Abstract
Despite the recent advocacy of comparative/international and collaborative research by the leaders in the field of criminology and criminal justice, there is uncertainty regarding how much comparative/international research on the topic of women is being conducted. Using the published abstracts of papers presented at the American Society of Criminology (ASC) Annual Meeting and the European Society of Criminology (ESC) Annual Meeting, the authors examine presentations on women and crime with a cross-cultural or international focus. The current study found that research on crime with an international or comparative focus accounted for an average 14.1% of the ASC women and crime presentations over the 12-year period, and about 24.2% of the ESC women and crime presentations over the 10-year period. With respect to comparing the topical areas of the research, domestic violence was the most prevalent topic in presentations on women and crime at both the ASC and ESC Annual Meetings, while presentations on sex crimes and trafficking occurred more frequently at the ESC Annual Meetings than the ASC Annual Meetings. The authors also discuss the role that the ASC Division of Women and Crime and the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group of the ESC can play to encourage the study of women and crime internationally.
Introduction
In her Presidential message in the European Society of Criminology (ESC) Newsletter, Criminology in Europe, Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović (2013) advocated strategies to enhance cooperation and “dialogue between non-Western and Western countries” (p. 3), and she referred to the recent South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology meeting in India where researchers addressed various issues including crimes against women and children. Similarly, in proposing more opportunities for comparative and collaborative research, the Immediate Past President of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), Robert Sampson (2013), discussed immigration in the United States and the diversity it has fostered. He observed that diversity prompts questions “. . . that demand a comparative criminological inquiry” (p. 15). Their inclusive efforts are impressive and may signal a renewed emphasis on international/comparative issues.
Although research on women victims, offenders, or professionals in a cross-cultural comparative approach might appear to be relatively recent, Bennett (2004) contended that cross-cultural or comparative studies in the social sciences were endorsed by E. B. Taylor in 1889. However, Bennett (2004) reported that it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that colleagues began to consider the importance of studying crime in different countries and cultures. In the intervening years, this area has evolved and expanded considerably. For example, Sampson (2013) noted that “. . . an increasing level of cross-national dialogue is breaking down old boundaries and stereotypes” (p. 12). Furthermore, he cited the increased membership and participation of international scholars in the ASC in the last few years as evidence of the greater emphasis and inclusivity (Sampson, 2013).
There is consensus that cross-cultural studies are important. The published literature supports greater internationalization of American criminology for a variety of reasons (Adler, 1996; Barberet, 2007; Bennett, 2004, 2009; Zimring, 2006). The most obvious reason to internationalize American criminology relates to the impact of globalization. In an age of high physical mobility, economic interdependence, and information technology, the world has become a smaller place and crime has become increasingly transnational (Barberet, 2007; Zimring, 2006). There has been a steady rise in international trade, laws, and politics as well as criminal activities, such as international organized crime and human trafficking for sex and labor (Sampson, 2013; van Wormer & Bartollas, 2014).
Nikolić-Ristanović (2012) advocated “. . . approaching crime more globally, trying to map and address the interconnectedness of crime problems across countries and continents . . .” (p. 3). Specifically, she cited, . . . trafficking in people, where the policies of sending and receiving countries are rarely coordinated, and the pressure to increase repression largely rests with the poor and underdeveloped countries. All that without efforts to address crime problems in all their social and global complexity, while victims are being instrumentalised for the sake of crime control. (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2012, p. 3)
Her assessment and call to action illustrate that it is important for American criminologists to know and deal with the world beyond borders and propose a coordinated or transnational criminal justice response (Howard, Newman, & Pridemore, 2000; Zimring, 2006).
Most of all, there is much to gain from studying criminological research from other countries (Barberet, 2007). Other countries face some of the same problems that plague the United States and have utilized both similar and dissimilar ways of tackling these issues (Meyer, 2011; Smith & Skinner, 2012; van Wormer & Bartollas, 2014). The issue of a country’s diverse population and the steady flow of immigrants are good examples of problems that exist worldwide. Sampson (2013) suggested that the immigration issue across the United States and Europe has great potential for comparative research. It is important to see if the European strategies have similar results to those implemented in America. Conversely, it is useful to determine if different ways of addressing crime are more or less effective than our current methods. American criminology must make the effort to understand research from other countries in context, or in relation to the United States (Barberet, 2007).
There is an increasing emphasis on a perception that Zimring noted in 2006, “we will need much more multinational research and many more descriptive comparative criminologists in the near future” (p. 621). Clearly, there are various issues on women and crime to explore and benefits to this kind of research. Globalization impacts the lives of women (van Wormer & Bartollas, 2014), and women share similar problems. For example, increasing global interconnectedness has facilitated sex trafficking, and women are used to transport illegal drugs across borders. Women continue to be oppressed in many countries and issues of women’s rights are constantly at the forefront. Economically, women hold fewer assets and receive less pay even though they do equal or more work than their male counterparts. In addition, domestic violence not only affects the status of women but also poverty and employment rates. Comparative and international research on other nations’ approaches to the prevention of crime involving women, the resolution of domestic violence, the enactment and enforcement of laws, and the protection of vulnerable women can provide creative solutions that have been proven to be feasible (van Wormer & Bartollas, 2014).
