Code of Practice for Quality AssuranceResearch Programmes

Title: Doctor in Philosophy

Programme: The Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC), an Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate

1.1 Type of ProgrammeThe Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC) is a structured PhD programme offered by SSPSSR at the University of Kent jointly with the Eötvös Lorand University (ELTE, Budapest, Hungary), the University of Hamburg (Germany), and Utrecht University (Netherlands).

The programme was selected for funding under the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral scheme (EMJD) in July 2011 (Erasmus Mundus phase 3, 2009-2013, Action 1: joint programmes). The EU will finance 5 consecutive editions of the programme from 2012 until 2016. Kent will act as the coordinating institution throughout these five years. Academic representatives from the four consortium universities have developed the programme together at several international meetings from 2009 to 2011, with a quadrilateral co-tutelle partnership concluded in March 2011, the basis for Erasmus Mundus funding. All elements of the following programme specifications have been approved by the partners.

The programme must meet certain requirements to be eligible for Erasmus Mundus funding. Among these are a mandatory mobility period and a common language policy (the programme will be conducted in English and candidates will have to demonstrate spoken and written competence in English).

A website for the programme has been set up at www.dcgc.eu

1.2 Award and TitleAward: the final degree will be a joint or dual (double) degree awarded by two of the four consortium partners (for further details see 1.13, ‘Final Examination’).

Title: Doctor in PhilosophyProgramme: ‘The Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC)’. An Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate.

1.3 Length and Mode of Registration36 months; full-time only

Extensions to this period will only be given in exceptional circumstances and must be agreed with the DCGC Coordinator/Chair of the Academic Board of Studies.

Candidates may take a period of intermission from their doctoral research in accordance with the regulations of the partner institutions (e.g. due to sickness, maternity/paternity leave and so on). Each university will advise the other of any changes to the registration status of candidates in a timely manner.

1.4 Entry Requirements

1

Note: A large number of candidates on the programme will be from overseas because the majority of Fellowships will be Category A , which will be restricted to candidates who have lived, worked and/or studied for no more than 12 months out of the past five years in the EU (see annex 1 for the precise eligibility criteria regarding Fellowships. These criteria have been set by the European Commission).

Applicants will normally be expected to hold a 2nd cycle degree and to have been awarded the best or second best grade available in their national system in social sciences, law or related subjects. Following Erasmus Mundus policy the consortium is also committed to considering applicants on the basis of non-formal education and experience. If applicants to the programme do not possess the required formal education they will be expected to demonstrate their abilities by submitting a dossier detailing relevant experiences and other attainments.

Language requirements: non-native speakers of English must demonstrate, through the acquisition of a recognized qualification, proficiency in English at CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) level C1 (‘proficient user’), for instance through an IELTS level 7.0 qualification or a score of 100 (including a minimum 22 in both writing and reading) in the internet-based TOEFL (the paper-based TOEFL is not acceptable).

Applicants to the programme will be selected on the basis of high academic achievement, the fit of their research project with the DCGC research themes, and an assessment of their potential and commitment to complete high quality research. Candidates will need to demonstrate their eligibility and academic achievement through the submission of relevant documentation, including:

detailed transcripts with grades and degree classification a current CV a certificate of language ability a statement of purpose/motivation a research proposal including justification of the proposed mobility pathway the names of two referees who will attest to the applicant's academic standing

and potential

All candidates will also be expected to indicate that they have understood, and are committed to, the integrated mobility requirement of the programme.

1.5 Anticipated Total Doctoral Candidate RegistrationsFor five consecutive years (2012 to 2016) the programme will receive funding from the EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency) under the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral scheme. The EU will annually specify the number of fellowships available for each edition of the programme. In 2012, it is expected that 8 - 9 fellowships will be awarded, and a similar number is expected in subsequent years. The minimum registrations p.a. should therefore be 8, and an attempt will be made to recruit an additional 50% of that number through other means (e.g. other scholarships and grants, etc). Thus the total number of doctoral candidates registering per year will be between 8 and 12/13, while the total capacity of the programme (fellowships plus externally-funded) has been set at 16 candidates per annum.

1.6 Programme ManagementAt Kent, 9 members of staff from SSPSSR are currently participating in the programme. All are members of the Faculty of Social Sciences and six currently meet the requirements for supervisory chairs. Given that the Kent supervisory team will consist of a senior and junior academic, this provides a good balance.

2

1. Professor Chris Hale2. Professor Jock Young3. Professor Roger Matthews 4. Professor Larry Ray5. Professor Alex Stevens 6. Professor Keith Hayward 7. Dr Phil Carney8. Dr Caroline Chatwin 9. Dr Johnny Ilan

In the three partner institutions, a further 26 academic staff are participants in the programme:

Hamburg:

1. Prof. Klause Eichner 2. Prof. Dr. Johannes Feest3. Prof. Dr. Susanne Krasmann4. Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Lautmann5. Prof. Gabriele Löschper6. Dr. Bettina Paul7. Prof. Dr. Dr. Fritz Sack8. Prof. Dr. Sebastian Scheerer 9. PD Dr. Jan Wehrheim 10. Dr. Nils Zurawski

Utrecht:

1. Dr. Tim Boekhout van Solinge 2. Prof. dr. Miranda Boone 3. Prof. dr. Frank Bovenkerk4. Prof. dr. Chrisje Brants5. Prof. dr. François Kristen 6. Prof. dr. Frans Koenraadt7. Prof. dr. Hector Olásolo8. Dr. Brenda Oude Breuil 9. Prof. dr. Dina Siegel10. Prof. dr. John Vervaele11. Prof. dr. Ido Weijers12. Dr. Damián Zaitch

Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE):

1. Dr. habil Zoltán Fleck2. Dr. Peter Hack3. Dr. habil Klára Kerezsi4. Prof. dr. Miklos Lévay

The programme will be managed by the Academic Board of Studies, described below under 1.16 ‘Governance’.

1.7 Proposed Start DateSeptember 2012.

3

1.8 Opportunity and NeedThe nature and complexity of crime requires a committed, coherent interdisciplinary approach harnessing the most advanced international, cultural and critical insights of social sciences and law in a new doctoral training programme. The Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC) will develop a politically engaged, international understanding and approach to crime and its control, and prepare high-level doctoral candidates to work in the widest range of employment arenas concerned with understanding, preventing and responding to crime in a way which takes account of the global and cultural context. Through the integration of over 30 associated partners (see annexe 2) it responds to both the impact and the employability agenda in current UK debates in the HE sector. Addressing the urgent need for a new kind of high level expert, the doctoral programme will have a global perspective. Doctoral candidates will conduct research which is relevant, international, transnational and intercultural and which has identified impact. Their doctoral training will develop the capacity for critically informed policy making and, in doing so, it will bring together in an integrated and structured way the insights of the social sciences and law. The programme will foster intellectual dialogue and mobility between different geographical and cultural areas, between the disciplines of social science and law, and, between the university and organisations involved in social action, criminal justice policy making, and crime control.

At Kent, the programme responds to key elements of the School, Faculty and University Plans, including:a) an emphasis on internationalisation through the partnership in a joint programme with three top EU research universitiesb) an emphasis on the employability prospects of graduates both within and outside the HE sectorc) an increase of the annual PGR overseas intake in the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Researchd) a dedicated focus on interdisciplinaritye) participation in an EU excellence programme. At the time of submission of these programme specifications (October 2011), Kent is the only UK university to be coordinating EMJD programmes (the TEEME programme [selected by Erasmus Mundus in July 2010, programme approved by PASC in November 2010] and now the DCGC programme [selected by Erasmus Mundus in July 2011]), thus leading the sector in the UK in a key area of future doctoral education.

1.9 Aims and ObjectivesThe programme aims will meet six key needs in criminological doctoral research and training, as follows.

□ Understanding and responding to new crimesThe continuing globalisation of economic, political, social, and cultural processes means that crime is constantly evolving. There is a need for new interdisciplinary criminological investigations that are able to engage with this dynamic change on the basis of a global and cultural perspective.

□ Developing an international and intercultural outlook on crime and social harmIn Europe and the rest of the world criminology has been relatively parochial and confined to local and national concerns. This limited vision marginalises international and transcultural factors. The 21st century has brought an increasing awareness of the global and cultural dimensions of crime and crime control. An international and inter-cultural perspective recognises the indeterminate borderline between ‘criminal’ and ‘non-criminal’ social harms, which means that equivalent forms of problems like environmental damage

4

or youth transgression may or may not be formally criminalised in different parts of the world. The new problems present challenges to policing and criminal justice agencies, which are becoming aware that their operations can have unforeseen results and implications, causing policy makers to reflect, for example, on the ways in which crime control and security policy may impact on social exclusion and human rights.

The programme will develop a broad, global and cultural understanding of crime, harm and control, bringing into focus the significant variation in cultural understandings, modes of regulation, jurisdictions, national laws, differences in policing discretion and prosecuting policy, community values and political cultures, and reflecting critically on the consequences of criminal law and its enforcement.

□ Interdisciplinary criminologyEuropean criminology has been based either within the social sciences or in law. The two fields are separated by departmental structures, educational and research programmes, and different modes of critical analysis, methodological approach and social engagement. If there have been conversations about these matters across a disciplinary divide, so far there has been no attempt to combine their best aspects in structured, inter-disciplinary, and international doctoral training programme. There is a need to research crime and control from a global and cultural perspective, which requires the integration of the most advanced, global, cultural and critical aspects of both social science and law-based criminology.

