BSC Annual Conference 2021 (online) at The Open University: some reflections

The event helped to foster a stronger sense of identity and community within our team at a time when home-working has left many of us feeling detached and isolated.

Between July 7th and July 9th, the Open University’s Department of Social Policy and Criminology (SPC) hosted the BSC’s annual conference online. The event went better than any of us could have imagined, and the feedback we received during and afterwards has been positive, and generous. It goes without saying that there were one or two tech glitches, but overall, we ‘got off’ lightly.  Expectations were modest in the sense that we would not / could not replicate the usual BSC conference process and experience. The initial thinking around this was that it would operate as a ‘place-holder’ type event. To that end we believe the conference over-delivered in some ways. There are too many people to mention for their help by name, but Louise Westmarland must be singled out for instigating the whole thing and making it happen, alongside the BSC team who offered close support and guidance along the way.

Using MS Teams for such a complicated event gave us some concern. We toyed with the idea of using other platforms, but we figured that simplicity would be best. We had the main conference room, which hosted 5 plenary sessions focused on important and pressing criminological themes and issues – broadly reflecting the interests within SPC. We had 14 presentation rooms running in parallel for the 3 days (for the delivery of several hundred papers). There were separate rooms for publishers with their own presentations and consultations, activities run by the various BSC networks, and fantastic evening entertainment orchestrated by Dave Turner – live jazz, live rock, a magician, a quiz, ‘crim dine with me’, and a virtual bar. In all, we had approximately 450 registrants, logging-in from as far away as Australia, Hong Kong, and the USA. Despite only starting to plan the conference in the early Spring, it all seemed to come together well.

Having a team dedicated to managing the various meeting rooms proved invaluable. We sought the help of various colleagues (too many to mention) from the support arms of the faculty, and our associate lecturer colleagues. It’s not something we initially envisaged, but rather, it was a last-minute scramble to resolve a problem we identified with the tech, following a sobering test run. We are very grateful to those colleagues who gave up their time to support the event. The involvement of so many people in making this event happen has helped to foster a stronger sense of identity and community within SPC at a time when home-working has left many of us feeling detached and isolated from one another.

The plenaries got off to a great start, with the Wednesday morning session delivered by Jonny Ilan, exploring the criminalisation of drill music. This was followed on Wednesday afternoon by a ‘harm and crime interface’ session, with papers from Tanya Wyatt and Lois Presser, with Nigel South as discussant. Thursday morning saw Molly Dragiewicz, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, and James Messerschmidt exploring gendered harms. Later in that day there was a plenary to reflect on criminal justice considering Black Lives Matter, with Prabha Unnithan, and Katheryn Russell Brown, with Azrini Wahidin as discussant. Finally, Friday morning offered a focus on decolonisation, with Leon Moosavi, and Kerry Carrington. The parallel sessions provided an impressive breadth of topics and coverage of criminological enquiry, with many closely tracking the focus of the plenary sessions.

Mike Hough was a well-deserved winner of the Outstanding Achievement Award; David Maguire won the criminology book prize (sponsored by Routledge) for his fantastic book Male, Failed, Jailed: Masculinities and ‘Revolving-Door’ Imprisonment in the UK; Alison Hutchinson won the research poster prize (Sponsored by Sage) with an excellent poster on the harms of the fishing industry; and Swansea University won the National Award for Excellence in Teaching Criminology and Criminal Justice 2021.

Being online proved to be advantageous on several levels. It enabled the use of chat boxes for comments and questions throughout, which meant otherwise reticent attendees (within a face-to-face meeting) could take advantage of an arguably less daunting option. People could easily hop in and out of sessions, or to sit in a meeting whilst looking after children, and still ‘be there’ in some sense, rather than being excluded had they physically needed to attend. Our plenary sessions included global experts, pioneering in their focus, who otherwise might not have been able to participate face-to-face. Also, there were the financial savings for institutions and individual attendees, and indeed, the environmental benefit of hundreds of attendees not having to travel. The BSC have indicated that future conferences will entail some online element. Surrey 2022, for example, is set to be a hybrid delivery model, and we wish them every success with this.

There was a wider sense of inclusion both in terms of the aspiration and delivery of the conference. Although we held the usual postgraduate morning on day one, we were also careful to integrate postgraduate papers throughout all the parallel sessions. The online nature of the conference in some ways acted as a ‘leveller’, whereby usual power dynamics between some of the more-established names in criminology and relatively inexperienced presenters were less pronounced than usual (in part because of digital competency!).

Overall, we are delighted to have been able to host such a prestigious event, to showcase The OU and SPC, and to positively engage with some of the most pressing issues and debates in criminology (and beyond). It was a step into the unknown for us, but a thoroughly enjoyable and welcome one! We couldn’t have pulled it off without the help of colleagues across the University and the BSC — a huge ‘thank you’ once again to everyone who supported the event, and thank you to all those presented and attended. We look forward to Surrey 2022!