Despite reported increases in research on women and crime, transnational crime, and comparative criminal justice in the last 30 years, there appears to be little published literature that actually explores how much comparative/international research on the topic of women is being conducted. With the ASC Division on Women and Crime (DWC) 30th Anniversary in 2014, this might be an ideal time to compare and contrast conference presentations on international or comparative issues about women at ASC Annual Meetings and a 10-year period at the ESC Annual Meetings.
In an earlier study, Kim and Merlo (2012) focused on presentations on women and crime at the ASC meetings over a 10-year period (1999-2008). They found that women were the primary presenters and researchers, and that there were no dramatic increases in the frequency of research presentations that focused on women offenders, victims, and professionals. Approximately 16% of the presentations at the annual meetings over the 10-year period were on women and crime issues. Based on their analysis, they concluded that theories, policies, and issues related to women and girls are not “center stage,” and that there is little indication that they will be in the next few years. Kim and Merlo also voiced concern that future researchers studying women and girls may continue to be segregated by gender.
In a study on international or comparative studies of conference presentations at the Annual Meetings of the ESC (2001-2010), and articles published in the European Journal of Criminology (2004-2010), Kim and Merlo (2011) found that overwhelmingly ESC conference presentations were made by European authors who focused on Europe. Of the 3,786 ESC presentations, over 85% were authored by presenters with a European affiliation and the presentation was Europe-centric. By contrast, 57 presentations compared two or more countries and suggested a transnational partnership. With respect to publications in the European Journal of Criminology, 93% (n = 171) examined one country in Europe, and the author was affiliated with an European institution or organization. One article in that 7-year period compared two or more countries in a transnational partnership where one of the countries did not include Europe.
Kim and Merlo (2012) used content analysis of the ASC presentations to find trends or patterns of “women and crime research” without consideration of the domestic or international settings of the research. By contrast, Kim and Merlo (2011) analyzed ESC Annual Meeting presentations to compare the annual meeting presentations with publications in the European Journal of Criminology regarding how much comparative/international research has been conducted without focusing on the topics of the research.
This study is an extension of Kim and Merlo’s (2011, 2012) previous research by comparing trends or patterns in the comparative or cross-cultural research on women and crime presented at one American professional meeting and one European professional meeting in the discipline. Although not a comprehensive measure of the research on women and crime internationally, it is an opportunity to identify the extent of the research, where it is being conducted, by whom, and how its popularity (as evidenced by the number of presentations) has increased. One additional area of inquiry is the incidence of collaborative studies that involve international scholars comparing two or more countries. To undertake this preliminary study, the authors focused on the abstracts that were submitted for presentations for the ASC Annual Meetings over a 12-year period (1999-2010) and the ESC over a 10-year period (2001-2010).
Research Task: Content Analysis of the Presentations
The present study used a content analysis of ASC conference presentations between 1999 and 2010 and the ESC presentations between 2001 and 2010 to assess concerns about the representation of women in the field of criminology and criminal justice with a comparative or international focus. The ASC defines itself as “an international organization concerned with criminology, embracing scholarly, scientific, and professional knowledge concerning the etiology, prevention, control, and treatment of crime and delinquency” (http://www.asc41.com). The ESC was founded in 2000. It “. . . aims to bring together in Europe persons actively engaged in research, teaching and/or practice in the field of Criminology” (http://www.esc-eurocrim.org).
Content analyses of conference proceedings are relatively rare in the literature and Barberet’s (2007) and Kim and Merlo’s (2011, 2012) are the only published content analysis studies of conference presentations in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Using the presentations at the ASC conferences in the 1990s, Barberet examined the internationalization of American criminology. Barberet (2007) identified several benefits of the content analyses of conference presentations over peer-reviewed journals or textbooks: (1) Given the conferences are physical, interpersonal events, conference proceedings reflect what scholars want to share with each other on an interpersonal, face-to-face level: what they think is worth talking about, thinking about, listening to, discussion, and debating; (2) given that criminology conferences in general have low abstract rejection rates, conference proceedings embrace a larger subsection of scholar-presenters than textbooks and journal articles do for scholar-authors; and (3) conference programs show the progress of the discipline with more immediacy than textbooks and journals, because they reflect a time delay of a few months from abstract submission to abstract publication in the program as opposed to journals and textbooks, which reflect perhaps years of the development of ideas and the delay of the peer review and editing process. (p. 408)
In addition, the conference can be a useful domain allowing us to predict directions for future research, because the low abstract rejection rates have resulted in presentations by current graduate students.
Using content analysis, this study, by contrast, provides an empirical summary of patterns and trends of ASC and ESC presentations on women and crime with a comparative or international focus. The basic orienting questions for this analysis are as follows: (a) On which countries have the presentations of women, crime, and criminal justice focused during the 10-year period from 1999 to 2010 for ASC and 2001 to 2010 for ESC? (b) How prevalent have women and crime presentations with a comparative or international focus been at the ASC conference over the past 12 years and at the ESC conference over the past 10 years? (c) Are there significant differences in the topics/primary issues of women and crime presentations between U.S.-only focused and comparative/international focused? and (d) Who have been the primary presenters of the research on women, crime, and criminal justice? These questions indicate that the research orientation for this analysis is descriptive, rather than explanatory or evaluative (Wells, 2009).
