this should have meant that we would expect more discipline-based research outside education studies to appear in discipline-based journals? The findings presented in this chapter clearly indicates that this has not happened in criminology. To understand why this first structural change has not produced this outcome we need to understand a second structural dynamic at play. The past 10–20 years (depending on which country we are discussing) has seen the introduction of ‘research excellence’ (REs) reviews at national levels. Put simply, REs generally reward scholarship that is focused around specific discipline research codes. In Australia this is done at two levels: the broad cluster of disciplines at the two digit codes (such as ‘16. Studies in Human Society’) and at the four digit code (‘1602. Criminology’). Each

7  META REVIEW OF RECENT SCHOLARSHIP ON LEARNING AND TEACHING… 

139

University then seeks to determine what outputs are located under which Code. Some are straightforward such as a journal with ‘criminology’ in the title being allocated to 1602 at the four digits level, though even then it will depend on whether that university has determined whether criminology will be submitted or not, and if there are any other competing discipline submissions. To give an example, someone working in psychology might publish an article in a criminology journal and seek to have it counted under ‘psychology’ rather than ‘criminology’ (though it gets even more complicated when there are situations for the allowance of ‘double-counting’). The key point here is that academics seeking to contribute to and enhance the reputation of their discipline at Faculty, University and at the national level will seek to produce outputs which will be counted towards their discipline in the RE reviews. A criminologist publishing in education journals is not achieving this. In this sense there is reputational deterrence limiting the likelihood of this occurring. This explains the absence of SCOLATIC in education journals and perhaps in dedicated SCOLAT journals as such scholarship is not highly valued as scholarly research, an issue that is the subject of ongoing research incorporating a larger  number  of journals, a longer timeframe and qualitative analysis of criminological ‘communities of practice’ shaping the extent to which criminological research is engaging in SCOLATIC work.

References Bartels, L., McGovern, A., & Richards, K. (2015). Degress of Difference? A Preliminary Study of Criminology Degrees at Australian Universities. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 119–146. Budd, J., & Magnusson, L. (2010). Higher Education Literature Revisited: Citation Patterns Examined. Research in Higher Education, 51, 294–304. Carson, K., & O’Malley, P. (2016). The Institutional Foundations of Contemporary Australian Criminology. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 25(3), 333–355. Chambers, D., Wade, R., & Wilson, P. (2012). Training Manual for Selecting Reviews and Writing Abstracts for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Corden, W.  M. (2005). Australian Universities: Moscow on the Molongo. Quadrant, XLIX(11), 7–20. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2016). Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

140 

D. PALMER

Finnane, M. (2006). The ABC of Criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 399–422. Finnane, M. (2008). Promoting the Theory and Practice of Criminology: The Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology and Its Founding Moment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 199–215. Finnane, M. (2012). The Origins of Criminology in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 157–178. Finnane, M. (2016). Sir John Barry and the Melbourne Department of Criminology: Some Other Foundations of Australian Criminology. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 31(1), 69–81. Maddan, S., & Hartley, R. (2011). Lawyers Practicing Medicine: Criminal Justice, Criminology, Sociology and Differential Curricula. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(3), 440–465. O’Connor, P., & O’Hagan, C. (2016). Excellence in University Academic Staff Evaluation: A Problematic Reality? Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1943–1957. Palmer, D. (2017). Criminology in Australia: Past, Present and Future. In D. Palmer, W. De Lint, & D. Dalton (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (pp. 639–656). Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co. Pidd, M., & Broadbent, J. (2015). Business and Management Studies in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 569–581. Rodgers, M., Thomas, S., Dalton, J., Harden, M., & Eastwood, A. (2019). Police-­ Related Triage Interventions for Mental-Health-Related Incidents: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis. Health Services and Delivery Research, 7(20). https://doi. org/10.3310/hsrd07200. Sever, B., Coram, G., & Meltzer, G. (2008). Criminal Justice Graduate Programs at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Criminal Justice Review, 33(2), 221–249. Southerland, M. D. (1991). Criminal Justice Curricula in the United States: An Examination of Baccalaureate Programs, 1988–1989. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2(1), 45–68. Southerland, M. D. (2002). Criminal Justice Curricula in the United States: A Decade of Change. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 589–601. Tight, M. (2011). Eleven Years of Studies in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 1–6. Tight, M. (2018). Higher Education Journals: Their Characteristics and Contribution. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 607–619.