Tony Murphy and Keir Irwin-Rogers

(on behalf of the conference organising team)

Contact

Tony Murphy, The Open University

Email: Tony.murphy@open.ac.uk

Dr Keir Irwin-Rogers, The Open University

Email: Keir.irwin-rogers@open.ac.uk

Twitter: @KeirIrwinRogers

Images: courtesy of the authors

‘Crime and Harm: Challenges of Social and Global Justice?

The conference has, at its centre, themes that are amongst the most pressing for criminologists (and society): the harm/crime interface; gendered harms; reflecting on justice in light of Black Lives Matter; and decolonisation.

Looking ahead to the annual BSC conference at the Open University

As we hurtle towards the start of this year’s conference, we thought it would be a good idea to spend a little time introducing it and signalling what is to come.

We are confident that this will be an exciting, innovative, and timely exposition and exploration of many important and pressing issues. Naturally, our planning and thinking around the conference has been heavily influenced by events over the past eighteen months – in terms of its online delivery, and the areas of focus. The conference has, at its centre, themes that are amongst the most pressing for criminologists (and society): the harm/crime interface; gendered harms; reflecting on justice in light of Black Lives Matter; and decolonisation. These themes are also closely linked to much of the curriculum and research at The Open University, which has always been critical and pioneering, as well as the enduring social justice and equality mission at the heart of the institution.

Our initial expectations for the conference have already been surpassed through the fantastic response we have received from our plenary speakers, our presenters, and those just wanting to attend. We are grateful for the support and enthusiasm we have received for the conference. We are delighted to have a diverse set of plenary speakers, all of whom are internationally renowned in their respective fields of teaching and research. These speakers will be presenting from locations across the globe – from the UK, Australia, and the USA, to Hong Kong, Canada, and various countries in Europe.

It goes without saying that hosting the conference this year has come with a number of challenges, and the wider circumstances have required us to adapt in terms of moving to online delivery and dealing with the difficulties this has thrown up. This seems apt given the nature of The Open University and our focus on online delivery of programmes – albeit, within a blended model of teaching. Yet, it has still been a challenge in terms of how best to organise and run such a large and complicated conference online.

We hope the product of our efforts will prove to be a rich and stimulating three days. While much of the conference programme illustrates a tight connection with the conference themes, the diversity of topics and disciplinary backgrounds within these parameters remains remarkable. So too is the mix between some well-established names in the field, up and coming early career researchers, and those just beginning to dip their toes in conference waters.

We have five plenary sessions (one on each conference theme, plus a postgraduate one), seven sessions for papers (encompassing up to fourteen rooms per session), a postgraduate workshop, various publisher stands and activities, and many activities within the dedicated networks session.  There will be a special edited edition of the CCJ in the run up to the conference and a special journal edition from the BSC published from papers presented at the event.

While the fully online nature of this year’s event may preclude the traditional face-to-face opportunities to meet, catch-up and network over food and drinks, we very much hope there will be plenty of spaces to establish new connections and relationships throughout the duration of the conference. Beyond the serious academic stuff, we have a range of fun social activities built into our programme, ranging from ‘Crim Dine With Me’, to live music, and a magic routine! Clearly, we cannot quite hope to match the fun and frolics that have characterised previous BSC conferences, but we have at least invested energy into making the social side of the conference just as memorable as the academic discussions.

We plan to post a more substantial follow-up piece following the event, to reflect upon the key messages and next steps, so please do look out for that.

For now, thank you in advance to everyone for taking part in this year’s conference — we very much look forward to welcoming you!

Tony Murphy and Keir Irwin-Rogers

(on behalf of the OU organising team)

For information about the conference please see the BSC website

Seven New Conversations in Historical Criminology

Report on discussions at BSC Historical Criminology Network Workshop 2020.

Me mini

David Churchill is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice in the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds, and Chair of the BSC Historical Criminology Network. His research focuses on policing, security and crime control in modern Britain

 

Conferences are great – a chance to catch up with old friends, pick up fresh ideas and hatch plans for new ventures. So many have been lost to the lockdown this summer, and they are much missed. But there’s also a problem with conferences. After two or three days of mind-opening discussion, everyone goes home. Greeted by a wall of emails and all the distractions of the day-to-day, the spark of creative energy is so easily lost.

So this year, members of the BSC Historical Criminology Network did something different. The plan was to bring together scholars who don’t normally work together to talk about topics of common interest. We hoped to meet in person, but the pandemic intervened. So we met online instead. This brought challenges – frail internet connections and so on – but it also opened up the conversation to a much wider, more international group than would have been possible otherwise.