Data and Method
Data for this research are from all 25,993 scholarly presentations (the unit of analysis) at the ASC Annual Meetings from 1999 to 2010, and all 4,219 presentations at the ESC Annual Meetings from 2001 to 2010. All presentations, including workshop and roundtable presentations, were included (Barberet, 2007). The ASC presentations starting date of 1999 was selected because it was the first year for which all of the presentation abstracts are available from the ASC website (http://www.asc41.com/Annual_Meeting/priorabs.html). In addition, the 12-year period contained a large enough group of presentations for the assessment of the short- and long-range trends (Ward & Grant, 1985). For ESC presentations, the authors used all the available abstracts from the beginning of the organization in 2001.
The discussion of what is “feminist” in a research project, a presentation, or a manuscript is long and varied (Ward & Grant, 1985). Feminist criminologists suggest that criminological studies that are not necessarily focused on women and crime should include women in their samples and thus not only women but also gender should be considered as a central variable for studying the representation of women in criminological research (Hannon & Dufour, 1998; Renzetti & Goodstein, 2001). In an effort to reflect the nuances of presentations about women at the ASC and ESC meetings and similar to previous studies on the coverage of gender or women in journals and textbooks (Eigenberg & Baro, 1992; Hannon & Dufour, 1998; Hughes, 2005; Renzetti & Goodstein, 2001; Ward & Grant, 1985; Wright, 1987, 1992), all conference presentations from the ASC and ESC websites whose titles and/or abstracts mentioned terms such as women, men’s roles, sex, gender, male, female, or sexuality were obtained (Ward & Grant, 1985). Guided by the themes of the feminist critiques, the criteria for inclusion were that (a) the presentations used “gender as a variable” and reported the existence or nonexistence of gender differences in many areas of social life or (b) the presentations examined concepts, paradigms, theories, or methods where women were key actors.
Our review covered 25,993 ASC presentations during the period of study, and 3,717 of these were identified as women, crime, and criminal justice presentations. From the online ESC abstracts, the authors identified 4,219 presentations, and 443 of these were identified as women, crime, and criminal justice presentations during the 10-year period. Once obtained, all 3,717 presentation abstracts from ASC and all 443 presentation abstracts from ESC were reviewed by both authors to confirm that the main topic of each presentation was related to women and crime and that each presentation devoted considerable attention to these topics (Wells, 2009). A total of 4,160 presentations are included in the analysis.
In an effort to reflect the international nuances of women and crime presentations at the ASC and ESC conferences, the present study employed the basic definitions Fairchild and Dammer (2001) and Barberet (2007) used. That is, “international research is deemed to be based on one nation (generally not one’s own country, but another one) and comparative research is that which involves the study of two or more nations” (Barberet, 2007, p. 410; Fairchild & Dammer, 2001, p. 5).
To assess women’s participation in the presentations during the period of study, the authors recorded name and sex of solo and first presenters of those selected presentations (Barberet, 2007; Hughes, 2005; Ward & Grant, 1985). Each of the obtained presentations with the information on the presenters was coded into a database. When all presentations were entered in the database, the file information was exported to SPSS for statistical analyses (Wells, 2009).
Data Analysis
To analyze the specific topics and frequencies of the selected presentations, the present study used a computerized text analysis program: SPSS Text Analysis for Surveys 2.1 (Nie, 2007). This application allowed the researchers to import the conference presentation titles, session titles, and abstracts, extract key concepts from the titles and abstracts of the presentations, categorize the presentations based on the extracted key concepts, and explore frequencies of specific topical categories found in the presentations (Nie, 2007). After reviewing for overlap and conceptual similarity by the authors, the list of topic categories was collapsed into 40 specific, distinct topical areas (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001).
After identifying the 40 topical areas and transforming those categories into quantitative data, the new variables of topic areas were exported into the SPSS Base system for further analysis. As many presentations focus on more than one subject area and can be assigned to multiple categories of topical content/focus, the data were coded in a format of dichotomies for each topic category. There were 40 categories extracted. Thus, there were 40 new dichotomous variables indicating each conference presentation either belongs or does not belong to the category (Nie, 2007).
Findings
Countries Under Study
The first research question concerns the countries where the studies on women and crime were conducted. The countries and the number of women and crime presentations in ASC are listed in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, North America was overwhelmingly the front-runner in terms of the number of women and crime presentations in this 12-year period for ASC. Research done in North America comprised 90.45% of the presentations. With 86.41% (n = 3,212), the United States dominated the North American continent presentations, while Canada comprised 4.14% (n = 154) of the total.
Countries Under Study in ASC Women and Crime Presentations (1999-2010), n = 3,717.
Note. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
The next most sizable category in single country research occurred in the United Kingdom (2.31%, n = 86). In addition, the Netherlands (n = 26), Australia and China (both with n = 23), India (n = 19), Israel (n = 14), Germany (n = 12), and South Korea (n = 11) are included among countries with more than 10 presentations on women and crime in the 12-year period. Another 50 countries were also studied and included in the ASC presentations.