□ Intersectoral perspectives and expertise There can be no doubt that crime in all its manifestations is of critical, economic, social and political importance, and it is clear that in many spheres the understanding of and response to crime have not been successful. There is an urgent need for government bodies, NGOs, policy makers and criminal justice agencies to access and use high level expertise in developing effective policy responses to crime, which are based on a more profound critical understanding of the international, cultural context and an appreciation of the potential consequences of new, more coordinated responses. Equally there is a need for international criminological research to be informed by the problems and issues faced by civil society and the public sector. Thus the programme will be intimately concerned with the development, execution and results of policy in response to the constantly changing, evolving range of ‘new’ crimes and associated harms. The programme will recognise that criminal justice, governmental and non-governmental bodies all have a vital stake in the field of cultural and global criminology, reflected in the involvement of doctoral candidates with these key organisations.

□ CitizenshipSo far the development of third-cycle transferable competences in doctoral training has concentrated on skills related to employability but less on those required for citizenship, although the two are intimately linked. The nature of crime and its control, the focus on policy-relevant research, and the need for the outcomes to be useful for actors in civil society, the public sector and criminal justice agencies, requires a recognition that advanced citizenship competences are important for the role that graduates are expected to play in the wider civic, social and political arena. In order to develop active, culturally-sensitive, internationally-knowledgeable citizenship informed by self-reflective ethical and political awareness, the programme will be innovative in its recognition and cultivation of skills in ‘global-critical citizenship’. These skills will be brought to the analysis of policy debate and social action.

□ Third country capacity-building

5

Through its relationships with overseas countries and their doctoral candidates, the programme will develop the capacity for the application of academic criminological research to crime and justice policy on an international scale.

1.10 Programme OutlineThe PhD programme is described in detail in annexes 3 and 4. Registration: To ensure complementarity across the four degree-awarding institutions, all doctoral candidates will be registered from year one for a PhD at two of the four institutions, identified in their chosen pathways.

The programme involves three kinds of structured activity: supervised research, subject-specific training and transferable skills development. Supervised research is laid out in progressive stages that will enable candidates to develop gradually into competent and fully qualified researchers. Subject-specific training includes core modules in criminological theory and research methods with, in addition, a choice of elective modules. Transferable skills training includes formal workshops at the Graduate School, attendance (in person or virtually) at the Global Skills course, the use of a Personal Development Plan, the presentation of papers at the Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology, and the opportunity of a research internship at one of our Associate Members.

The doctoral programme will be a three-year programme culminating in the submission of a doctoral thesis. Candidates will choose one of four main research themes established by the programme and reflecting the complementary strengths of the four partners. In order to establish a sense of programme identity and coherence and to ensure a common basis in the core training, all candidates will start their first semester at Kent. The first semester will consist of an intensive induction programme, core training courses, the establishment of a personal development plan, and the development and formulation of the research project and confirmation of associated mobility in consultation with the supervisory team.

In addition to working together in the first semester, the cohort of candidates will meet again at the Utrecht Summer School and the conferences of the Common Study Programme. These meetings will foster the sense of programme-wide community that binds together research postgraduates and academic staff, and contributes to the research environment.

At the end of their degree, each doctoral candidate will have spent at least one year in two different EU countries, while many will have studied in three EU countries.

The programme will also incorporate a Summer School at Utrecht at the end of the first year. Here candidates will receive training on advanced qualitative and legal methods. In the second and third years candidates will give papers based on their research to an international postgraduate conference, the Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology.

1.11 Award of CreditsWhile the consortium, informed by the Salzburg II recommendations on doctoral programmes, will not award credits for the research thesis, or for the research elements of the programme, it has created an overall ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) credit framework, divided into notional (research) and awardable (subject-specific and transferable skills) credits. The total number of notional and awardable ECTS credits, set at 180, follows EMJD precedent and the requirements of DCGC partners. ECTS credits will be awarded for the successful completion of subject-

6

specific and transferable skills elements at each progression stage. The credit framework gives a guide to the relative weightings of the research and taught elements. (for details on the DCGC credit framework, see annexe 4).

Depending on the type of activity and/or nature of the taught elements, credits in the subject-specific and transferable skills training are awarded through certified workshop and seminar attendance, and through the assessment of coursework, presentations, or internship reports. Notional credits are used at each progression stage in the research strand as a means of tracking and recognising research progression. In addition, they are a mechanism for establishing, in concert with training credits, that a candidate is eligible to submit their final research thesis.

For progression rules, see annex 5. Credits will be awarded by the Academic Board of Studies (see 1.16 ‘Governance’).

1.12 Supervision and Progression Arrangements Each candidate will have at least two supervisors, at least one each from the two chosen places of study. If one of the two degree-awarding institutions is the University of Kent, the Kent supervisor will be either an approved supervisory chair or be part of a team of two Kent supervisors, one of whom will be an approved supervisory chair.

The composition of the supervisory team will be considered at application stage and finalised with each candidate when mobility pathways are confirmed early in semester 1. Supervisors will work closely together and meet with their candidates on a regular basis (either in person or through electronic means) to ensure that they are making satisfactory progress. If neither of their two main supervisors is a Kent staff member, candidates will be allocated a Kent advisor for the duration of semester 1. During the meetings in the first semester initial targets will be agreed with each candidate (satisfying the ‘induction’ review in Kent’s Code of Practice for Research Programmes, Annex K: Progression and Examination).

At the end of the first semester a probation review will be conducted by the Academic Board of Studies. This will consider reports from the supervision team, feedback from core module assessments and feedback from transferable skills training. At this stage a decision will be made whether or not the candidate may continue with his or her studies in the programme.

At the end of year 1 candidate progress will be reviewed by the Academic Board of Studies which will award ECTS credits for the training elements of Year 1 work and notional credits for the research, and decide whether candidates progress to Year 2. This decision will be based on a report from the supervision team, feedback from the core module assessments in Semester 1, feedback from the assessment conducted by the Utrecht Summer School (in advanced methods) and feedback from assessment of the elective module studied in Semester 2.

After year 1 there will be two formal progress meetings convened by the Academic Board of Studies each year, in addition to frequent supervisory meetings. Reports on these formal progress meetings will be discussed with the candidate. The second progress meeting at the end of year 3 will take the form of a meeting focused upon the pending submission of the thesis.

1.13 Final ExaminationThe final thesis, which should be between 80,000 and 100,000 words long, will be assessed against the DCGC descriptors of learning outcomes (see annex 4).

7

Candidates have to demonstrate the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication. The examining board for the thesis defence will comprise a minimum of one examiner from each supervising institution and a minimum of one examiner external to the consortium. Additional examiners from either supervising institution, from other consortium institutions, or from outside the consortium, may be appointed. There should be a minimum of 4 voting members on the board and not more than 5. The co-supervisors may attend the board. Supervisors will not have voting rights unless this has received prior agreement from both supervising institutions. Supervisors cannot, under any circumstances, have a deciding vote.

There should normally be one formal oral examination at which all the examiners are in attendance. In addition to this, candidates will also fulfil any other ceremonial obligations required at the partner institutions. The oral examination will take place at a mutually agreed location. All examiners are required to submit independent written reports of the thesis to each institution prior to the examination.

The consortium will agree in a separate document the necessary level of seniority of examination board members to ensure compliance with institutional requirements. A joint report, recommending the award or not, will follow the examination. Examiners will submit reports to the Academic Board which will then forward them to the relevant committees of the two degree-awarding institutions.

Successful candidates will qualify for the award of a doctorate from the two partner institutions which have established the supervisory team and overseen the supervision and production of the thesis. A quadrilateral co-tutelle agreement has already been signed by the partners of the consortium. Thus all members of the consortium are able to award a degree to candidates who have undertaken a substantial period of supervised research and study in another recognised institution. The consortium is committed to awarding joint degrees in all partner institutions.  

·     Kent, Hamburg and Utrecht have the capacity to award joint degrees, though the consortium currently still requires formal institutional approval to add this option to their existing degrees in criminology. The purpose of these programme specifications is to have the joint degree approved at Kent. Colleagues in Hamburg and Utrecht are currently undergoing the same approval process according to their national rules. It is expected that joint degree approval will have been obtained in Kent in time for the recruitment process to start in January 2012, and in Hamburg and Utrecht by the end of 2012.

·     ELTE is at present still prevented from awarding joint degrees by national legislation, though the issue will be raised in the relevant national institutions by ELTE. If progress is not made in this area by the time the first DCGC candidates reach completion stage, then there is already established capacity to award a dual (double) degree involving the three partners Kent, Hamburg and Utrecht as agreed in the quadrilateral co-tutelle agreement of March 2011. 

Anticipating the approval of the joint degree option in the relevant PhD programme specifications at Kent, Hamburg and Utrecht, joint degrees will be available to all candidates whose combination of degree-awarding institutions does not include ELTE, provided that a candidate has spent a minimum of 12 months in each of these institutions. For all combinations that include ELTE, dual (double) degrees will be awarded, subject to

8

the requirement that the doctoral candidate shall have spent a minimum of 12 months in the partner institution awarding the dual (double) degree.

1.14 Research EnvironmentAt consortium-wide and individual school/faculty levels the DCGC will provide a thriving research environment, characterised by a high output of nationally and internationally renowned research in the field. Each partner will enhance this environment by leadership that integrates the DCGC into the life of the faculty/school and promotes a climate of creativity. The number and diversity of high quality doctoral candidates at each institution who are active in conferences and publication will contribute to the research environment of the consortium. The general research facilities in each institution are of a high quality, with the full range of library facilities, campus networks, technological support, research software, international databases, and dedicated office space and IT equipment available for candidates.

