User:Cbake96/sandbox


 * 2Criticism
 * 2.1How will it be supported?
 * 2.2What knowledge "counts" or can be supported by criminologists?
 * 2.3What should be its goals?
 * 2.4Who should be participants in it?
 * 2.5What forms should public criminology take?

Criticism & Challenges Group[edit]
In this section, we will discuss how other articles critique the Uggen and Inderbitzen article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlin bar87 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC) In this section, we will discuss the criticisms and challenges of public criminology that have been discussed by criminologists.(We are not just writing about critiques to their article but to public criminology as a whole) Cbake96 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Rock Amurph1997 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Paul Rock argued that some ideas shared by public criminologists aren't relevant and therefore necessary to share with the community. He also argues about the biases of public criminologists. Maybe the publishers shouldn't be completely unbiased, but should be wary of exposing party-based opinions. Kenneth Land also criticized Uggen and Inderbitzen's work, arguing that its important to regulate who can become a public criminologist. There needs to be extra-academic audiences that can grow and expand on criminology. Michael Tonry adds that while public criminology is helping to change policy, it is complex in evaluating how well its influence is helping. He considers evaluation methods to determine if public criminology is acting alone in informing the public on issues.

Paul Rock's critique of a public criminology included concerns about the political aspect of it, the integrity of it, the constantly changing nature of the science, the selection of ideas to be introduced to the public realm, the censoring of ideas, relevancy of chosen topics and how that relates to Government interference, and finally Criminologist's lack of knowledge and experience with policy-making. On the issue of relevancy, Rock concerned himself with the idea that "how relevance or issues of concern are defined is a matter of political contingency" meaning that a relevant public criminology could often fall under the state and governments rule which could compromise the integrity or even impartiality of the study while exposing criminology to more political agenda. Criminology is a field that is heavily research-based as well as theory based and the fact that it studies society and humanity means that it is never a concrete science that can be "proved", instead criminological theories and research are ever-changing with many theories being disproved and outdated at some point; Rock was concerned that releasing this type of information to the public that could at any point become non-relevant or inaccurate might do more damage than good. Finally, Rock highlights the fact that criminologists who aim to influence public policy actually know very little about policymaking. SarahHonos(talk) 11:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Mears Amurph1997 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Mears suggests more policy-focused research to expand on real public issues that concern the public. He adds that a public criminologist should pursue what they want to, as it relates to policy, in order to make a difference in society. Ian Loader and Richard Sparks argue that public criminology should not act as a method to make issues less "heated", but to put some issues on the front-line to get more people involved where they should be. They suggest that to truly act as public criminologists, the researchers need to act as a mediator for issues, "cooling" them down when things aren't true and "heating" them up when issues are underreported on. -Caitlin bar87 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sindre Bangstad Amurph1997 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sindre Bangstad once said, Amurph1997 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "The wealth of information that most of us are exposed to on a daily basis creates a poverty of attention" and Amurph1997 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "Think too of the vastproliferation of online media outlets which provides a sea of opportunities for voices to be expressed but never actually heard". In her article, Bangstad is primarily concerned not with the accessibility to information but with the challenge of getting folks to actually access the information at their fingertips and pay attention to it. This fully raises the question- How do public criminologists best involve the public after making the information accessible? If we provide public criminology almost as a service, how do we get the public to utilize this service?

Benton and Bonilla Amurph1997 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, Benton and Bonilla rebute Bagstad and almost relate to Loader and Sparks by saying we need to be utilizing this digital age and all the information at our fingertips but we need to be doing it by having public conversations- opening a literal dialogue between professionals (maybe non-professionals too) that a public can follow. SarahHonos (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Should public criminology monitor its publishers? Who in the extra-academic audience should be credible enough to share issues publicly? Which ideas are most relevant for public criminology? Does public criminology actually inform the public in the way it should/ we think it should? How can researchers evaluate if an issue should be "heated" or "cooled"? Caitlin bar87 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC) How will public criminologists be supported? Who will support public criminologists? What topics should public criminologists report on and who should decide this? In what ways should public criminologists share information with the public? Cbake96 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC) How will information about public criminology be shared? What would be considered credible information to be shared with the public? Row sal (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms
Although there has been a widespread call for public criminology, many criminologists have voiced concerns regarding the challenges and pitfalls of a public criminology. Within even the definition of public criminology there have been differing opinions on what public criminology should aim to do- should it be aimed at policy change or should it be aimed at informing the general public about criminological issues? Criminologists like Paul Rock have voiced concerns regarding criminologists lack of experience in policy making, as well as questioning the integrity of public criminology if it is to be subject to the political spectrum.

Sindre Bangstad, on the issue of "Public Anthropology" brought into question how to make the public pay attention in a technological age of information overload, and this question parallels questions regarding public criminology. However, others like Barak, and anthropologists Benton & Bonilla have argued that to properly do public anthropology and criminology, academics need to be more involved in mass media or what Barak calls "Newsmaking Criminology".