With respect to the ESC, the largest number of women and crime presentations focused on European countries and they accounted for 84% (n = 372). As shown in Table 2, the other countries that predominated were the United States with 8.12% (n = 36), and Canada with 3.61% (n = 16). Although another 10 countries were also the focus of research, the countries in Europe were overwhelmingly the location of the research presented.
Countries Under Study in ESC Women and Crime Presentations (2001-2010), n = 443.
Various geographical divisions of Europe have been introduced at different times by different experts and authorities. Accordingly, many countries may be included in different regions depending upon the authority cited. The current study includes all entities falling even partially under any of the various common definitions of Europe, geographic or political. The European Union itself forms part of the political geography of Europe (Blouet, 2012). List of European countries: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Vatican City. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
Quantity of Women and Crime Presentations With a Comparative or International Focus
The second research question concerns the prevalence and temporal trend for presentations in the area of women and crime with a comparative or international focus between 1999 and 2010. How prevalent have women and crime presentations with a comparative or international focus been at the ASC and ESC conferences for the 12-year period and 10-year period, respectively? Table 3 presents data on the percentage of ASC women and crime presentations by year. On average, about 86% of the women and crime presentations in the decade were based in the United States only.
International/Comparative Nature of ASC Presentations by Year, n = 3,717.
Note. Bold numbers indicate values that are above the overall mean for a particular category of presentations. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
As shown in Table 3, the growth in comparative or international women and crime presentations was rather modest and gradual up to 2001. The rates in 1999 and 2000 were 15.1% and 15.5%, respectively. In 2001, conference participation was expected to be the lowest because the meeting occurred just 2 months after September 11. At that meeting, comparative and international presentations on women and crime decreased to 11.8%. There was a noticeable drop in comparative or international women and crime presentations after 2001, with 2004 recording the lowest yearly percent (5.4% that year). Table 3 illustrates the increase in yearly comparative or international women and crime presentations from 2005 when such presentations represented 15.8%. In each of the intervening years from 2005 to the present, women and crime presentations accounted for at least 15% of the presentations. In 2010, there were 19.6% comparative and international women and crime presentations. Clearly, that is the highest year to date in this study. From these data, it appears that during the 12-year period, the rate increased the most in 2009 and 2010. However, it may be too soon to discern if that is a temporary or more permanent shift.
With respect to presentations at the ESC meetings, a somewhat similar pattern emerges (see Table 4). Although the largest number of presentations focused on European countries was in 2005 with 96.8%, the smallest was in 2007, with 58%. However, in the last 2 years of this study’s focus, the number of presentations on women and crime that concentrated on European countries represented 79.2% in 2009, and 84.8% in 2010. On average, in its first 10 years, about 76% of the ESC women and crime presentations were conducted in European countries. It should be noted that the 2007 annual meeting was held in Bologna, Italy, and it was one of the largest ESC meetings in 10 years in terms of the number of participants. It attracted many non-European scholars, and this might account for the smallest percentage of European-focused presentations on women and crime.
International/Comparative Nature of ESC Presentations by Year, n = 443.
Note. Bold numbers indicate values that are above the overall mean for a particular category of presentations. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
The ASC and the ESC presentations were examined in terms of comparative research involving another country. When the ASC presentations that compared the United States with another country were identified, they accounted for only about 1.4% of the presentations at the ASC over the 12-year period of the study. By contrast, presentations at the ESC Annual Meetings that compared a European country with another non-European country accounted for slightly more than 8% of the presentations.
Topical Comparisons
Are there significant differences in the topics/primary issues of women and crime presentations between those that are U.S.-only focused or Europe focused and those that are comparative/international focused? To address this third research question, a content analysis was utilized to examine the topic areas of presentations. Based on previous research findings on content analysis of journal articles or textbooks on women and crime as well as the results of Text Analysis in this study, the extracted key concepts were grouped and named (Nie, 2007).
Forty distinctive topic areas emerged: domestic violence; gender-specific programs, policy, and treatment; gender differences; sexual and physical violent victimization; gender, age, race, and class interaction; gender and substance abuse; women in prison; delinquent girls; gender and criminal justice response; female offenders and female criminality; prosecution and sentencing; feminist perspectives; sex crimes 1 ; gender and homicide; gender and legal issues; prostitutes; women as criminal justice system employees; gender and childhood abuse; courts; media presentations; women; mental health and general health issues; juvenile justice response to girls; violent behavior among girls; masculinity and femininity; sexual orientation — GLBT; gender equality and women’s rights; female community corrections samples; violent crimes committed by women; intimate partner homicide; inmate mothers; stalking; gender, gang and school violence; gender, juvenile offenders and victims; trafficking; HIV and AIDS; women and weapon use; sexual harassment; pornography; gender-related hate crime; and abortion.
To assess whether the topical ranks were consistent between comparative/international focused women and crime presentations and U.S.-only focused women and crime presentations, the researchers compared the 10 most common topics. As depicted in Table 5, there is remarkable similarity in the presentation topics for the 12-year period of the study. Whether the studies focused only on the United States, Europe, or comparative research with other countries, the top subject area for the presentations on women was domestic violence at the ASC meetings. In the ASC Annual Meeting presentations, the frequency of the topic “trafficking” is not included in the top 10 topics that focused only on the United States, and it is not in the top 10 for international/comparative topics. However, when the presentations on women and crime in Europe were examined, it was ranked fourth in terms of frequency.
