'Newsmaking criminology in the twenty-first century: an analysis of criminologists’ news media engagement in seven countries' by Imogen Richards, Mark A. Wood and Mary Iliadis in (2020)
Current Issues in Criminal Justice comments
While newsmaking is regularly debated within criminology, few studies have examined why criminologists make news media appearances and how often they do so. Drawing on a dataset of 1211 survey responses and 27 interviews, our study examines these issues, investigating the frequency, predictors and motivations of newsmaking criminology among scholars in seven countries: the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa. Our findings indicate that gender and career stage are key predictors of criminologists appearing at least once in news media, along with the desire to publicise research, demonstrate research impact, generate university publicity and influence policy and legal reform. Our interview data reveal two central logics informing these predictors: an industrial logic responsive to the demands of academic capitalism and a social logic informing scholars’ beliefs on the public role of criminologists and criminological research. On the one hand, our participants’ newsmaking practices were driven by moral-political motivations to dispel ‘crime news’ myths and promote evidence-based criminal justice policies. On the other, they were often also influenced by the imperatives of academic capitalism to promote tertiary education, measure research impact and participate in competitive employment markets.
The authors argue
Criminologists have long debated the benefits and limitations of what Barak (1988) has termed newsmaking criminology: researchers contributing to news media discourses on crime and justice through op-eds and media appearances (Carrier, 2014; Currie, 2007; Murray, 2017; Rock, 2014; Ruggiero, 2012). However, while newsmaking practices are regularly debated within criminology, few studies have empirically examined who appears in the media, why they make these appearances and how often they do so (Frost and Phillips, 2011; Tewksbury, Miller, and DeMichele, 2006). These issues have key axiological and ethical implications for newsmaking within criminology, particularly in the wake of an increased emphasis on ‘engagement’ within higher education. If newsmaking is patterned along demographic or sub-disciplinary lines, it may serve to exacerbate inequities within and beyond the academy. Within the academy, the question of which criminologists appear in the media has an immediate bearing on the ‘politics of engagement’. Understanding factors that shape whether criminologists appear in the media enables us to work toward a more equitable politics and praxis of engagement that does not inadvertently reproduce broader social harms within the academy. Beyond the academy, addressing this same question helps us understand what forms of criminological knowledge publics access, and by corollary, what functions such knowledge plays in public discourses on crime and criminal justice.
Seeking to address these issues, our research examines the personal, professional and structural factors that influence participation in contemporary newsmaking criminology. Our research reveals that newsmaking practices within criminology, though widespread, do not reflect equal access, interest or opportunity. Nor do they simply reflect how ‘newsworthy’ journalists deem a criminologist’s research. While the perceived ‘newsworthiness’ of a criminologist’s research is one factor shaping whether they appear in news media (Carrier, 2014; Iliadis, Richards, and Wood, 2019), this is not the only, or even necessarily the dominant factor influencing criminology’s ‘politics of research impact’ (Chubb and Reed, 2018; Murray, 2017, p. 508). Reflecting the broader political economy of contemporary academia, newsmaking operates within a ‘field of power’, shaped by researchers’ academic rank, self-identified gender, roles within the discipline, socio-cultural background and research interests (Burawoy, 2005; Glenn, 2007). Through this research, we emphasise the need for institutions to acknowledge this field of power and the structural challenges it throws up for many criminologists who wish to engage in newsmaking.
Drawing on a dataset of 1211 survey responses and 27 interviews, our mixed-methods study addresses frequency, predictors and motivations of newsmaking criminology, examining how and why criminologists in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa interact with news media organisations. Our analysis reveals key demographic, attitudinal and motivational predictors of criminologists appearing in news media. As we detail, gender and career stage are significant demographic predictors of these appearances, while motivational predictors of news media engagement include a desire to publicise research, demonstrate research impact, generate publicity for their university and influence policy and legal reform.
To explain these predictors of criminologists appearing in the media, in the second part of this article we draw upon insights from interview data to explore the multiple ‘logics’ underpinning newsmaking criminology. These co-existing logics notably include an industrial logic responsive to the demands of academic capitalism and a social logic informing scholars’ beliefs on the public role of criminologists and criminological research. Where the former is typically underwritten by a robust ‘audit culture’, and reinforced by material rewards and incentives, the latter is characterised by intrinsic motivations, such as curiosity, commitment and concern (Mendoza and Berger, 2008, p. 3; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Our analysis indicates that newsmaking criminology is driven, on the one hand, by a moral-political motivation to inform media audiences, dispel mythology about crime and justice and promote evidence-based policy reform. On the other hand, newsmaking practices arise in response to the imperatives of academic capitalism, audit culture and the ‘entrepreneurial university’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), wherein researchers experience pressure to promote their university, enhance research impact and participate in competitive employment markets.
The remainder of our article proceeds in eight sections. The first section features an overview of newsmaking criminology, including an appraisal of existing research, while the second provides an account of our methodology. Section 3 summarises our survey findings, focusing on the key predictors of criminologists appearing in news media. Having provided an overview of these predictors, Section 4 examines our finding of a gender gap in criminologists’ media appearances and details the implications of this disparity for equity within the academy. Sections 5 and 6 then unpack the two central logics driving newsmaking criminology, exploring firstly the social logic informing criminologists’ moral-political views on newsmaking, and secondly, the industrial logic compelling criminologists to respond to the demands of academic capitalism. Finally, in Sections 7 and 8, we outline firstly the limitations, and secondly, the key conclusions of our study.
