"Newsmaking criminology" or "infotainment" criminology? A decontextualised, fragmented and misconstrued critique.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: Jeffries, Samantha
• Date: 01 August 2004

This article is a response to the critique of the author's PhD thesis methodology and findings presented in Judith Buckingham's article titled "Newsmaking Criminology" or "Infotainment" Criminology? it explains in more detail the author's thesis study and provides responses to Buckingham's arguments.

**********

The primary aims of the following response to Buckingham's "Newsmaking Criminology" or "Infotainment" Criminology? are to present a clear overview of my PhD research, the primary focus of this work in her critique, "pave the way" for some more open debate and demonstrate that although a student, I was neither the crude nor theoretically weak researcher that Buckingham claims.

In 2001, I was awarded a PhD in Sociology at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. Entitled Gender (1) Judgments: An Investigation of Gender Differentiation in Sentencing and Remand in New Zealand (Jeffries, 2001), the thesis was considered methodologically robust, theoretically sound and a thoughtful advancement in the field by both the thesis supervisors and examiners.

I would suggest that critiques such as that submitted by Buckingham are most constructive if given in response to research already published in a particular journal. The majority of Buckingham's critique is in fact based on my PhD thesis rather than my published work (i.e., Jeffries, 2002a, 2002b; Jeffries, Fletcher, & Newbold, 2003). Consequently, the readership is being given a critique of mainly unpublished work conducted during my time as a student by another student whose somewhat scathing criticism decontextualises my research and only provides snippets of information to the readers. By providing a complete summary of my research here, it is hoped that a more comprehensive picture will be gleaned. I will then leave it up to the readership to decide on the merit of my PhD work.

I have chosen to "brush off' Buckingham's claims that I am some sort of infotainment criminologist who has adversely affected public perceptions on issues such as domestic violence and gender inequality. I hardly decided to embark on 3 years of intensive study as a way to get my name in the news. While I acknowledge that the media did "latch on" to my PhD research rather enthusiastically, I did my best (given a lack of media liaison training or support from a media liaison officer) to present my work carefully and avoid any potential controversy. However, in some cases the media embellished, changed or twisted the content of our discussions.

I would also like to highlight that I was well aware of the sensitivities in this area. I consistently emphasised to the media that I did not advocate the harsher treatment of women by the criminal courts. Rather, I hoped for a more therapeutic justice system for all and an acknowledgement that criminal men, just like offending women, tend to come from disadvantaged circumstances; that men's criminality, just like women's, does not exist in a social vacuum. If such a suggestion from a PhD student is powerful enough (as Buckingham suggests) to sway public perceptions and cause policy makers to rethink their strategies, then all I can say is good--it is about time!

Finally, before summarising my PhD, I would like to note that while reading Buckingham's critique I was concerned by her conjoining of Greg Newbold's work and thus his academic stance, with my own. While I admire Greg we frequently disagree and have, for example, publicly debated my PhD conclusions on talk back radio. I feel that it is dangerous to suggest that a PhD student is somehow a clone of their supervisor and given Buckingham's strong feminist stance I find it somewhat ironic that she would silence/neutralise the voice of a young female scholar in this way.

Research Questions and Methods

My PhD thesis posed three questions:

* Are sentencing and remand outcomes different for adult men and women?

* Are the criteria used for deciding these outcomes gendered?

* If gender differences in sentence and remand do exist, how can they be accounted for?

I used both a statistical and a case study design to answer these questions, contending that both methods had advantages and disadvantages but combined would produce more accurate and robust results. That is not to say that my methodology was beyond reproach. A non-exhaustive research budget, unlimited time and a team of research assistants, for example, would have enabled me to conduct a nation-wide study; consider more court cases over a longer period; observe courtroom activities; interview judges, probation officers and other key personnel. However, without such an unlimited budget methodologies must be restricted. Given that both the statistical and case study analyses produced complementary results and mirror international research, it can be argued with relative confidence that the methods I chose were appropriate and produced "real" findings.

Buckingham's critique of my PhD methodology is focused solely on the case study analysis presented in part two of the thesis. She fails to acknowledge that I conducted an extensive statistical analysis prior to the case study investigation and that the purpose of the case studies was simply to confirm, explain and interpret the statistical results. In other words, the case studies are not a stand-alone entity: they cannot be separated from the statistical investigation. To do so, using Buckingham's words, decontextualises the research and only provides the readers with snippets of information from which to draw conclusions. Many of Buckingham's concerns with regard to my research methodology would thus have been resolved if she had read the first half of my thesis.

Statistical Analysis

Method

For the initial statistical analyses, I used a sample of 388 offenders sentenced for indictable drug, violent and property offences in the Christchurch District and High Court between 1990 and 1997.

All women sentenced in the three offence categories during the study period were included with the male sample selected using a matched sampling method. First, men were matched with women by court of sentencing, major statutory offence and year of disposition. Next, women with more than one male match on...