U.S.-Only vs. International/Comparative Studies vs. Europe-Only: Nature of ASC Women and Crime Presentation by Topic Areas.
Note. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
A similar difference is noted in the topic “sex crimes” that, in terms of frequency, is ranked 10th when the presentations concerned women in the United States only. When the presentation concerned a comparative study, it was 5th in terms of frequency over the 12-year period. Finally, when the presentation topic involved a European country only, it was the 4th most frequent topic on women and crime at the ASC meetings over the 12-year study.
The topic “gender-specific treatment programs” was featured more prominently in ASC presentations than in ESC presentations in terms of frequency as well. When the presentation addressed women and crime and focused only on the United States or when it involved a comparative/international study, it ranked in the top two in terms of frequency. However, when the presentation concerned a European country only, gender-specific treatment was ninth in terms of frequency.
This trend did not appear to be consistent in the ESC meeting presentations (see Table 6). When the ESC Annual Meeting presentations were examined, domestic violence was the most frequent topic for presentations that focused only on Europe. However, the most recurrent topic was sex crimes when the research focused on the United States or another non-European country. It was in the top two for every kind of presentation on women and crime whether the presentation focused only on Europe (second most frequent topic), whether the presentation involved an international/comparative approach (Number 1 topic), and whether the presentation concerned only the United States (Number 1) in terms of frequency over the 10-year period. Similarly, the topic “trafficking” was much more prevalent at ESC meetings appearing in the top four categories for each type of presentation for 10 years. Overall, presentations on sex crimes and trafficking were more likely to occur at the ESC Annual Meetings than the ASC Annual Meetings. However, the topic of gender-specific treatment programs was featured more prominently in ASC presentations than in ESC presentations in terms of frequency.
Europe-Only vs. International/Comparative Studies vs. U.S.-Only: Nature of ESC Women and Crime Presentation by Topic Areas.
Note. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
In addition, the authors examined how women are described in the ASC meeting presentations over 12 years (see Table 7). When the topics regarding women involved studies exclusively based in the United States, the topical area “female offenders” was the most frequent, and it represented over 45% of the presentations. Second, over 42% of the presentations based in the United States described “women as victims.” The least popular, in terms of presentation topics, was women as professionals in the United States with less than 3% of the presentations concentrating on this topic. For over 9% of the topical presentations that exclusively concerned the United States, the abstract did not specify the subject area.
U.S.-Only vs. International/Comparative Studies vs. Europe-Only: Nature of ASC Women and Crime Presentation by Topic Areas.
Note. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
As shown in Table 7, presentations describing female offenders that included another country represented slightly over 44% of the international/comparative presentations. Presentations that addressed women as victims in an international or comparative context comprised 36% of the total presentations. The topical area, women as professionals in an international/comparative context, represented only 3% of the presentations. Another 17% of the international/comparative presentations did not specify the subject area fully.
For presentations that concerned a European country, the most frequent area was women as victims, representing over 48% of the presentations. Unlike the presentations that focused only on the United States or were international/comparative in nature, the topic “women as offenders” was the subject in approximately 31% of the presentations that focused on Europe.
When presentation abstracts for the ESC Annual Meetings were examined, a somewhat different pattern appeared (see Table 8). As the focus of the organization is Europe, the largest category of presentations that only involved a European country concerned women as victims; and these presentations accounted for almost 57% of all presentations that were based on the study of a European country. The second most frequent area was female offenders, and that presentation topic accounted for slightly over 36% of the European studies presented. Presentations on women as professionals in Europe were negligible comprising only 0.6% of the focused presentations. For this category, over 6% of the presentations did not provide sufficient information to identify the topical area.
Europe-Only vs. International/Comparative Studies vs. U.S.-Only: Nature of ESC Women and Crime Presentation by Topic Areas.
Note. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
When the ESC abstracts described an international/comparative presentation, women as offenders were represented in over 45% of the presentations. Women as victims accounted for approximately 38% of these international/comparative presentations. By contrast, women as professionals accounted for 1.4% of the presentations. The international/comparative category also had the highest percent of presentations, 15%, that did not specify the actual topic.
As noted in Table 8, presentations at the ESC Annual Meetings that only involved women offenders in the United States comprised almost 49% of the studies on the United States. Women as victims accounted for over 40% of the studies that focused on the United States, and women as professionals were negligible with less than 3% of the presentations that concerned the United States. Over 8% of the presentations on the United States did not specify the topical area.
Characteristics of Presenters in the Women and Crime Presentations
It is informative to determine whether the presenters who were affiliated with non-U.S. universities, colleges, or research centers focused their presentations on other countries or on the United States. As indicated in Table 9, overwhelmingly the presenter’s affiliation does not seem to have been associated with the presentation area. Overall, 95% of the presenters indicated that they were affiliated with a U.S. university, college, or research organization. Of the 178 individuals with foreign affiliations who presented on women and crime topics at the ASC meetings, 65 (about 37%) made presentations only on the United States. These data suggest that presenters affiliated with institutions outside the United States made presentations on other countries in most instances. Interestingly, 309 individuals with U.S. affiliations were authors on women and crime presentations that focused on non-U.S. countries.