There will be frequent research seminars and other academic events at each institution, facilitating both regular contact with research-productive peers, academic staff and visiting scholars, and the development and exchange of ideas; all these meetings will be associated with social events which promote informal learning and the development of peer support networks.

1.15 Doctoral Candidate Support and GuidanceAll four partners have dedicated services to support candidates both academically as well with daily administrative and personal matters; these services include: International and European Offices, Graduate Schools, Welcome Centres, Accommodation Offices, Health and Medical Centres, Learning Advisory Services, Language Support Services, and Careers Advisory Services.  They offer support from pre-arrival (with visa preparation), the point of arrival (in finding accommodation), throughout the period of research (academic support and use of research materials, language acquisition, personal support such as confidential counselling and medical and health services), to support at graduation and beyond (in seeking employment).

Advice on visas, on legal matters, on health services, banking and education facilities for families with children will be available from the appropriate support services at all institutions. As all candidates will start at Kent, Kent will be the sponsoring agent for candidates to acquire UK visas. Kent will further liaise with the relevant partners depending on the mobility pathways to secure the supporting documentation for candidates to procure visas to those host countries for their subsequent periods of study.

In the first semester at Kent, candidates will be offered places in university owned housing as well as assistance with finding off-campus apartments. At other partners, the university accommodation services will find housing on-campus or off-campus for candidates. Specific support will be given to those will special needs or with families.  Support in finding short-term accommodation during research trips and work placements will be offered where required in conjunction with associate partners.

Each partner has a specialist unit dedicated to providing support for candidates with special needs. As Kent is the coordinating institution where all candidates start, it will identify special needs (at the pre-arrival stage), arrange for a specialist assessment if appropriate, and communicate with all institutions on the mobility pathway and ensure that a clear plan is put in place for these needs to be met. The plan will include arrangements for access, accommodation, special equipment, adaptations and other support.

9

All partners offer a range of services aimed specifically at international candidates. These include active social support networks for candidates’ spouses, partners, and children, as well as venues and facilities that integrate scholarly with social and cultural activities such as film screenings, visits to museums and exhibitions, parties, guided tours, trips, and public panel discussions on current topics of general interest

In their first semester, new candidates in the same cohort will commence their training together at the University of Kent, where they will participate in an induction/orientation week given by selected members of the administrative and academic staff. At this stage they will also be introduced to or, in the case of the first cohort, select a DCGC candidate representative who will represent their interests and concerns.

In semester 1, all candidates will be members of Kent Student Union, which provides social, administrative and pastoral support, including dedicated units offering advice on financial and other matters. Mobility to partners will also entitle the candidate to join the student unions at Hamburg, Utrecht and ELTE and take full advantage of their privileges.

Candidates will receive additional support through the supervisory arrangements descibed under 1.12.

1.16 GovernanceA detailed Consortium Agreement (which will include these programme specifications in an annexe) has been drafted and is in the process of formal agreement by all partners. It covers the following aspects: obligations of the members of the consortium; obligations of the partners/contractors; doctoral programme; governance structure; award of doctorates; transcripts; diploma supplements; degree certificates; admission and selection; registration; financial arrangements; quality assurance; promotion of the programme; obligations to doctoral candidates; alumni association; settlement of disputes; liability; insurance.

The DCGC governance structure will be fully integrated with the governance of each of the partner institutions. It will involve a senior Management Board, an Advisory Board, an Academic Board of Studies, a doctoral candidates’ Council, and a Candidate-Staff Liaison Board.

The senior Management Board will be composed of a member of the senior management from each of the partner institutions plus the programme coordinator. It will be chaired on a rotating basis by one of its members and meet once a year to review the delivery of the programme, monitor progress against targets, approve formal reports to the European Commission, determine strategic policy, and receive reports from the associated members, the Advisory Board, the Academic Board of Studies, the Council of Doctoral Candidates and the Candidate-Staff Liaison Board.

The Advisory Board will meet once a year and be composed at least two external members, nominated by the partners; one or more representatives of institutions offering internships; the chair of the Academic Board of Studies; a representative elected by the doctoral candidates, and an alumnus.

The Academic Board of Studies will be composed of academic leads nominated by each institution, the DCGC Coordinator, and one doctoral candidate representative (who will be present for non-reserved business). It will have direct responsibility for running the programme, including the organisation of admissions to the programme, decisions on candidate progress, academic support to candidates, the organisation of examinations and annual monitoring. The Advisory Board and the Academic Board of Studies will report

10

to the Management Board on the basis of formal evaluation and feedback received from candidates, academic staff, associated members, and the Candidate Council.

The doctoral candidates will establish a Candidate Council and determine its terms of reference subject to the basic guidelines that the Council should have representatives from each year of study and in each of the four partners, and should take account of gender balance. The consortium will support the Council by making available facilities for virtual and physical meetings.

The formal annual monitoring report produced by the Academic Board will also be received by the partners’ internal graduate studies committees as per institutional regulations. All partners will feed back any concerns or suggestions to the Academic Board of Studies and the Management Board. The Academic Board will in addition review the governance arrangements on an annual basis in order to ensure that the demands of governance on candidates, supervisors and others involved in the programme will facilitate rather than hinder the smooth and efficient running of the programme and assist research quality and completion success rates. If the Academic Board decides that a change in the governance structure is necessary to improve the academic programme, then it will propose this to the Management Board after consultation with the Candidate Council.

1.17 Quality AssuranceThe DCGC consortium respects the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area as agreed by the Ministers in the Bologna Process Communiqué in 2005. In addition, the programme’s quality assurance system will be consistent with the requirements of each institution’s Code of Practice (or equivalent). Specifically, the programme will be subject to annual monitoring and review on the basis of specific performance indicators and feedback from academic staff and doctoral candidates participating in the programme, as well as from the programme’s associated members. A formal report on the review will be presented annually to the relevant academic bodies in each of the partner institutions as well as to the DCGC Advisory and Management Boards. There will be a formal response to doctoral candidate feedback which will indicate any changes to be made as a result of this input. In addition, all institutions are subject to the evaluation and review procedures of their own national quality assurance agencies which will be respected and followed.

The annual monitoring reports will be compiled with a view to ensuring the continuous high quality of the provision. They will evaluate the academic standards achieved, consider any possible measures required to enhance quality, and measure the performance of staff and candidates against national and international benchmarks. Specifically, they will consider comments by the Advisory Board and any associated partners (who will be formally invited to comment on an annual basis); consider candidate feedback and any actions to be undertaken as a result of this feedback; contain statistical data on candidate progression and achievement, as well as on applications and admissions; include a commentary on the adequacy of learning resources at all four sites; consider any issues raised on disabled access to the curriculum; and comment on proposed changes to the programme.

Formal evaluation procedures will be central to the operation of the programme. All mandatory elements of the programme – training skills courses and workshops, introductory and elective modules, special skills courses, conferences, etc – will contain an internal anonymous feedback mechanism designed to enhance the quality of the

11

learning experience. The work placements will be evaluated separately following the guidelines of the UK QAA Code of Practice for work-based and placement learning.

All DCGC doctoral candidates will be asked once a year to complete a questionnaire based on the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey developed by The Higher Education Academy in the UK, measuring candidate experience against the following themes: quality of supervision, academic standards, skills development, research environment including infrastructure and intellectual climate, thesis examination, professional development and career, roles and responsibilities, personal factors, meeting expectations, completion. In addition, staff/candidate liaison committees will meet once a year at each site. Their membership will include at least one candidate from each stage of the programme and at least one member of the DCGC teaching and supervisory staff. Agendas and minutes of these meetings will be made available to the Academic Board and to all candidates through publication on the programme website.

At the end of three years the programme will be subject to external review by a body consisting of at least one external expert nominated by each of the partner institutions (terms of reference for the Review Group to be developed). These experts will not be members of the Advisory Board. The Review Group will be chaired by one of its members and will be provided with administrative support by the coordinating institution. Outcomes will be considered by the Management Board as well as by individual institutions as part of a systematic process of review. In addition, the programme will be subject to any required review process in place at the four partner institutions (e.g. the Periodic Programme Review at Kent).

1.18 Resource ImplicationsAll four partners are contributing their own resources to the programme in terms of staff time, administrative and technical support, language courses and promotional activities. Additional implementation costs include programme launch, the Utrecht Summer School, conferences of the Common Study Programme, academic activities related to the programme (a proposed conference in Cultural and Global Criminology, special panels at other conferences), costs of investment in sustainability, insurance, expenses for external examiners, tuition and administrative fees charged by the consortium partners (including the Home/EU and overseas fees charged by Kent), and administrative support at the coordinating institution. These costs will be met through the increased fee income and the annual lump sum (€ 50,000) paid to the consortium. A DCGC financial arrangement will be included in the Consortium Agreement to be submitted to the EACEA by 28th February.

1.19 Professional Sector ParticipationThe whole programme is designed to be policy and impact related. Effective collaboration and interaction with key stakeholders in the field of criminology, crime policy and crime control is integral to every aspect of the programme: the training modules, the research topics, internships/placements, and governance.

