Suchergebnisse

Abstract: How has knowledge been constructed in British criminology since the 1960s? While histories of theory are plentiful and, due to such activities as the Research Assessment Exercise, awareness of citation counts has grown, we have become interested in a less formal – harder to assess – area of knowledge construction. Our questions have formed around the ways in which current, practising criminologists perceive the development of their discipline (if it is sufficiently unitary to be called such), and what has influenced them more directly. In so doing, we are attempting to tap into the creative impact on criminology and criminologists of the range of studies that do not necessarily figure as largely in international citation studies. In collecting from fellow‐criminologists a sense of which studies and writers have both shaped criminology and influenced their own thinking, we have arrived at a paradoxical picture of British criminology: one in which there is tension between how current practitioners present a highly‐fragmented, wide‐ranging set of influences, yet do so within a discipline in which there appears to be constant repetition of similar questions over time.

"When the term 'e-Science' became popular, it frequently was referred to as 'enhanced science' or 'electronic science'. More telling is the definition 'e-Science is about global collaboration in key areas of science and the next generation of infrastructure that will enable it' (Taylor, 2001). The question arises to what extent can the social sciences profit from recent developments in e-Science infrastructure? While computing, storage and network capacities so far were sufficient to accommodate and access social science data bases, new capacities and technologies support new types of research, e.g. linking and analysing transactional or audiovisual data. Increasingly collaborative working by researchers in distributed networks is efficiently supported and new resources are available for e-learning. Whether these new developments become transformative or just helpful will very much depend on whether their full potential is recognized and creatively integrated into new research designs by theoretically innovative scientists. Progress in e-Science was very much linked to the vision of the Grid as 'a software infrastructure that enables flexible, secure, coordinated resource sharing among dynamic collections of individuals, institutions and resources' and virtually unlimited computing capacities (Foster et al. 2000). In the Social Sciences there has been considerable progress in using modern IT-technologies for multilingual access to virtual distributed research databases across Europe and beyond (e.g. NESSTAR, CESSDA - Portal), data portals for access to statistical offices and for linking access to data, literature, project, expert and other data bases (e.g. Digital Libraries, VASCODA/ SOWIPORT). Whether future developments will need GRID enabling of social science databases or can be further developed using WEB 2.0 support is currently an open question. The challenges here are seamless integration and interoperability of data bases, a requirement that is also stipulated by internationalisation and trans-disciplinary research. This goes along with the need for standards and harmonisation of data and metadata. Progress powered by e-infrastructure is, among others, dependent on regulatory frameworks and human capital well trained in both, data science and research methods. It is also dependent on sufficient critical mass of the institutional infrastructure to efficiently support a dynamic research community that wants to 'take the lead without catching up'." (author's abstract)

Two recent American Society of Criminology presidential addresses have identified as a key problem the fact that criminology lacks a history. In this address, I ask why criminology (in contrast to closely related fields) has generated so few studies of its past; I also identify some results of this failure and discuss why intellectual fields need a sense of their origins and development. History molds individual and collective identities; it lays a foundation for sociologies of knowledge; it encourages reflexivity, teaches us where our ideas came from, and gives us a sense of where we are going. To encourage historical work, I propose an overall framework for understanding the evolution of criminology, reaching back to the late eighteenth century and continuing into the present. My overall framework is that of scientific modernism, within which I identify the following three primary phases: exploratory modernism, confident modernism, and agonistic modernism. In conclusion, I suggest ways to stimulate histories of science in the field of criminology.

Interest has grown in the past few years about the place of social work in science. Questions remain, such as whether social work should be considered a science, and if so, where it fits into the constellation of sciences. This article attempts to shed light on these questions. After briefly considering past and present constructions of science and reflecting on views of science within the social work profession over time, we present an argument for how social work contributes to predominant questions facing science today through its unique ability to draw together and integrate knowledge from a variety of disciplines. Finally, we address how the profession can best prepare the coming generation of social workers to operate to their full potential in the current transdisciplinary world of science.