Comparative/International Nature of ASC Women and Crime Presentations, n = 3,717.
Note. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
To assess differences or similarities, the researchers examined affiliations listed in the ESC abstracts. According to the ESC data, approximately 81% of the presenters were affiliated with a European university, college, or organization. However, approximately 18% indicated a foreign affiliation (i.e., non-Europe). Of those, approximately 15% of the presentations focused on a single country outside of Europe (see Table 10).
Comparative/International Nature of ESC Women and Crime Presentations, n = 443.
Note. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
One particularly surprising finding was the dearth of women and crime research that embodied a transnational collaboration. For the ASC Annual Meetings, these kinds of collaborations reflected .2% of the total, and for the ESC Annual Meetings, these collaborations were found in only 1.1% of the presentations.
The sex of the presenters at both meetings was also examined. The abstract and program information allowed the researchers to determine whether the primary presenter was a man or a woman. Over the 12-year period of the study, about three quarters of the presenters on women and crime from a cross-cultural perspective at the ASC were women. This finding occurred in both presentations where only the United States was studied as well as presentations where other countries were the focus of the presentation. Clearly, women predominate in this area at the ASC meetings (Table 11).
Women as First Presenters at ASC.
Note. ASC = American Society of Criminology.
With respect to presenters at the Annual Meetings of the ESC, although women were more likely to be the presenters than men, they did not demonstrate quite the same prevalence in representation as women presenting research at the ASC meetings. For the ASC presentations, the abstracts indicated that women were listed as the first author for 78% of the papers where the author’s sex was discerned. By contrast, when the ESC presentation focused only on a European country, women were the first author in 71% of the presentations (Table 12).
Women as First Presenters at ESC.
Note. ESC = European Society of Criminology.
Discussion
In terms of the prevalence and temporal trend for presentations in the area of women and crime with a comparative or international focus between 1999 and 2010, the findings indicate, on average, about 86% of the ASC women and crime presentations in the decade were based in the United States only. In terms of the temporal trend, a clear picture does not emerge. Presentations concerning comparative or international women and crime topics experienced a somewhat modest and gradual increase up until 2001.
In 2001, when conference participation was expected to be the lowest because the meeting occurred just 2 months after the terrorist attacks on September 11, presentations on women and crime represented 18.75% of the total number of 1,536 presentations. In fact, although it was the year with the second lowest total number of ASC presentations, the 2001 meeting had the highest percentage of papers on women and crime in the 12-year period (Kim & Merlo, 2012). However, because of the proximity of the meeting to September 11, the authors hypothesized that international/comparative presentations on women and crime dropped to 11.8%. This decline is thought to be related to the difficulty that some participants outside the United States might have experienced in securing travel documents. Subsequent to 2001, the pattern was not consistent. In 2010, there were more women and crime presentations on other countries than any other year. At the Annual Meeting in San Francisco in 2010, comparative and international presentations on women and crime represented 19.6% of the presentations.
In terms of the Annual Meeting presentations at the ESC in its first 10 years, presentations on women and crime in European countries comprised about 76% of the program. As previously mentioned, the 2007 Annual Meeting was held in Bologna, Italy, and it was one of the largest ESC meetings in 10 years in terms of the number of participants. It attracted a large number of non-European scholars.
In terms of the primary author making the presentations, women were most likely to present on cross-cultural or comparative women and crime topics. These data suggest women are the primary presenters at the ASC, and to a slightly lesser extent at the ESC meetings. Although more men were involved in research on women and crime according to the Annual Meeting abstracts for the ESC than for the ASC, women predominate in these areas. Overall, these data suggest that women are likely to be doing the research. This finding is consistent with the earlier research by Kim and Merlo (2012) and Kim and Hawkins (2013) which found that women scholars devote a large proportion of their research to women-related topics. It is possible that issues that focus on women and crime are most attractive to women researchers (Kim & Merlo, 2012). Women and crime or gender and crime classes as well as comparative criminology or criminal justice classes at colleges and universities are a relatively recent development (Ciobanu & Natarajan, 2005). It may be that an increase in presentations on female cross-cultural research by men will occur as more classes are developed, more male students take these classes, more books are written, and more articles are published.
Perhaps there are not “universal issues” for women offenders, victims, and professionals that have the same impact, urgency, or importance across cultures. Although domestic violence is the most frequent topic at ASC Meetings over a 12-year period, it is not the most frequent presentation topic for the ESC. At the ESC Annual Meetings, domestic violence was the most frequent topic on women when the presenters focused only on Europe, but sex crimes and trafficking were more popular topics when the research focused on the United States or another non-European country. Overall, presentations on sex crimes and trafficking occurred more frequently at the ESC Annual Meetings than the ASC Annual Meetings. This finding could suggest that there are cultural differences that should be noted. Sampson (2013) suggested that “the styles of criminology practiced in the US and Europe are often perceived to be different” (p. 13). That is, according to Sampson, American criminology is more quantitative, positivistic, conservative, and policy oriented than European criminology which is more theoretical and qualitative. Recent research on domestic violence seems to use quantitative or mixed methods, while the majority of sex crime and trafficking research continues to rely on qualitative research methods. Researchers cannot assume that social issues, victimization, or problems are the same across all cultures and countries. Nonetheless, it is worth considering which topics merit collaborative action. Is domestic violence in Asia or in other countries underreported and/or infrequently studied? Do cultural differences preclude certain topics from cross-cultural study?