The consortium has established formal links with a wide range of associated members listed in annexe 2. They include national and international organisations dealing with policy making, crime control and law enforcement; civil society networks and organisations (mainly NGOs) in the fields of human, social and political rights, drug policies, environmental crime and justice; local, national and international criminal justice agencies; and research institutes. The consortium will have active support from the British Library and Sage Publishing.

12

These international stakeholders will be involved with the consortium, in proposing and supporting individual research projects relevant to their field, providing internships and work placements appropriate to the individual and his/her project, and involvement in programme governance.

Because the research is policy and impact based, all the organisations listed and others in the sector will take a strong interest in the outputs of the research projects and this will allow for wider social and public engagement than is normal for doctoral programmes. In turn, this engagement will feed into the work of individuals and the structure, organisation and content of the training. The close contact which our external partners will have with the programme and with individual doctoral candidates, particularly those who undertake internships or work placements, will give the organisations an extended opportunity to get to know and participate in the personal development of the doctoral candidates, developing opportunities for employment by these organisations or others in their networks.

Not only does the success of the programme depend on active engagement with external stakeholders, but in turn this will enhance mutual understanding between the academic, research community and those engaged with policy and practice. The stakeholders in the policy and practice fields will help to determine and shape the research agenda and because the research is impact and policy oriented it will contribute to policy and practice.

1.20 Development and Sustainability PlanIt is expected that the international recognition of the quality and added-value aspects of the programme will attract non-fellowship holders during the period of European Union funding and after. The programme website and promotion activities will improve with each edition of the programme and thus continue to appeal to candidates from within and outside the EU. Existing resources in each institution, and a business plan that has resulted in a realistic tuition fee and an agreed use of the block grant will secure the financial sustainability of the programme after the first five editions. Given the quality of the programme, the ultimate aim is to recruit to capacity levels (16 candidates p.a.). Building on success, institutional and external resources may allow numbers to increase further over subsequent years, but only insofar as these additional resources enable the quality of the programme to be maintained or enhanced further.

The DCGC will further strengthen and publicise its research identity through a proposed annual Conference in Cultural and Global Criminology. In addition, DCGC related panels will be put forward at major international conferences of criminology including those in all the regions from which we aim to recruit overseas candidates.

Continuous dialogue and cooperation with the Associate Members will result in the clear perception of the programme’s added value for both the academic and non-academic institutions involved, and thus secure the commitment of all members to contribute actively to future candidate recruitment. The mid/long-term benefits for partners include: exceptional programme delivered with long-standing partners attracting high-calibre candidates; increase in the overall quality of institutions’ research outputs; enhanced opportunities for collaboration between partners and with associated members; increased knowledge transfer opportunities; potential to enhance the international experience of wider candidate population due to visiting lecturers and peer group; ability to offer programme with broader base delivered by specialist academic staff exploiting the complementary strengths of the partners.

Special colloquia will be held with appropriate organisations in order to raise funds for further Fellowships during and after the programme.

13

14

ANNEXES

Annexe 1: Eligibility criteria for Erasmus Mundus Category A and B fellowshipsAnnexe 2: List of associated partnersAnnexe 3: Overview of programme and detailed programme descriptionAnnexe 4: Programme Structure and DescriptorsAnnexe 5: Progression RulesAnnexe 6: Complaints and AppealsAnnexe 7: Electives modules and special skills courses

Annexe 1: Eligibility criteria for Erasmus Mundus Category A and B fellowships (set by the European Commission)

Category A: These fellowships are awarded to doctoral candidates who come from a country other than the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and who are not residents nor have carried out their main activity (studies, work, etc.) for more than a total of 12 months over the last five years in one of these countries. The only exception to this rule applies to doctoral candidates who have previously received an Erasmus Mundus masters scholarship in order to follow an EMMC.

Category B: These fellowships are awarded to doctoral candidates who do not fulfil the Category A criteria listed above.

15

Annexe 2: List of associated partners:

Agreements have been obtained from all partners. Copies of endorsement letters were included as an annex in the original application.

(1) Civil society networks and organisations: Friends of the Earth International Transnational Institute Transparency International Harm Reduction International International Centre for Human Rights and Drug Policy Hungarian Helsinki Committee Hungarian Civil Liberties Union Amnesty International K-monitor, Budapest, Hungary

(2) International, national & local criminal justice agencies: National Office of Immigration and Nationality, Budapest Kent Police Kent Youth Offending Services

(3) Research institutes and centres: Centre for Information and Research on Organized Crime, NL Institute for Security and Prevention Research, Hamburg, Germany Institut für Sicherheits und Präventionsforschung, Germany Carl Friedrich von Weisäcker Centre for Science and Peace Research, Germany Institut für Rechts- und Kriminalsoziologie, Vienna, Austria National Institute of Criminology, Budapest, Hungary

(4) Leading Criminological Publisher and National LibrarySage Publishing, London, UKBritish Library, London, UK

(5) Other academic Associates from the Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology

University of Ghent, Belgium Erasmus University Rotterdam, NL Middlesex University, UK University of Porto, Portugal Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece University of the Peloponnese, Corinth, Greece John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the Graduate School, City University of New York, USA

(6) Overseas associate university partners University of Cape Town (UCT), Centre of Criminology, South Africa Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Brazil Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil Universidad de Guadalajara (UDG), Mexico City University of Hong Kong (CityU), China Universidad de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Montevideo (UdelaR) Instituto Latinoamericano de Altos Estudios (ILAE), Bogota, Colombia

16

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York (CUNY).

17

Annexe 3: Overview of programme and detailed programme description

The DCGC is a collaborative, three-year postgraduate research programme culminating in the submission of a doctoral thesis. It is carefully structured and divided into three main strands: research, subject-specific training and transferable skills training. Candidates will normally1 follow a main mobility path between two co-supervising universities, spending at least a year in each. Depending on the co-supervising universities, this requirement allows for up to a year outside the consortium conducting fieldwork.

In the research strand, each candidate will have a team of supervisors (minimum two) from the two partners at which the main periods of mobility and research will be undertaken. In some cases a third member of the supervisory team may be nominated if a candidate is studying in a third institution or in the context of the particular research field. Where fieldwork is undertaken for extended periods with an associated partner or elsewhere, a formal mentor will be agreed.

In addition to conducting doctoral research co-supervised between two universities in the consortium, all candidates will be expected to take two core subject-specific courses and one elective in the subject-specific training strand. This elective course can be taken in either semester two or semester three. In semesters two and three candidates will be given a choice of either an elective subject-specific course or an internship or a structured PDP task. All subject-specific courses and their assessments will be integrated to the themes of the candidate’s research who will work closely with the supervision team.

The transferable skills strand will consist of transferable skills training courses, Common Study Programme presentations, the option of a research internship at an associate member of the consortium, and the use of a Personal Development Plan (PDP) developed over three years. In addition to employability skills training, critical citizenship is the second dimension of transferable skills in the DCGC, which involves the development of high-level competency oriented to the complex ethical and political implications of research and policy in this field, informed by social science and legal perspectives. It is integral to all strands of the programme, from the subject-specific courses, to supervised research, to internships and other contacts with associated members, to the experience of mobility itself. This competency will be assessed globally as part of the examination of the thesis.

The timing of the elective subject-specific courses, the internship (if opted for), and the Common Study Programme presentations will depend on the exact mobility path and the timing and location of the research fieldwork.

The first semester will take place at Kent and consist of an intensive induction programme, core training courses, the initiation of a PDP, and the development of the research project. At this stage the three years of the programme will be plotted out, including mobility between the two main co-supervising institutions (and any other mobility), planning of further training, discussion of an optional internship and fieldwork. The calendar of the three years will be flexible within the constraints of minimum mobility rules, training requirements, and practical issues such as visas.

An induction workshop will ensure awareness by candidates and staff of regulations (including requirements for supervision, progression, monitoring/review, assessment/examination methods, misconduct issues, complaints and appeals procedures), the programme structure, and the programme credit framework. Hard copies of documentation will be distributed and the same material will be available on dedicated Moodle pages.

1 A degree of flexibility will be allowed through the Progression Rules (see Annex 5) to account for certain requirements of the Erasmus Mundus Fellowship.

18

Two core subject-specific courses will take place. Theories of Crime is an intensive course which will challenge candidates at the highest level to understand not only the latest developments in the field but also to address concepts, problems and theories in an interdisciplinary way. During this course candidates will be expected to work on knowledge gaps in disciplines with which they have not been previously engaged. The second course is Research Methods which will cover a broad range of social science research methods and skills that all candidates will be expected to obtain.

In addition, there will be a core course on transferable skills as well as a course on Global Skills delivered by the Kent Graduate School. PDP training will be initiated and will entail UELT-provided training in (a) the purpose and practicalities of a PDP, (b) the technology of the digital platform on which the PDP is carried. In addition PDP will involve (c) sessions at induction and at the end of the first semester with the supervisory team in which targets are set and reviewed.

This semester will also include a workshop in library skills, with particular attention to the use of programme-wide online resources, including indexing services, bibliographic databases, reference services, journals, online collections, e-books and digital archives. In this semester a named librarian, sensitive to the interdisciplinary nature of the programme, will be assigned to give individual advice to candidates. The same services will be provided at the partner universities in the candidates’ mobility pathways. The first semester will also incorporate a session at the British Library, the pre-eminent English language library in Europe, and a session at Sage, a major academic criminological publisher. These sessions will focus on issues of publication, knowledge transfer and wider dissemination, and will provide an introduction to these associate members and their involvement in the programme. There will also be a specialist workshop given by the Kent Careers Advisory Service to provide early focus on employability.