And so seven groups of brilliant scholars met to discuss new directions and common concerns in historical criminology. It was a wonderful day, illustrated in real time to give a rich visual record of the event. In this post, the convenors of each group offer a summary of what was said. But these conversations are not finished – several groups are looking forward to future meetings and possible collaborations. So if something catches your eye, do get in touch via contact details below.

  1. Mobile MethodsMobile Methods and Doing Historical Criminology (Esmorie Miller, Alexa Neale & Lizzie Seal – e.c.seal@sussex.ac.uk): Our group discussed experiences of, and possibilities for, using mobile methods in historical criminology. We understood mobile methods to include walking as a research method, but also other mobilities, such as road trips and boat trips. We discussed how mobile methods might unlock understandings of space and sensory experience in ways that other methods cannot and how this is particularly relevant for historical criminologists, who usually conduct research from documents. We explored how mobilities can illuminate what we have read in archival documents, offering insights into locations and landscapes, especially in relation to places in which events happened, areas where particular individuals lived, or journeys they undertook. We talked about how being out and about can lead to chance meetings which might produce new ideas, or garner new information. And we considered access to spaces – something which varies by space and by person.

Another key theme from the discussion was the significance of layering. Landscapes, buildings, areas have developed over time and bear multiple histories. They have different meanings to different social groups and are sites of contested memory. We spoke about the salience of memorialisation at the moment in terms of understandings of, and contests about, colonial history and racial justice. Finally, we discussed technologies and the possibilities offered by online tools such as StoryMap JS that enable highlighting location in relation to a series of events. We talked about how, in an era of restricted mobility, historical criminologists might be able to share resources with each other online to enhance understandings of space.