In 2006, Chesney-Lind referred to the “current backlash era” and the fact that “. . . feminist criminology is uniquely positioned to challenge right-wing initiatives” (p. 9). Perhaps this is no more evident than in the discussions, policies, and regulation of female contraception and abortion in the United States currently and discussions of female victimization domestically and internationally. Clearly, there is work to be done that can involve greater collaboration and cooperation between international scholars. Scholars can learn from their colleagues in Asia, Europe, and Africa and develop strategies that are not only more likely to succeed but also culturally sensitive.
One finding from this preliminary analysis concerns the lack of collaborations or joint research presented that represents scholars from different countries. As noted, there are few of these presentations at either the ASC or ESC Annual Meetings. According to Bennett (2004), professional organizations like the ASC and ACJS (Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences) “. . . must do more to develop, support, and recognize comparative research as a true field of study within the discipline” (p. 15). He also recommended that the two organizations assist and mentor newer faculty to engage them in comparative criminology and criminal justice and to integrate them into the discipline (Bennett, 2009). Although Bennett was referring to all comparative research rather than that on women, his recommendation is relevant to international women and crime comparative initiatives. Barberet (2007) also noted that “. . . we need to be more welcoming and integrating of non-US-based researchers, in our conferences and in our journals, by developing policies that integrate and mainstream their work” (p. 425). This analysis suggests that professional organizations have endeavored to include international/comparative presentations on women and crime in annual meeting programs, but that more can be accomplished.
The ASC established the Division of International Criminology (DIC), and one of its purposes, according to its Constitution, is to “promote conference sessions pertaining to international criminology” (Division of International Criminology, 2014). To accomplish this purpose, the DIC has supported comparative and international scholarship, attempted to increase student membership and membership from developing nations, and to find funding resources for international and comparative criminology. These developments signal greater prominence for international research and presentations.
One of the objectives of the DIC is to “liaise with the ASC Board and with other ASC divisions and committees in achieving internationalization of the ASC” (Division of International Criminology, 2014). With the DIC, another natural area for collaboration and international/comparative research on women and crime seems to be that between the DWC in the ASC and the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group in the ESC (Levay & Tham, 2012). Both groups can partner to encourage excellence in comparative and international scholarship on women and crime by providing funding to researchers interested in international/comparative women and crime areas, and by organizing thematic discussions, specialty workshops and forums, panels and presentations on international issues that address women and crime at both ASC and ESC meetings.
Although both the DWC in the ASC and the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group in the ESC have been successful in encouraging networking and interaction among academics, researchers, practitioners, and students within their own jurisdiction, there has been little formal cooperation between these two groups. Today, the working language of the ESC conference is English (Levay & Tham, 2012). Given the availability of technology, shared research interests, ease of communication, and globalization of crime issues, it would appear that more can and should be done to foster these initiatives. Both the DWC in the ASC and the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group in the ESC should endeavor to cooperate more fully and to jointly sponsor research and presentations at both conferences.
In addition, in 2012, the ESC established the Victimology Working Group and issued an open invitation to interested participants. According to Jan van Dijk (2013), the Working Group “. . . was established to stimulate (cooperation in) research on a wide range of issues relating to the victims of crime and abuse of power” (p. 25). The Victimology Working Group has two priorities: first, to convene panels and symposia that will focus on victimology at the upcoming ESC meetings; and second, to develop a “. . . network of criminologists who can draw on each other in the preparation of victim-related proposals at the European level” (van Dijk, 2013, p. 25). The ASC and the ESC have the opportunity to pursue engagement and collaborative research in either of these two working groups.
There are impediments to cross-national research. One of them deals with accessing data. Scholars in the United States and other countries might have difficulty gathering data on women and crime or the data might not be appropriate for quantitative or qualitative data analysis. Similarly, access to government official data might be restricted. However, Barberet (2009) contended that academics can offer assistance and encourage the collection of data internationally through the United Nations. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been the leading UN agency devoted to research on international crime prevention. One of UNODC’s goals is to produce research and analytical work to increase knowledge and understanding of drugs and international crime issues such as human trafficking (UNODC, 2014). In partnership with UNODC, both the DWC and the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group can promote more actively the collection and dissemination of international data on women and crime.
It is plausible that the location of the conferences deters non-U.S. affiliated scholars/presenters from participating. Despite increasing interaction between the ASC and ESC, the self-proclamation of the ASC as an international organization, and growth of the international division of the ASC, in the 12 years of the study period, all but two of the meetings were held in the United States (Barberet, 2007; Sampson, 2013). In 1999 and in 2005, the annual meeting was held in Toronto. That location appears to have encouraged more Canadian presenters. In fact, the 2005 annual meeting had the largest percentage of Canadian presenters (7.7% of the 259 total presentations) on the topic of women and crime internationally/cross-culturally over the 12-year period. Similarly, in 1999, the conference recorded the second highest percentage of Canadian presenters on women and crime with a cross-cultural or international focus.
