Producing Knowledge through Critical Research Research

The work of Wright Mills (1959) is recognised as one of the key contributions to the development of a radical discourse within criminology (Scraton, 2002). His work pioneered the argument for a framework in which to critically explore ‘the personal troubles of the milieu’ and ‘the public issues of social structure’ (Wright Mills, 1959: 8). In addition, labelling theory and its contestation of ‘how deviance is defined, processed and reproduced by control agencies . . .’, the question of ‘whose side are we on?’, posed by Becker, followed by the formation of the ‘radical’ National Deviancy Conference in 1968 are regarded as key influential components, contributing to the development of critical criminology (McLaughlin, 2010: 153). Such contributions represented a ‘theoretical innovation’ in which critical themes began to develop, which not only problematised the

137

‘mystifying, algorithmic quantification of positivist criminology . . . but also implicitly confronted the conjoined, cosy and intertwined relationship which many in the discipline had developed with the micro and macro structures of power and domination, including the state . . .’ (Coleman et al., 2009: 1).

Whilst the logic of labelling theory gave way to the development of such critical discourse, the role of the state in the production of social inequality remained absent from its analysis. Thus, critical criminologists drew upon a ‘Marxist based interpretation of power and . . . the processes of criminalisation and control emanating from the state and its institutions’ (Coleman et al., 2009: 1). Although, as it origins demonstrate, there has been a variety of empirical and theoretical contributions to critical criminology, the commonalities these contributions share centre upon an

‘opposition to the kind of criminology that takes so much of the status quo for granted’ (Carrington and Hogg, 2002: 2). Thus, emphasising the need for critical analysis on ‘how the effects of social power and the inequalities of the social order underscore the commission of crime . . . victimisation and the politics of criminalisation’ (ibid.: 3).

Recognising the ways in which ‘structural determinants such as race, class, gender, sexuality, age and [dis]ability’ shape constructions of crime and deviance is central to the development of critical research (Barton et al., 2010: 29). By focusing upon structural forms of oppression such as,

‘capitalism, patriarch and neo-colonialism’ (Sim, Scraton and Gordon, 1987: 5) and ‘problematizing the role and power of the state’, critical criminological research produces knowledge which centralises individual experiences and realities by locating them within the broader social and structural contexts of crime and deviance (Barton et al., 2010: 29). Thus, in turn producing critical discourse focused upon state responses to offending behaviour and the ways in which such responses maintain the structural divisions of race, class and gender,

138 through various mechanisms of social control (Barton et al., 2010).

When considering the role of feminism within critical criminology it is recognised that feminist criminological perspectives are contested as a tenant of critical criminology,

‘since not all critical criminologists place gender at the centre of theory, and not all feminist criminologists see their work as part of the broader struggle for social justice’ (Chesney-Lind and Morash, 2013: 288). However, there is ‘an affinity and crossover’ between the central themes of feminist criminology and critical inquiry (Daly, 2010: 225). Most importantly, both perspectives view crime as a social construction and challenge the relations of power, which frame this construction (ibid.).

The research is situated within a critical framework, and is concerned with the recognition that women’s realities cannot be separated from gendered power relations, as the state plays a decisive role in the oppression of women, in order to

‘enable the preservation of the hetropatriarchal social order’

(Ballinger, 2009: 33). Critical criminological enquiry therefore requires engagement with the social division of gender as it is a central organiser of the discourse, ideologies and structures which operate within the social world, as well as being a determining variable upon which individual identity is constructed, maintained and resisted (Daly and Maher, 1998;

Jarviluoma, Moisala and Vilkko, 2003). Thus, critically investigating the ways in which the social construction of gender and the broader structural contexts in which gender operates are implicated within young female offenders’

experiences of RJ conferencing was a central concern when developing the questions, aims and objectives of this research.

139 4.3 Research Aims and Objectives

The empirical research for this study was established upon the contention that girls’ voices continue to be marginalised in the context of RJ research, due to a failure to recognise gender as a variable present in RJ practice. Therefore, the epistemological assumptions underpinning this research began from the starting point that the production of knowledge should be established from the standpoint of those who are marginalised within society (Harding, 1992). It is suggested that such a methodological approach generates critical questions, which challenge the existence of privileged knowledge and in turn provides insight into subjugated knowledge (ibid.). Such epistemological assumptions provide the basis for the development of the aims and objectives of the research as follows:

 To investigate the role gender plays in the relationship between RJ and young female offenders.

 To question the need for gender sensitive approaches to RJ practices used within the YJS.

 To critically examine the role shame plays within young female offenders’ experiences of RJ.

Research Questions

The empirical research undertaken aims to address the following research questions:

 Does the social construction of gender impact upon girls’

experiences of RJ?

 What implications does the RJ principle of expressing shame have for young female offenders?

 Is there a need for gender sensitive approaches, within or as an alternative, to the use of RJ with young female offenders?

140 The aim of addressing these research questions is to bring to the forefront of academic enquiry girls’ marginalised subjectivities, in order to construct knowledge that is, empirically and theoretically, produced from the standpoint of girls themselves. It is the foundational concerns of these research questions which determine the feminist influenced, research methodology underpinning this study.

4.4 Feminist Engagement in Restorative Justice: An