During the first semester candidates will also identify with their supervisors the specialist subject-specific training modules (at least one) they will undertake in the second and subsequent semesters.

The following description of the remaining semesters two to six represents one form of mobility path that is likely to be the most typical, where candidates spend semesters two and three in their first supervising university (if this is not Kent), and semesters four, five and six in their second supervising university. Depending on the timing and location of the fieldwork and optional internship, the mobility timings are flexible provided they spend at least one year in each co-supervising university. This flexibility means that the timing of the second elective subject-specific course/internship and the Common Study Programme presentations may be varied from the typical scheme set out below.

In the second semester, candidates will move to the first university co-supervising their research. Here candidates will be given a choice of either an elective subject-specific course or an internship or a structured PDP task..

At the end of the second semester a core compulsory training in specialist social-scientific and legal qualitative-research methods will take place at a Summer School in Utrecht, the largest of its kind in Europe and among the most prestigious. Academics from all four partners will deliver sessions on innovative methods in criminology, including: open interviews and participant observation; analysing visual data; ‘virtual’ methods on the internet; and a range of legal methods. The emphasis will be on ‘doing research’ and, in consultation with candidates and their supervisory teams, will be directly relevant to candidates’ research projects while also retaining the group learning ethos.

19

In the third semester, candidates will continue their research in the first co-supervising university and opt either for a research internship or a second elective subject-specific course or a structured PDP task. At an early stage in the programme all candidates will be asked to identify potential internships/placements with associated members and to discuss with their supervisors how the nature and the timing of the internship/placement will contribute to their research. Assessment of the internship/placement will take place by means of a reflective report by the candidate. Those who opt not to take an internship will instead take a relevant subject-specific course or a structured PDP task.

In the fourth semester, candidates will move to the second co-supervising university to continue their research, which will be carried on to its conclusion in the fifth and sixth semesters.

In the second and third years of the DCGC programme, candidates also present papers associated with two conferences of the Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology (CSP). These presentations are core elements of the programme and will be critically discussed and assessed by at least two members of the DCGC academic staff.

Constructed by the candidate throughout the three years of the programme, the PDP review, conducted by the supervisory team, takes place in four stages, (1) end of Semester 1 , (2) end of Semester 2, (3) end of Year 2, (3) end of Year 3. Unique to the individual candidate, PDP milestones depend on the nature and theme of the research project, other transferable skills training, networking opportunities, internship issues, opportunities for dissemination, career plan, lifelong learning plan, the availability and use of formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities in order to develop the relevant skills, and so forth

The taught subject-specific modules and transferable skills training will be assessed on a pass-fail basis and ECTS credits will be allocated by the Academic Board of Studies at key progression points. While the consortium, informed by the Salzburg II recommendations on doctoral programmes, cannot formally award credits for the research thesis, it may recognise them in the creation of an overall credit framework which establishes the relative weightings of the taught and skills elements in relation to the research and thesis. The programme has followed EMJD precedent in constructing a 180 credit framework. 

20

Annexe 4: Programme structure

The programme will consist of 180 credits divided across 3 years. Each year will be split into two semesters. In each semester candidates will be required to take 30 credits. Therefore, over the course of a year candidates will accumulate 60 credits. Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills Training will account for 75 ECTS credits and Research elements will account for 105 notional credits. However, many Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills elements will directly contribute to the research so the split between these credits should be seen as formal rather than of substantive significance.

The credit weighting will be as follows:

• ‘Subject-Specific Training’ modules: 10 ECTS credits (with the exception of the Utrecht Summer School, which will count for 5 ECTS credits)• ‘Research’ modules: will depend on the stage of study and will range from 5-25 notional credits (see 1.11 of the specification above for further details)• ‘Transferable Skills Training’ elements: 5 ECTS (with the exception of the Internship and Structured PDP Task options, which will count for 10 ECTS)

Credits for all training (Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills) elements of the programme will be awarded on a pass-fail basis at the end of each year, or, when appropriate, by a mid-year progression board. Credits for the Research elements are divided into semester-based components in order to indicate the balance of work. These will be recognised on a pass/fail basis at the end of each year, or, when appropriate, by a mid-year progression board via supervisory reports. These are not formal credits and will not appear on transcripts (see 1.11 of the specification above for further details). They are, rather, a means of tracking research progression and identifying when components of a candidate’s research require additional work.

All core Subject-Specific training elements are existing, approved, University of Kent modules. However, for the purposes of administering this programme they will require a separate pass/fail assessment pattern set up on the Kent Data System. Their relation to the outcomes of this programme is clearly shown in the ‘Learning Descriptors Matrix’ below. Transferable Skills modules will need to be created, but due to the urgency of time restraints involved, these will be put through the approval process individually post initial approval of the programme. All non-Kent elective courses (up to two Subject-Specific training elements, accounting for 20 ECTS) will require representative codes to be set up. These codes will allow pass/fail assessments to be entered into the Kent Data System when sent by other consortium institutions. It should be noted that this is in-line with current practice for existing year abroad programmes.

Code Title Level Strand: Research/Training

Credits

Year 1 (candidates are required to take 60 credits, equally divided between the two semesters)Semester 1: (30 Credits) It should be noted that this semester will also include an initiation into PDP, but there will be no formal review of candidates progress in this regard until the end of semester 2Required ElementsSO869 Theories of Crime M Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

SO870 Research Methods in Criminology M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC800 Research Semester 1A M Research 5 (Notional)

21

DCGC801 Transferable skills & Global skills M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

Semester 2: (30 Credits)Required Elements (an elective course must be taken in either semester 2 or 3)DCGC802 Research Semester 1B M Research 10 (Notional)

DCGC803 Utrecht Summer School M Subject-Specific Training

5 (ECTS)

DCGC804 PDP1&2 M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

Optional Elements (candidates are required to select 10 credits from the following options)DCGCXXX Elective course (at Kent, UU, ELTE

or UHH)M Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

DCGC806 DCGC Internship M Transferable Skills Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGCXXX (tbc)

Structured PDP Task M Transferable Skills Training

10 (ECTS)

Year 2 (candidates are required to take 60 credits, equally divided between the two semesters)Semester 3: (30 Credits)Required Elements (an elective course must be taken in either semester 2 or 3)DCGC805 Research Semester 2A M Research 20 (Notional)

Optional Elements (candidates are required to select 10 credits from the following options)DCGCXXX Elective course (at Kent, UU, ELTE

or UHH)M Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

DCGC806 DCGC Internship M Transferable Skills Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGCXXX (tbc)

Structured PDP Task M Transferable Skills Training

10 (ECTS)

Semester 4: (30 Credits)Required ElementsDCGC807 Research Semester 2B M Research 20 (Notional)

DCGC808 PDP3 M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

DCGC809 Common Studies Presentation 1* M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

Year 3 (candidates are required to take 60 credits, equally divided between the two semesters)Semester 5: (30 Credits)Required ElementsDCGC810 Research Semester 3A M Research 25 (Notional)

DCGC811 Common Studies Presentation 2* M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

Semester 6: (30 Credits)Required ElementsDCGC812 Research Semester 3B M Research 25 (Notional)

DCGC813 PDP4 M Transferable Skills Training

5 (ECTS)

*Presentations in Semesters 4 and 5 must be formally assessed, and at least one must be given at a Common Session. Elective Elements by University (Please note that elective Elements may change on an annual basis. An up-to-date list will be available through the supervisor)

22

KENTSO881 Cultural Criminology M Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

SO868 Critical and Global Criminology M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

SO825 Terrorism and Modern Society M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

SO826 Drugs, Culture and Control M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

SO882 Young People, Crime and Place M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

SO824 Sociology of Violence M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

HAMBURGDCGC814 Governing Security, Society and

LawM Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

DCGC815 Advanced Analytical Approaches in Criminology

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC816 Current Issues in International Criminal Justice and Security Policy

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC817 Terrorism: Origins, Conflicts, Human Rights

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC818 On Comparative Criminology M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

ELTE, BUDAPESTDCGC819 Globalization, Social Change and

Social ExclusionM Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

DCGC820 Crime, Law and Social Change M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC821 Transitional Societies, Politics and Crime Control

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC822 Transitional Societies and Criminal Justice

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

UTRECHT DCGC823 Human Rights in International and

European LawM Subject-Specific

Training10 (ECTS)

DCGC824 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC825 Corporate and Organised Crime M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC826 Green Criminology and ’Glocal’ Frictions

M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC827 Drugs and Drug Policies M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC828 Comparative Penology M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

DCGC829 Critical Reflections in Criminology M Subject-Specific Training

10 (ECTS)

23

Learning Descriptors Matrix (core elements) SO869

SO870

DCGC800

DCGC801

DCGC802

DCGC803

DCGC804

DCGC805

DCGC807

DCGC808

DCGC809

DCGC810

DCGC811

DCGC812

DCGC813

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11

Learning Outcome List:

DCGC Descriptors

The Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC) will be awarded to candidates who have demonstrated:

A1. the creation, interpretation, critical analysis and presentation of new criminological knowledge through original research of a quality to satisfy academic peer review, ex-tend the forefront of criminology, and merit publication;

A2. a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge, which is at the forefront of criminology;

A3. an ability to combine the insights of social science and law;A4. independence, originality, creativity and ability in advanced analysis and synthesis of

complex criminological ideas;A5. the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation

of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of criminology, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems;

24

A6. a detailed, expert understanding of applicable techniques for autonomous research and advanced academic enquiry in criminology;

A7. a detailed, expert understanding of the cultural and global dynamics and contexts of criminology from the perspectives of at least two European universities in different na-tions;

Typically, holders of the DCGC will be able to:

B1. understand, describe and explain particular forms of crime, harm and crime control, understand their relevant cultural dimensions in the context of globalisation, and critic-ally assess different approaches and responses to them;

B2. make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist criminological fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclu-sions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences;

B3. autonomously undertake pure and/or applied criminological research at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas, or ap-proaches;

B4. exercise critical awareness of theoretical criminological development in relation to other fields of knowledge and society;

B5. using a variety of media, communicate effectively new criminological knowledge and innovation in practice to expert and non-expert audiences.