If location can affect participation from international or non-U.S. affiliated presenters, it is useful to identify future locations for the Annual Meeting of the ASC. According to the ASC website, meeting locations are selected and posted up to 2026. However, Canada is not one of the meeting sites currently listed for the next 12 years. All the future meeting sites are in the continental United States. It is worth noting that other related societies, such as the Law and Society Association and the Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (ECCA) Symposium, frequently held their conferences outside the United States to draw members from around the world (Barberet, 2007).
The analytical goals for this study precluded testing any specific hypotheses or predictions but rather described the general characteristics and patterns in international/comparative women, crime, and criminal justice presentations at ASC and ESC, and assessing what changes that have occurred. This research provides an opportunity to better understand the kinds of presentations that have dominated the area of women and girls in crime and criminal justice with an international/comparative focus at recent ASC and ESC meetings. However, this preliminary research is limited to the information available from the ASC and ESC abstracts. Because the authors focused only on ASC and ESC Annual Meeting presentations, it is possible that the findings might differ if ACJS, ASA (American Sociological Association), APA (American Psychological Association), or other organizations’ annual meeting programs were included.
Recently, leaders of ASC and ESC announced that both organizations are seeking closer ties with each other and emphasized developing criminology through international cooperation (Levay & Tham, 2012; Nikolić-Ristanović, 2013; Sampson, 2013). In her presidential message, the ESC president, Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović (2013) explained that “ASC is getting more and more international, and ESC is moving in the same direction” (p. 3). Due to recent efforts designed to strengthen cooperation and interaction between ASC and ESC, the current study focused on the presentations at ASC and ESC. However, future studies might include presentations at other conferences, especially ACJS Annual Meeting presentations.
In his presidential message in ACJS Today, James Frank (2013) explained, On the international front, an ACJS representative was able to attend the Stockholm Criminology Symposium; I will be attending the European Society of Criminology; and another Board member will attend the Australia-New Zealand Society of Criminology meeting in October. It is hoped that these conferences can be used to connect with scholars and practitioners outside the US and promote ACJS as an international organization concerned about crime and justice issues throughout the world. (p. 3)
Future research might investigate the success of these connections in terms of jointly authored or comparative studies on women and crime.
Another limitation concerns the focus of the inquiry, conference presentations. At least in the United States, faculty members typically must be formally listed in the meeting program and present papers to receive some support for conference attendance. The cost of traveling to conferences is an additional restriction with regard to international presentations. By contrast, if the authors had examined publications with an international/comparative perspective that focused on women and girls, a different picture might emerge. For example, in the first 7.5 years of the history of the journal, Feminist Criminology, a total of 111 articles were published (see Table 13). Of these, 86 articles (77.6%) focused on the United States, and 24 articles (21.6%) examined women and crime issues in other countries. Compared with an average of 14.1% of the ASC women and crime presentations with an international or comparative focus, this publication rate of international/comparative women and crimes studies is considerably higher.
International/Comparative Nature of Feminist Criminology Articles by Year, n = 111.
Furthermore, Table 14 indicates that 18% of the authors who published on Feminist Criminology were affiliated with colleges, universities, or organizations in foreign countries. Again, this rate is much higher compared with 4.8% of the ASC presenters with foreign affiliations. As seen in Table 15, although the vast majority of the articles addressed feminist criminology and/or specific criminal justice issues concerning women in the United States, 12 other countries (the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, Australia, Barbados, Bosnia, Netherlands, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and Tajikistan) were the subject of the research that was reported. These preliminary descriptive data suggest that journal publications on research on women with an international or comparative focus would be useful to examine trends and cross-national studies.
Comparative/International Nature of Feminist Criminology Article and Author Affiliation 2006-2013 (n = 111).
Countries Under Study in Comparative/International Women and Crime Feminist Criminology Articles 2006-2013 (n = 111).
As seen in Tables 13, 14, and 15, Feminist Criminology, the official journal of the DWC of the ASC, has been the primary outlet for international/comparative research on women and crime. This journal identifies itself as international (see Feminist Criminology website, Aims & Scope). The content of articles published in journals is also likely to be influenced by the identity of editors and editorial board members (Kim & Hawkins, 2013). Feminist Criminology has 1 editor, 4 deputy editors, and 37 editorial board members; however, only 4 board members are affiliated with non-U.S. universities. During the first 8 years of its existence (2006-2013), the journal and its editorial board have demonstrated enormous success. As the 40th Anniversary of the Division approaches, three questions are posed: Should Feminist Criminology attempt to attract even more international scholars and research or does it stay the course? Should the journal editorial board solicit and support more international/comparative studies? Should there be more board members from other countries? This may be an appropriate time to consider these questions.
At the 2012 ASC Annual Meeting, Sampson (2013) reported that there were 500 attendees from countries outside the United States. Although Canada dominated with 150 attendees, there were 274 participants from 22 countries in Europe, and 113 from 18 other countries around the world. Ideally, a greater percentage of papers presented at the ASC and ESC meetings as well as articles in Feminist Criminology in the next 10 years will also reflect more collaboration with international scholars, more countries in cross-cultural comparisons, and greater understanding of women’s issues in a global context.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences on March 3, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.