Monday, January 7, 2008

You Do What?

At swimming practice -

A: Bummer about the highway shutting down for a year. Traffic is going to be a nightmare on Monday.

V: I plan on working from home one day a week, and my university isn't on this highway.

A: What department are you in?

V: Criminology.

A: So you work with the police on solving crimes? Must be gross at times.

V: Not so much, I do work with the PD, but I help with mapping and policy analyses. My emphasis is on corrections. (I didn't even get into my new study on sex offenders - that really freaked people out at Christmas)

A: Wow! I would have never guessed that. You look so nice! How did you get interested in prisons?

V: Debate topic in high school.

A: (Silence). Wow!

A colleague often argues that we are stigmatized by our subject. I didn't feel this sentiment in this conversation, but I have had awkward exchanges in the past. Many even argue that crim often gets looked down on in soc departments because our analyses (at least some parts) are more applied. Anyone have similar experiences?
Posted by Velma at 9:20 AM
Labels: ,

6 comments:

The NY Kid said...

I find most often that I am not necessarily stigmatized, but that people tend to assume that I work directly with the police. It seems there is relatively little understanding of what people do with a Ph.D. in Criminology.

January 7, 2008 10:17 AM
Dr. Huginkiss said...

I have experienced both of these reactions from people when I tell them that I study crime/am a criminologist/have a Ph.D. in criminal justice. It's either:

"Really? Huh. I wouldn't have guessed. How'd you get interested in that?"

-or-

"So, you wanna be a cop?" This one really baffles me. While I have tremendous respect for police officers (in fact, I have never completely relinquished my dream of becoming one)....if I wanted to be a police officer, I surely wouldn't have spent a decade in grad school! I think the NY Kid is right -- unless you say that you have a degree in "chemistry" or "biology" or "psychology," I don't know that people really understand what it is we do.

We just need more people to read this blog -- then they'll understand! : )

January 7, 2008 8:29 PM
Velma said...

I think that sometimes it is more than just a misunderstanding of what we do. I guess I am just suprised that people seem to assume that 'nice' people (white, upper-class women) are less likely to study crime. Would people have the same reaction if I mentioned that I am a sociologist who considers the role of culture in institutions?

As an analogy, I once heard someone say that Marcia Cross must be a nasty person (at least in part) because she always plays crazy people (I miss Melrose Place).

January 8, 2008 10:41 AM
Patch said...

I hardly ever tell people what I do (unless they really probe) because I get tired of the same old responses. If you study crime you must want to be in the FBI or a CSI or some other popular acronym.

I remember the conversation I had with someone (don't remember who):

"You're a professor?!?"

P: "Yes, an assistant professor."

"OOOOHHHH...I knew you weren't a PROFESSOR."


There are so many stereotypes associated with being a professor or being interested in crime, and I don't think I really fall into any of them (maybe none of us do - which is why we are so fun to be around!)

And you can imagine the conversations I get into when I first explain that I am a criminologist (or criminal justician) and then talk about how I study cyberbullying. "You study what?!?"

January 8, 2008 1:07 PM
Pap said...

I just get into my research area and hope that people have some sort of experience or familiarity with *any* type of computer crime. My least favorite thing is when they figure that my professional life is cake because I only teach a couple/few days a week. So then I have to go on and on about research/service activities....and I still don't think they buy what I'm saying :)

January 9, 2008 4:32 AM
Dr Cranky said...

On Velma's latter question, I've experienced plenty of professional stigma from other social scientists. When on the market, in one instance I was told (though a reasonably reliable source, but still second hand) that I know I was passed over for a sociology PhD. The reason? They thought the soc PhD would have a better likelihood of tenure success. This was at a place with far lighter standards than my current institution.

A lot of the confusion by other disciplines seems to have as much to do with confusion over how/what we teach our students. Despite being one floor down in the same building, several Soc faculty at my current employing institituion seem to think we teach them some combination of CSI, shooting, and handcuffing 101. The perception of CJ as "soft" is based not only on applied research but on the belief we offer a 4 year technical degree.

To be sure, there are places that do the latter, but most CJ programs are routinely criticized by out-going graduates for not teaching enough "hands on." I suspect the most "hands on" most of our programs get is some aspects of law curriculum and perhaps policy/admin courses.

I actually don't get flack from random people I meet at the kid's school, etc.

January 10, 2008 7:54 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)