And will have the qualities and transferable skills necessary:

C1. to develop further, in a flexible lifelong learning strategy, professional competence in criminology and allied fields in diverse settings;

C2. to move between, flexibly adapt to, and appreciate different national and cultural set-tings;

C3. for employment requiring collegiality, teamwork, consultation and cooperation within and between complex organisations in the public, NGO, voluntary and private sectors;

C4. for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonom-ous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent en-vironments;

C5. to provide leadership on the development of relevant crime and social policy;C6. to build contacts and cooperation with early and advanced researchers in criminology

and related disciplines, coordinating and guiding complex interdisciplinary research projects;

C7. to understand the ethics of good governance in complex organisations;C8. to appreciate the role of diversity, equal treatment, cultural and inter-cultural pro-

cesses in criminological research and policy interventions;C9. to recognise the social responsibility attached to the implementation, application and

use of the candidate’s research;C10. to reflect critically on the full range of social issues related to the candidate’s research

including, where relevant, matters of harm, ethics, power relations, rights and justice; C11. to exercise social, ethical and political awareness and civic responsibility in a know-

ledge-based, globalising society.

25

Annexe 5: DCGC Progression Rules

1. Length of Programme: Three years of full-time study, as in the programme overview and detailed description set out in Annexes 3 and 4. Additionally, candidates may, at the discretion of the Academic Board of Studies, be permitted a fourth year of registration at continuation status.

1.1 Academic Year: 1st September - 31st August.

2. Credit Volume: 180 consisting of 75 ECTS credits for Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills Training elements and 105 notional credits for Research elements. Each year of successful study contributes 60 credits to the overall total required. Candidates who progress through all three years of the programme and achieve 180 credits may, at the discretion of the Academic Board, be considered eligible to submit a thesis for examination.

3. Programme Structure: Each year of study is divided into two semesters. Candidates take a variety of curriculum elements in the research, subject-specific and transferable skills strands of the programme to a total of 30 credits in each semester. These curriculum elements may include research, taught courses, workshops, placements and such other activities as set out in Annex 4 of the programme specification. Credits for Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills Training elements will be awarded for successful completion of the relevant assessments, active participation by the candidates and, where required, satisfactory attendance. These awards will be made on a pass-fail basis at the end of each year, or, when appropriate, by a midyear progression board.

Credits for the Research elements are divided into semester-based components in order to indicate the balance of work (bearing in mind that many Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills elements will also contribute to the research). These will be recognised on a pass/fail basis at the end of each year, or, when appropriate, by a mid-year progression board via supervisory reports. These are not formal credits and will not appear on transcripts or be officially awarded. They are, rather, a means of tracking research progression: identifying when components of a candidate’s research require additional work, and whether they are eligible to submit their final thesis for examination.

Candidates may apply, upon production of appropriate evidence, for exemption from elements of the subject-specific and transferable skills strands, provided that equivalent training has already been completed prior to, or outside of the programmes. Credit for no more than 35 credits of those available for the Subject-Specific and Transferable Skills training strands of the programme may be awarded through this means.

4. Monitoring and Progression Points: The progress of candidates will be formally reviewed by the supervisory team and Academic Board in both mid-year and end of year reviews. While the mid-year review will primarily have a function of monitoring candidate progress, it may nonetheless contribute to a recommendation to the Academic Board to withdraw a candidate from the programme where there is evidence of severe or persistent underperformance. The key function of end of year review will be to determine whether a candidate may proceed into the next stage of the programme. Accordingly, the supervisory team is required to make its recommendation to the Academic Board on whether the candidate in question should either (i) be permitted to continue on the programme; or (ii) when, at the appropriate time, they be permitted to

26

submit a thesis for examination; or (iii) be required to withdraw.

Progression Requirements: To be considered for progression, candidates must achieve 30 credits in each semester, to a total of 60 credits in each academic year. Candidates who fail to meet these requirements can, at the discretion of the board, be given the opportunity to retrieve credits at a later date. Only one such opportunity per element will be permitted.

Retrieving credits can be achieved in following ways:

Referring credits at the end of a year, to be completed in the period between the 31st of August and the 30th of September. This measure can only be used by year end boards, and will only be appropriate to candidates who have received the required teaching/contribution for a given element.

Trailing credits in following semesters. Wherever possible candidates should be asked to retrieve these credits in the semester following the progression board at which the failure is identified. However, depending on the availability of elements, a candidate may be allowed to retrieve these credits in future semesters. This measure will take particular account of issues relating to flexibility around candidates’ mobility pathways and stipulations pertaining to Erasmus Mundus Fellowships.

Candidates will only be permitted to retrieve up to 10 ECTS credits, or one semester’s research in these ways. It should be noted that retrieving notional research credits is likely to involve completing particular components of the semester’s research rather than undertaking a whole semester’s work again. It will be the responsibility of the Board to identify which components need to be completed. Credits for research elements will not be recognised by the Board until all stipulated research components are completed.

Both of the above measures can also be used to allow candidates to retrieve credits in the period permitted for conducting field work or writing-up their thesis (see point 1). This opportunity will only be available to candidates who have previously been granted this extended period. In all cases it will be the responsibility of the board to clearly identify the number and nature of credits that require retrieving, and to establish the appropriate timing for these credits to be retrieved.

While the satisfaction of the credit requirements for each semester and for each academic year is a necessary condition for progression, it is not in itself a sufficient condition. The supervisory board will also take into account the quality of the candidates’ work as produced for each of the formal progress reviews. For example, for each of the progress reviews in Year 3, candidates are expected to present newly written chapters or sections of the thesis. Further guidance on the requirements for the progress reviews can be found in the detailed programme description.

5. Final Examination: Candidates permitted to submit a thesis for final examination will be examined in accordance with the requirements set out in section 1.13 of the programme specification. It should be noted that, while the thesis is not credit-bearing, it remains the crucial piece of work for determining whether a candidate has met the requirements for the award of the PhD.

6. Recommendations: for the award of credit, on progression and on the conferment of academic awards are subject to ratification by the Academic Board, with the latter also subject to the approval of the relevant academic committees of the Universities that conducted the examination of the thesis.

27

7. Academic Appeals: candidates may appeal against decisions of the Academic Board as per the appeals’ procedure set out in Annexe 6.

8. Notwithstanding the Progression Rules: The Board have the discretion to make recommendations notwithstanding the Progression Rules in exceptional cases provided that such recommendations do not disadvantage the candidate. “Exceptional” in such cases should be interpreted as having reference to the unique circumstances of individual candidates. The rule will be applicable to cases where regulatory circumstances outside of candidates’ control are identified. These could include changes to Erasmus Mundus Fellowship stipulations. In such cases it will be the responsibility of the Board to propose amendments to the Progression Rules that account for these changes. This should be done at the earliest possible opportunity.

28

Annexe 6: Complaints and Appeals

1. All DCGC EMJD candidates are entitled to receive effective supervision, evaluation and assessment.

2. Academic Complaints

2.1 An academic complaint is any specific concern about the provision of a programme of study or related academic service.

2.2 The DCGC Consortium values candidate feedback and incorporates candidate representation in its governance structures. Should candidates have problems they will normally be able to resolve them, in most cases, by discussing them with one of their supervisors or through their candidate representatives. Any matters of concern should be raised immediately. If a candidate remains dissatisfied, they may wish to make a more formal written complaint.

2.3 Where there are grounds for dissatisfaction which can be dealt with only by a person other than the supervisor concerned a formal written academic complaint may be required.

2.4 A formal written academic complaint should be submitted to the Chair of the Academic Board. Such complaints should indicate clearly, at the outset, any remedy/remedies, being sought.

2.5 The Chair of the Academic Board will investigate the complaint and will have due regard to the rules of natural justice as outlined in section 6 below. If the Chair of the Academic Board is a member of the supervisory panel for the candidate or an assessment/examination board, the Academic Board will nominate an alternative member to investigate the matter.

2.6 If the complaint relates to an academic service delivered by one of the partner institutions, the Chair of the Academic Board may refer the matter to be investigated under the complaints procedures of the partner institution.

2.7 The outcome of the investigation of a formal written academic complaint will be communicated to the candidate in writing. If the candidate remains dissatisfied he/she may take the matter further under the complaints procedures of the appropriate partner institution.

3. Non-academic Complaints

3.1 A non‐academic complaint is any specific concern about any matter under the jurisdiction of the partner institutions that does not relate to the provision of a programme of study or related academic service.

29

3.2 Non‐academic complaints include matters such as candidate discipline for non‐academic matters, the running of a partner institution and matters relating to harassment and equality.

3.3 Non‐academic complaints should follow the appropriate procedures of the relevant partner institutions. A copy of any such complaint may be sent to the candidate’s supervisors or the Chair of the Academic Board for information.

