According to Gloria Laycock (Head of the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science ) the aim of so called 'Crime Science' is to reduce crime. You can see the video here.
Presumably then, understanding crime play's second fiddle in 'crime science' to getting out in the field and trying to make a difference?
But there is a big problem with this if we are to take Professor Laycock literally. Because a real scientific theory must contain a hard to vary yet verifiable and refutable (refutable by reason, experiment or observation) explanatory principle for phenomena (data) that it seeks to understand.
So then what exactly is this thing that they are calling science at the University College London that arguably appears to have as its main aim the need to change the very data that it should be seeking to understand in order to enhance knowledge?
Where are the real scientific theories that underpin crime science?
Simply engaging scientists to work on crime problems is not sufficient to transmute that enterprise into a science.
Real Science follows scientific principles. Real Science keeps explanatory principles separate from data. For an idea of what Real Crime Science might involve, and what's wrong with the current notion of 'crime science' visit the Forecasting Crime section on the Dysology website
What in heaven's name is going on down at the University College London? Whatever it is that Professor Laycock is describing it not like science as real scientists would understand it. Perhaps it's, arguably, really more like a craft course? Perhaps the Jill Dando Institute will at some time in the future be awarding its staff chairs in the Furniture Department?
Oh by the way, UCL has very weirdly (at the time of writing) deleted Professor Gloria Laycock's seminal Launching Crime Science paper from the Internet. Surely not as a result of scholarly criticism? Because that would be an unscientific thing to do to scholars of scientific theory progression. We have to assume that deleting that historical paper (cited by 6 academics) was an administrative mistake.
Whatever the reason, no need to worry, as every good criminologist knows these days, delete NEVER means delete where the Internet is concerned. You can still read it and therefore reference it in your work. Because Google has very kindly backed it up for us. Click here
Robin
Reference
Laycock, G. (2003). Launching Crime Science. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. University College London. ISBN 0-9545607-1-X http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jdi/downloads/publications/crime_science_short_reports/launching_crime_science.pdf [UCL Pdf file currently deleted from the Internet]
5 comments:
I am not an academic in your field but if it like Linguistics somebody at one campus gets a bee in their bonnet & voila, one f**ked up Dept!
The Jill Dando Institute came under fire from Ben Goldacre for its bad science. Here: http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/is-this-a-joke/
He asked it it was a joke. Sadly not. But its a joke in name. Did they mean to spell it "Crime séance"?
Perhaps it was established to ask Jill who killed her?
I look forward to reading more about this weird outfit.
Never mind the UCL deleting an important historical paper for criminological study. They also deleted the blog of Professor David Colquhoun FRS – one of the most eminent scientists in the UK –
because it was protecting quacks! http://www.badscience.net/category/stifling-criticism/
SHAME!
Ben
Of course - you mean that UCL silenced Professor Colquhoun for speaking out against quackery.
..Not very scientific of them was it?
DEAR BS CREW
Sorry. Yes. That's exactly what I meant
Ben
Post a Comment