Index1

A Academic freedom, 100 Active learning, 18, 24, 27 Applied, 29, 62, 64–66, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 113, 118, 121, 125, 126 Assessment, 20, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34, 41, 44, 51, 61, 77–78, 96 Attrition, 46, 51, 97 B Banking model, 24 Bartels, L., 8, 13, 18, 25, 29, 60, 82, 109, 111, 113, 126, 136, 138 Benchmarks, 4–6, 13 C Case study/studies, 6, 30, 32, 62, 66–78, 80–83, 88, 96, 100, 121, 123, 135 Casual staff, 59

Collaboration, 37, 63 Community safety, 59–83 Comparative, 7, 135 Corrections, 4, 10, 41, 46, 64, 100 Courts, 10, 41, 64, 99, 101, 103 Crime, 5, 6, 18–22, 29, 30, 32–34, 37, 38, 40, 46, 50, 52, 62, 63, 65–67, 69, 72, 74, 76–79, 81, 95–100, 110 Crime prevention, 18, 59–83 Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), 63, 69, 70, 72 Critical reflection, 19, 20, 23, 26–34 Critical thinking, 3, 12, 19, 23–25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 40, 112 Cultural criminology, 21

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Palmer (ed.), Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35158-8

141

142 

INDEX

D Data collection, 112, 116–117, 121–123, 128 Deep learning, 26, 27 Developmental, 62, 63, 69, 71, 76 Dialogue, 13, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 37, 38, 96 E Employment, 10, 18, 26, 39, 47, 65, 69, 82, 83, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 127 Empowerment, 27 Engagement, 4, 12, 13, 24, 33, 69, 77, 78, 94 Ethics, 41, 97, 100, 112, 113, 115, 118–120, 126, 128 Evaluation, 6, 39, 40, 44–52, 55, 63, 72, 116, 121 Evidence-based, 63, 124, 134, 138 Excellence, 11, 134 Exchanges, 52 Experiential learning, 20, 25–29 F Finnane, M., 3, 9, 136 G Garland, D., 2, 8–13 Graduate certificate, 11 Graffiti, 66, 68, 69 H Historical, 6, 9, 12, 26, 96, 111, 136 I Inclusivity, 93 Interdisciplinary, 22, 23, 63, 115

K Knowledge transfer, 18, 24, 25 L Learning environment, 37, 43, 101 Learning experiences, 24, 30, 37–39, 49–52, 56, 62, 93 Literacy, 76, 110–112, 119 M Massification, 82, 134 Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice Education, 4 N Neo-liberalism, 64 O Online, 1, 17, 20, 30, 31, 33, 60, 92, 123, 128 P Passive learning, 18, 24 Pedagogy, 12, 17–34, 38, 43, 45, 115 Placements, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34 Police, 4, 4n1, 7, 10, 22, 41, 64, 69, 72, 100 Popularity, 11 Poster, 66, 69, 72, 76 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 90, 92, 102 Practitioner, 48, 49, 64–66, 77, 110, 137, 138 Pre-crime, 19, 21, 33 Private providers, 134 Problem-based learning (PBL), 78–80 Problem-solving, 37, 51, 63, 76 Public criminology, 4, 12, 13, 29

 INDEX 

R Recidivism, 32, 39, 54 Reflection, 27, 30, 87–106 Research skills, 109–129 S Simulation, 30 Social construction, 43 Soft skills, 65 Stigma, 40, 48–49 Student-centred, 38 Student welfare, 87, 94 T Textbooks, 38, 42, 66, 78, 110, 111

143

Transformative learning, 18, 19, 25, 37, 39, 49–51, 56 Transformative pedagogies, 19–20, 23–29, 32–34 Transformative teaching, 27, 28 Trigger warnings, 87–106 U United States (US), 2–4, 7, 9, 13, 18, 22, 38, 44, 88, 89, 102, 111–113, 125, 137, 138 V Visual communication, 76 Vocational, 2, 10, 39, 64–66, 82, 133