4. Complaints Relating to Placements

4.1 A complaint about a candidate’s experience on a placement may relate to:

4.1.1 academic matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Consortium;

4.1.2 non‐academic matters more properly falling under the jurisdiction of the host institution.

4.2 Complaints arising under 4.1.2 above, should be taken up, in the first instance, with either a member of the supervisory panel or with the placement supervisor.

4.3 If the candidate remains dissatisfied and wishes to take the academic complaint further, the matter should be put in writing to the Chair of the Academic Board who will follow the procedure outlined in section 2 above.

4.4 Wherever possible a written response will be made within two weeks of the receipt of the complaint. However, as the placement organisation will need to be consulted, this may necessitate a longer timescale. The Consortium will keep records of all formal complaints received in connection with a placement, together with all follow‐up actions taken.

5. Academic Appeals

5.1 An academic appeal is a request for a review of a decision of an academic body charged with making decisions on candidate progression, assessment or awards.

5.2 The Consortium will consider appeals relating to decisions regarding the award of joint degrees. Where double degrees are to be awarded, candidates should refer to the appeal procedures of the awarding partner institutions.

5.3 Appeals against the decisions of the Consortium with regard to candidate progression, assessment or award may be sent to the Chair of the Academic Board for review in the first instance. If the Chair of the Academic Board considers there is a prima facie case for reviewing the decision he/she may ask the relevant board to reconsider its decision.

5.4 Where the Chair of the Academic Board is a member of the candidate’s supervising panel or assessment/examination board, the Board will nominate an alternative.

5.5 Appeals may be submitted on the following grounds:

30

5.5.1 that there are extenuating circumstances affecting the candidate’s performance of which the relevant examiners or staff members were not, for good reason, aware when their decision was taken.

5.5.2 that there was administrative, procedural or clerical error in the conduct of the procedure of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the same decision would have been reached had they not occurred.

5.6 A candidate may not appeal:

5.6.1 against academic judgement or

5.6.2 on the grounds of poor or inadequate research supervision. Such a matter would be the subject of an academic complaint, which should have been raised and resolved at the earliest opportunity through the academic complaints procedure.

5.7 Appeals will only be considered where the claims are substantiated by evidence.

5.7.1 Any medical documentation submitted to support an appeal must:relate specifically to the dates and duration of the illness.contain a clear medical diagnosis or opinion provided by anappropriately qualified medical practitioner and not merely report the candidate’s claim that s/he felt unwell, nor report the candidate’s claim that s/he had reason to believe s/he was ill.

5.7.2 Acceptable supporting evidence other than medical documentation includes an original (not photocopied) document written and signed by an appropriate third party, giving details of the circumstance, its duration, and where possible, its impact. An appropriate third party would be one who knows the candidate in a professional capacity or one who can verify the circumstances from a position of authority (e.g. supervisor, Student Union representative, GP, University Counsellor) and who is in a position to provide objective and impartial advice. Letters from family members and fellow candidates will not be acceptable.

5.7.3 Medical certificates and other supporting documentation should be provided in English. It is the responsibility of the candidate to submit a translation provided by an accredited organisation.

5.7.4 If the candidate remains dissatisfied with the outcome, he/she may follow the appeals procedures of one of the partner institutions where the candidate is registered with a view to progressing to the award of that institution. To obtain a DCGC Consortium award,the candidate must successfully appeal at all the institutions where he/she is registered for an award.

6. The Rules of Natural Justice

6.1 The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker.

31

6.1.1 A person must be allowed an adequate opportunity to present their case. To ensure that these rights are respected, the deciding authority must give both the opportunity to prepare and present evidence and to respond to arguments presented by the opposite side. The person being complained against should be advised of the allegations in as much detail as possible and given the opportunity to reply to the allegations. There must be advanced and adequate notice of any proceedings.

6.1.2 A person who adjudicates should be unbiased and act in good faith. He or she cannot be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. Nemo judex in causa sua: “no-one should be a judge in their own cause”.

6.1.3 A person who adjudicates should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings.

32

Annexe 7: Electives modules and special skills courses

DCGC COURSE SPECIFICATIONS

Core Courses

Theories of Crime KENT

The course will focus on giving doctoral candidates in criminology an understanding at an advanced level of the main schools of thought that define, conceptualise, understand and explain crime. Candidates will be introduced to the debates, conflicts and contradictions in theory that underlie the main research problematics. On this basis they will also gain a proper appreciation of the theoretical assumptions that inform the various practices of governmental policy, non-governmental action and criminal justice processes. Schools of thought covered will include:

Classical theoryThe development of biological, psychological and sociological positivismCultural and subcultural approachesSocial constructionist, labelling and social reaction perspectivesRealist criminologySocial harm and green perspectivesCritical criminologyCultural criminology

Assessment will be sensitive to the research needs of individual candidates.

InstructorProf. Jock Young

Research Methods in Criminology KENT

This module will provide a critical overview of methods used in advanced criminological research. It will highlight the special methodological difficulties and challenges that arise when studying crime, criminals, victims, social harm, policy and criminal justice. The module aims to describe and evaluate both qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches of the kind that MA and PhD graduates will encounter in their post-masters/doctoral careers in universities, research institutes, and other organisations in the public sector and civil society. Through discussion with candidates and their supervisors, the module will also engage with the development of methodologies Issues covered include:

The politics and ethics of criminological research.Positivism.Sources of information on crime and criminal justice.Ethnography and qualitative methods.Surveys and questionnaires.Evaluation and evidence led policy.

Assessment will aim, through an individually-tailored assigment (discussed with supervisors), to evaluate the level of methodological engagement of candidates in the first stage of their research projects.

33

InstructorDr Jennifer FleetwoodDr Johnny Ilan

Personal Development Planning (PDP 1, 2, 3 & 4) KENT

DCGC Personal Developing Planning (PDP) is a candidate-led process that develops personal targets related to the transferable skills of employability and citizenship. Candidates will record, reflect on and plan their own learning milestones, hence PDP is unique to the individual candidate. The assessment of planning involves a review meeting with the primary supervisor or supervisory team (according to the candidate’s wishes) taking place in four stages, as follows. PDP Stage I Semester 1 (initiation and informal review)PDP Stage II end of Semester 2 (formal review)PDP Stage III end of Year 2 (formal review)PDP Stage IV end of Year 3 (formal review)

PDP milestones depend on the nature and theme of the research project, other transferable skills training, networking opportunities, internship issues, opportunities for dissemination, career plan, lifelong learning plan, the availability and use of formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities in order to develop the relevant skills, and so forth.

Instructor UELT and the supervisor(s)

Transferable Skills & Global Skills for Doctoral Candidates KENT Transferable skills

Transferable skills training is designed to equip doctoral candidates with a full range of skills which will improve their effectiveness as researchers, and ensure that they are not only highly qualified but employable in a variety of careers by the end of their research project.A skills audit will be completed. It has a dual purpose and is for the benefit of both research candidates and supervisors. In completing the skills audit, all new research candidates are encouraged to consider their existing portfolio of skills, as well as the skills that they hope to acquire while doing their doctoral research. Researchers are also actively encouraged to consider a range of career options and the particular skills that they might need for their chosen career. The identification of their training and development needs at an early stage will help candidates to complete their research and writing using the most effective means to avoid situations in which they fail to progress because they lack a particular skill.

Following the audit, the skills training will cover: Research Management Personal Effectiveness Communication Networking and Teamworking Career Management

34

Global skills

The Global Skills Programme is designed to broaden understanding of global issues and current affairs as well as to develop personal skills which will enhance employability. Available for both DCGC doctoral candidates and other postgraduates at Kent, the six-month programme runs from October to April. For doctoral candidates studying at another partner in the second semester may be followed on-line.

Once accepted for the programme a personal assessment will take place which will help the candidate to reflect on past experience and future development. A lecture series chaired by the Dean of the Graduate School will allow candidates to participate in discussion on issues of global importance such as the economy, the environment, the media, world politics and developments in science.  

The Global Skills Programme will give candidates the opportunity to broaden their experience, gain important skills whilst researching and studying, and to meet and network with postgraduates from a wide variety of backgrounds and disciplines. 

Instructor Kent Graduate School

Advanced Qualitative and Legal Methods SUMMER SCHOOL, UTRECHT

The aim of this two-week course is to train PhD candidates in key advanced qualitative social-scientific and legal methods for use in criminological research. Despite their different backgrounds (mainly from law and social sciences), PhD candidates in criminology often lack an advanced training in qualitative research methods. The course will combine lectures from at least four different trainers, seminars for discussing readings and research progress, and time to prepare and work on their own research project (methods). Four clusters of lectures will focus on a) conducting open interviews and participant observation; b) analysing visual data; c) using ‘virtual’ methods on the Internet; and d) applying a range of relevant legal methods (particularly case, comparative law and legal history methods, content analysis of legal texts and jurisprudence, and discourse analysis). During the seminars, the emphasis will be on ‘doing research’: candidates will be supervised on small assignments linked to their own PhD research project.

