MYTHS AND REALITIES
PUBLIC LECTURE SERIES - New Topics
We are arranging two more in the popular series of public lecture events organised jointly by the Academy and the British Library and supported by the ESRC.
The lectures are part of an on-going series called “Myths and Realities” which aims to take topics of public interest or concern and look at them through a social science lens. They draw on social science research and understandings to explore and to challenge popular thinking. Aimed at the general public in particular, the series offers opportunities for social scientists to engage with the public and present social science in an accessible way.
The next topics consider the debate around
- Educational Standards and Examinations [8th September]
- Whether or not Class is still relevant [1st November]
The events are held at the British Library in Euston, London and the downloadable flyers below give full details of how to obtain tickets and the line up of speakers.
It is increasingly important to show the wider community the value of social science and its role in explaining the world and we urge members of the Academy to circulate the flyers to friends, colleagues and students who would appreciate knowing about these events. Please too consider printing off the flyers and placing them on noticeboards.
Click here to download the flyers (Education) (Class)
Click here to download the programme and speaker biographies for the Education event.
*****************
REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS MYTHS & REALITIES EVENTS
Podcasts and slide presentations from the first three in the series are available on the British Library website. Click Here to access the links.
Crime and Punishment in the 21st Century
On 8 February, the third event in the Myths and Realities joint series at the British Library attracted a large audience to hear Professors Mike Hough and Ian Loader challenge some of the everyday thinking and lurid headlines we have come to see so frequently and which make developing a sensible and effective crime policy increasingly difficult.
Professor Jon Silverman of the University of Bedfordshire chaired a lively debate, which opened when Professor Hough from the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at King’s College, London asked why there is a mismatch between the public perception and actual crime trends. Despite the downward trend over the last twenty years in crime that people report in the British Crime Survey, many think that crime in on the rise nationally - whilst simultaneously feeling that it is going down in their locality. Both the media and politicians foster this misunderstanding by their reporting of events and responses to them. This distrust in justice needs to be tackled.
Professor Loader of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford took this further by showing how the political consensus of twenty-five years ago had been destroyed. “Liberal elitism” was characterised by a wish to balance order and decency, to forge expert consensus on criminological policy and to manage public opinion when it challenged this. However, since Mrs Thatcher’s premiership, crime had become a key battleground of electoral politics; it had “hotted up” as it had taken an emotive and populist turn. He suggested we need to see a cooling down – was a NICE for criminal justice a way forward? Certainly we needed to build a deliberative politics of crime.
The third speaker, Lindsey Poole spoke from the experience of running the Thames Valley Partnership. She contrasted the policy approach which tended to be ‘top down’ with the reality of delivering many very different and frequently changing programmes on the ground - often with limited resources. Like Alice in Wonderland the same people kept appearing in different meetings wearing different hats as local groups aimed to engage different sections of the community and public sector in delivering diverse services.
The lively discussion showed that the power of the media is indeed strong and much of the politicians’ rhetoric leaves the public uncertain who or what to believe - which cannot be a good basis to develop the rational and effective policy on crime that many of us want.
