Whose Voices are Prioritised in Criminology, and Why Does it Matter?

• Author: Kelly J. Stockdale,Rowan Sweeney
• DOI: 10.1177/21533687221102633
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Whose Voices are Prioritised in

Criminology, and Why Does it

Matter?

Kelly J. Stockdale

1

and Rowan Sweeney

2

Abstract

This paper presents in-depth research into the reading lists used by a new criminology

Bachelor of Arts degree programme at a post-92 English University. Previous research

into structural inequalities in relation to race, ethnicity, and gender that exist within

academia in relation to scholarly outlets, and that have focussed on scholarly inf‌lu-

ence, have charted the most cited or most signif‌icant texts in the f‌ield or explored

gender and race discrepancies within elements of the publication process. In this

paper we explore how scholarly work is included in our teaching practice and the

impact reading lists have on the student experience of criminology. We highlight a dis-

tinct lack of representation and diversity within the authorship of texts in the context

of both core and recommended reading for students. We found reading lists to be

overwhelmingly white and male. Work by women and people of colour only tended

to feature on distinct modules which focussed on gender or ethnicity, race, and crime.

Voices from the global majority are excluded from fundamental concepts and crimi-

nological theory modules. This paper will discuss our research f‌indings in depth, high-

lighting where Black and female voices are neglected, marginalised, and excluded in

the criminology curriculum.

Keywords

criminology curriculum, race, gender, intersectionality, pedagogy

1

Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

2

Department of Social Sciences, York St. John University, York, UK

Corresponding Author:

Kelly J. Stockdale, Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK.

Email: Kelly.stockdale@northumbria.ac.uk

Article

Race and Justice

2022, Vol. 12(3) 481-504

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/21533687221102633

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

Introduction

The colonial nature of criminology and the white, male, straight, cis-gendered lens

through which criminological topics have been viewed, alongside the impenetrable

focus on the global north, has long been problematised (Agozino, 2003; Blagg &

Anthony, 2019; Carrington et al., 2018; Connell, 2007; Cunneen & Rowe, 2014;

Parmar, 2017). Numerous calls to action from feminist and critical race theorists

(Carpenter et al., 2021; Coyle, 2010; Cunneen & Tauri, 2016; Walklate et al., 2020;

Wonders, 2020) have meant that some space within the discipline has been reclaimed,

however, the criminology curriculum remains overwhelmingly white and male. This

paper presents analysis of reading lists to highlight that in our teaching of criminology

the space for marginalised and excluded voices is discrete, issues of race and gender

are contained within specif‌ic specialist modules or limited to certain weeks of teaching.

This research is part of an ongoing body of work exploring the criminology curric-

ulum. As two white, working class, female academics working at predominately white

institutions (in terms of staff, students, and governance) in the United Kingdom (UK),

we were inspired to start this work because we were teaching on a new criminology

programme developed at a university that espouses social justice: the rainbow pride

f‌lag f‌lies high; trans-inclusive spaces and policies for staff and students were being

created; there were attempts to address the gender gap, albeit with deep-rooted struc-

tural inequalities still impacting; but where there was a distinct inability to see white-

ness (Eddo-Lodge, 2018). We were inspired by Arday and Mirza (2018) and a talk that

they gave on ‘Dismantling Race in Higher Education’at Durham University (on 01/03/

2019) which urged us to take collective responsibility; and highlighted that white aca-

demics need to push for change and not force academics with identities which have

been racialised and oppressed to take on all the work required to make change

happen. They argued that decolonising the university is much more than throwing

out the work written by dead white men, instead it is about allowing those who are

excluded and marginalised to have a voice. We thereby began this project by exploring

whose voices were represented, who was marginalised and who was excluded, with a

focus on intersectionality in relation to gender and ethnicity, whilst also recognising

other intersections, for example, class, sexuality, and gender identity. In this paper

we look to, and acknowledge, the academic and emotional work that has already

been done by Black and feminist scholars and present new empirical data to demon-

strate how, despite this work, little has changed within our criminology curriculum.

In order to do this research, we have had to categorise our academic colleagues as

they either identify as, or are perceived to be, men or women, and white or Black

and Minority Ethnic (BME). It is this perception in relation to gender and ethnicity

that allows for analysis of the structural inequalities happening within the curriculum.

We have used the term BME because it is used off‌icially in the UK as an umbrella term

for individuals and communities, living and working in Britain, that have historically

been racialised and marginalised due to their ethnicity, race, culture and/or religion

(Mirza, 2018: 4). While the implied aim of establishing the term BME off‌icially, via

UK government sources, is to enable racist and prejudicial language rooted in

482 Race and Justice 12(3)