  1. CorruptionPolice Corruption (Paul Bleakley – p.bleakley@mdx.ac.uk): This workshop was a great opportunity for academics working on researching historical incidences of law enforcement misconduct to liaise with police practitioners, and to discuss the ways that insight into the past can assist in shaping contemporary anticorruption policies. What emerged was the general recognition that studies of police corruption face a serious definitional problem, where our understandings of what constitutes corrupt practice differing greatly based on location and (crucially) the sociocultural context of the period in which it was practiced. It was agreed that historical criminology provides anticorruption researchers with a “safe space” to discuss very pertinent issues of deviant organisational cultures and managerial practices, allowing for critical analysis without presenting a professional or legal threat to active duty police. Because of this, studies of the intra-organisational cultural factors that drive police corruption can be examined in a more abstract way through the lens of the past. The group determined that one of the greatest priorities of historical police corruption research should be to draw on the myriad of examples that the past offers us to develop a clearer typology of misconduct – not just what acts are considered “corrupt”, but how a culture of misconduct becomes entrenched in law enforcement agencies.
  2. AHC‘Advancing ‘Historical Criminology’: Celebrating interdisciplinarity and reflecting on history as lingua franca (Sarah Wilson – s.wilson@york.ac.uk): This was truly a global and intellectually diverse group (from History and Criminology to Political Science and Law), including those with practitioner backgrounds in museum work and policing. The session was oriented around the idea of promoting historical criminology through History as ‘lingua franca’. This stresses: (i) the need for Criminology as a whole to ‘become historicised’ (rather than establishing a niche sub-field); that (ii) Criminology is in need of direction in how to move toward historicisation; and that (iii) examining how other humanities and social science disciplines are reflecting on their own relationship with history would be beneficial for Criminology. Linking these points is the idea that History can help break down disciplinary barriers; that through historicisation scholars can come together and ‘find’ shared interests which have been obscured by discipline-specific practices and language. Asked whether Historical Criminology was a movement in need of direction, participants discussed its current intellectual standing and directions. This led to a fantastic conversation on the importance of Historical Criminology moving away from being a minor pursuit (one occurring in ‘pockets’) towards a position of normalisation within the discipline of Criminology. Very interesting reflections were offered on the importance of history in ‘grounding’ social science research, and giving meaning, context and sense and even rigour to social science’s interest in data analysis. Perhaps the most insightful discussions centred on History’s value as the ‘interdisciplinary discipline’, and how it is uniquely placed to speak across so many disciplines, on account of its interest in continuums rather than the ‘binaries’ which often underpin the theories and rationales of social science.
  3. AtoneThe Not Yet Dead God of Atonement (Aaron Pycroft – aaron.pycroft@port.ac.uk): We explored the historical relationship between theology and the practices of justice and the ways in which Judaeo-Christian atonement theory is used in contemporary penal settings to support harsh penal measures. The basic premise of this approach is that every crime (sin) must be punished to satisfy the metaphysical requirements of both a retributive god and the need for social order. The discussion was based around Pycroft (in press) and whether modern anthropological, theological and philosophical resources in “the death of the death of god discourse” should have any traction in criminology. We discussed the limits of practical reason (following Kant) and the implications of the de Sade through to Foucault genealogy in critical criminology and whether these philosophies do no more than lock in cruelty and violence. This led to an examination of personal complicity in structural violence and the role that Judaeo-Christianity plays in revealing that violence to others, without resorting to simplistic deus ex machina arguments. There was an acknowledgement of the challenge of teaching these issues in standard criminological curricula, but that change agency, personalism and religious literacy were promising topics for further exploration. [Pycroft, A (in press) ‘Surveillance, Substance Misuse and the Drug Use Industry’ in The Pre-Crime Society: Crime, Culture and Control in the Ultramodern Age. Arrigo, B. & Sellers, B. (eds.). Bristol: Bristol University Press.]
  4. DTCrime-Related Dark Tourism: An Exploration (Hannah Thurston – H.Thurston@brighton.ac.uk): First, we shared concerns about crime-related tourism. How reality and fiction become blurred, how stories are marginalised or sensationalized. We discussed problematic tropes and the consequences of distortion. We were though, mindful of the neo-liberal context: competing demands force sites to capitalize, to romanticise, to compromise. Next, we also chatted about the positive potential of crime-related tourism. We talked about how sites can disrupt dominant memories, problematising taken-for-granted transmissions of the past. Rather than sensationalise or romanticise, they work toward peace and social justice. We discussed activists (re)claiming sites and (re)interpreting stories, which led us to reflect upon our own place in the story-world. It transpired that many of us felt part of our (crime) stories. Some of us had worked in/consulted for museums. Others collaborated with artists/activists at heritage sites. Others had done TV interviews, and some had even corresponded with ancestors of the deceased. It became clear we had all – in one way or another – interrogated not only our own power as a storyteller, but also our role as a character within the story we were telling. And then we decided that transmission of memory is all about power, and collaborations present powerful opportunities to reach different audiences (big and small).  By understanding the needs of other storytellers – be they activists, curators, or documentary makers – we have the potential to influence and shape these crime-related sites/memories. Clearly these types of collaborations include compromise and it is unlikely we will be given the freedom to tell the story we would want to tell … The question is: should that stop us from trying?
  5. Path DependencePath Dependency, Crime and Social Responses to Crime (Thomas Guiney & Henry Yeomans – H.P.Yeomans@leeds.ac.uk): This session explored the emerging literature on ‘path dependency’ and how these analytical tools might be used to making sense of the historical development of crime and criminal justice. In our introductory talk we offered a general introduction to path dependency. Events in one historical context can constrain actions at later points in time by, for example, creating precedents, vested interests, embedded working practices or entrenched popular opinions. Deviating from the existing path can thus become much more challenging and costly than simply continuing with things as they are. Building on these observations, Dr Ashley Rubin from the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa discussed the promise and pitfalls of path dependency and how she has used these techniques in her own research to explain the uneven development of the early American state penitentiaries. In the subsequent discussion a number of themes emerged for further discussion:
  • The need to reconcile path dependency with a more dynamic view of policy change.
  • Further work on where change comes from, if not from exogenous shocks.
  • How change is “layered” over an extended period of time, and how this connects with recent theorising on time and temporality.
  • Whether path dependency needs to be anchored to institutional analysis or whether these techniques be used with biographical or life course studies.
  1. ProtectProtection (Francis Dodsworth – f.dodsworth@kingston.ac.uk): Our discussion explored how historical criminologists might contribute both to existing theories of protection and to the development of original empirical and theoretical enquiry. We discussed the centrality of ‘protection’ to contemporary criminal justice, connections with David Garland’s idea of the ‘culture of control’ and the need for fuller exploration of the genealogy of protection.

We were particularly interested in the power dynamics of protection, of who is being protected from whom – the police from the public, the public from the police, or people from themselves – so pertinent in the context of the Black Lives Matter protests and a media culture invested in sensational representation of threat. We discussed histories of protest, riot and moral panic, but also child removal and reformatories, disease regulations and prevention (extending into ‘public health’ models of violence reduction) and the configuration of ‘vulnerability’. Important issues raised included the policing of domestic abuse and the over-policing and under-protecting of minority and marginalised communities. We noted the longstanding discussion in the United States about ‘protection’ from below and its relation to accountability, and the need for historical perspectives on equivalent UK discourses. We also discussed a critical approach to the realities of vulnerability, recognising differential levels of autonomy and the importance of perceptions of vulnerability to violent response. Moving forward, there was interest in exploring the role that criminological study plays in terms of gender, class and minority recruitment into the criminal justice system and associated roles, and in how historical enquiry might help us think through what we want ‘protection’ to look like.

As mentioned earlier, these conversations are not finished.  Future meetings and future collaborations are full of possibilities. If you want to be a part of this, do get in touch via contact details above.

 

Images courtesy of Laura Evans of Nifty Fox Creative