InstructorDr. Damián Zaitchand DCGC academic staff

The Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology (CSP 1&2) The Common Study Programme in Critical Criminology (CSP) is a unique, international, collaborative, educational programme focused on postgraduates in criminology. Taking place regularly for over a quarter of a century, it originated in a EU-initiative to fund projects linking European higher educational institutions. Current active participants are from eight different countries and include the following universities:

■ Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini (Greece) ■ ELTE, Budapest (Hungary)

35

■ Erasmus University, Rotterdam (Netherlands) ■ University of Ghent (Belgium)■ University of Hamburg (Germany) ■ John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Centre, the City University of New York (USA)■ University of Kent (UK) ■ Middlesex University (UK) ■ University of the Peloponnese, Corinth (Greece) ■ University of Porto (Portugal) ■ Utrecht University (Netherlands)

Twice a year in the Spring and Autumn, postgraduates (masters and doctoral) and academic staff from participating universities meet at one of the university centres for a five-day ‘Common Session’, involving

□ a three-day conference;□ a welcome reception, conference dinner and other organised social events;□ a CSP postgraduate council meeting that discusses the organisation of the conference and related issues (such as the web site), feeding back to academic staff;□ the opportunity to visit a local institution of criminological interest.

The Common Session is centred on postgraduates in criminology, with academic staff and invited criminal justice and policy professionals in attendance. Most of the conference presentations will be given by postgraduates, though academic staff and other professionals will also present a small number of papers and chair sessions.

Presentations are discussed in a friendly and supportive atmosphere in front of an audience comprising MA students, doctoral candidates, academic staff, and invited professionals from policy, NGO and criminal justice fields. Given the participant mix, the emphasis in presentation and discussion is on clear communicability to a diverse audience, from policy professionals, to criminal justice practitioners, to postgraduates at second and third-cycle levels, to junior and senior academics.

Each Common Session is organised around a broad ‘critical’ theme. The accent is on issues in criminology requiring a broader social, ethical and political engagement, as well as ‘real-world’ applicability.

In both the conference and in the programme of social events Common Sessions are structured to enhance both formal and informal learning. Every effort is made to keep all participants together in the conference sessions (with minimal use of parallel strands. The aim is to reinforce the sense of a single group sharing their participating in the same event at both formal and informal levels. Postgraduates from each participating institution are encouraged to attend the Common Sessions taking place during their period of study, and for one Session in the Autumn after their study has finished. Thus postgraduates have the opportunity to attend a number of Common Sessions and develop long lasting personal and professional ties of value to their future.

Papers are given in the standard format of a criminological conference: a series of one-and-a-half hour sessions, each of which is a panel of three presentations. Thus a paper presentation will last 20 minutes, with 10 minutes for questions and discussion. Postgraduates who choose to give a conference paper will receive support and advice from their own institutions. This will include advice on preparation, presentation technique, the use of audiovisual technology, the opportunity to rehearse, as well as a debriefing after the conference.

In each conference one or two selected postgraduates may also use their work at either MA or doctoral level to present a more extended dissertation. This will be publicly examined by a panel of three senior staff on the Programme in a session lasting an hour. Success in this ‘examination’ is marked by a special

36

Programme Diploma. For those candidates pursuing, or thinking of pursuing, doctoral studies, this opportunity offers the invaluable experience of rigorous, public examination of more extended academic work.

In addition there are ‘staff papers’, usually one from each participating institution, where candidates have the opportunity to hear the latest academic research on the particular theme of the conference. Policy, criminal justice and other professionals may also be invited to give presentations on the theme of the Common Session.

Many of the participants have Erasmus Student and Teacher mobility partnerships and contacts made at the CSP are often a stimulus for the development of active LLP mobility. A number of bilateral and trilateral research collaborations have sprung up from relationships in the CSP.

Doctoral candidates therefore gain a unique experience, not available in any other educational setting, where they may: (1) travel to another university centre in Europe or the USA and participate in an international

academic event;(2) meet other postgraduates, academic staff and criminal justice and policy professionals based in

up to eight other countries;(3) present a paper, answer questions and respond to discussion in a standard conference format in

front of a friendly and supportive audience;(4) receive advice and support in presentation skills, as well as debriefing after the paper;(5) take an opportunity if appropriate to present for public examination by a panel of three senior

academics a lengthier piece of work based on their own research;(6) develop the skills of research work dissemination to a diverse, international audience;(7) participate in discussion of presentations at masters levels, thereby gaining important

pedagogical skills in communicating with second-cycle students;(8) participate in discussion of presentations made by staff a senior academic level, thereby

contributing to their own professional development and acquisition of skills;(9) network with postgraduates and academic staff involved in a diversity of criminological learning,

teaching and research;(10) take part in social events associated with the Common Session, thereby promoting the process of

informal learning through sessions which are enjoyable as well as educational. Thus the Common Study Programme makes a significant contribution to the specific knowledge, research and transferable skills gained by doctoral candidates at participating universities.

InstructorDr. Phil Carney

Elective Courses: KENT

DCGC Internship KENT

All candidates will be given the option of a research-based internship at one of our associate members, normally in the country of one of the two co-supervising universities. The research conducted at the associate member will be related to and build upon the candidate’s doctoral project. Normally lasting one semester or six months three months, in line with the existing code of practice for interns in SSPSSR, the purpose of the internship option is (a) to promote research that is of value to NGOs, crime policy or criminal justice organisations; (b) to give the candidate an experience of a non-university working environment; (c) to encourage the development of networks outside the university with a view to increasing the range of future employment choices; (d) to disseminate research results through non-

37

academic channels to wider audiences (as well as the academic channels promoted by the university); and (e) to encourage research has a recognisable impact in wider society. Internship arrangements will be negotiated well in advance between the associate member and the supervisory team, particularly the supervisor in the country where the associate member is located. Such arrangements will be tailored to the individual needs of the candidate. After the internship has finished the candidate will write a reflective report, which will be the basis of assessment.

Literature N/A

InstructorsSupervisory team

DCGC Structured PDP Task KENT

This is a specific activity intended to extend Personal Development Planning in a particular direction and is therefore tailored to the doctoral candidate's own trajectory. The task will be discussed between doctoral candidate and the main supervisor or supervisory team at the beginning of the semester in which it takes place. At this time clear aims and objectives will be agreed and the outcome will be accordingly defined. The doctoral candidate will write a report on this outcome and a member of the supervisory team will be assigned to assess the report. This report is intended to be equivalent in workload to a subject-specific course assessment or the reflective assessment related to an internship/placement. It will be assessed by the nominated supervisor on a pass/fail basis.

Literature N/A

InstructorsSupervisory team

Cultural Criminology KENT

This module is concerned with developing a sophisticated understanding of the contested meanings underpinning crime and its control and the manner in which such meanings are intertwined with various different cultural phenomena. The module explores the complex patterns and sites of contest, control and resistance that bisect everyday life. This is achieved through engaging in a detailed consideration of cutting edge theory and research in the fields of cultural and visual criminology. The module will place criminality, policing, crime prevention, music, photography, emotionality, extreme sports, advertising, protest, war, physicality and the film in new and exciting contexts. The module equips candidates with the necessary theoretical tools and modes of social inquiry to make sense of a late-modern world permeated by crime and its control.

LiteratureFerrell, J., Hayward, K., Morrison, W., & Presdee, M. (eds.) (2004), Cultural Criminology Unleashed. London: Glasshouse Books.Ferrell, J., Hayward, K. & Young, J. (2008), Cultural Criminology: An Invitation, London: Sage.

38

Hayward, K. (2004), City Limits: Crime, Consumer Culture and the Urban Experience, London: Glasshouse.Hayward, K. & Presdee, M. (eds.) (2010), Framing Crime: Cultural Criminology and the Image, London: Routledge/GlassHouse.Katz, J. (1988) Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil. New York: Basic Books.Presdee,M. (2000) Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime, London: Routledge.Young, J. (2007), The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage.

InstructorsProf Keith HaywardDr Johnny Ilan

Critical and Global Criminology KENT

Critical criminology constitutes a broad and multi-disciplinary tradition that studies the complex relationships between crime, control and power. The module will aim to acquaint candidates with the richness of writings in this field, the variety of political positions and the development of different traditions in the UK, US and the European continent. Critical criminology has also taken a recent interest in the processes associated with globalisation, thus giving rise to the emerging field of global criminology. The module will therefore examine how this allows new understandings of crime, power and control, which link the global to the local. Various theoretical perspectives will be encountered, including those of new deviancy theory, Marxism, Foucauldian thought, left realism, abolitionism, social harm perspectives and, more recently, cultural criminology.

LiteratureAas, Katja Franko (2010) “Global Criminology” in E. McLaughlin and T. Newburn (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Criminological Theory. London: SageAas, Katja Franko (2007) Globalisation and Crime. London: SageCohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification. Cambridge, Polity.DeKeseredy, W. (2011) Contemporary Critical Criminology. Abingdon: RoutledgeFerrell, J., K. Hayward and J. Young (2008) Cultural Criminology: An Invitation. London: Sage.Findlay, M. (1999) The Globalisation of Crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Foucault, M. (1981) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (trans. Alan Sheridan). London: Penguin. Hall, S., et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.Morrison, W. (2006) Criminology, Civilisation and the New World Order. London: Glasshouse.Ruggiero, V., South, N., and Taylor, I. (eds.) (1998) The New European Criminology:

Crime and Social Order in Europe. London: Routledge.Scraton, P. et al. (1987) Law, Order and the Authoritarian State: Readings in Critical Criminology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

39

van Swaaningen, R (1997 ) Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe. London: Sage.Taylor, I., Walton, P., and Young, J. (1973) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Taylor, I, Walton, P, and Young, J. (1975) Critical Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.Young, J. (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage

InstructorDr. Phil Carney

Terrorism and Modern Society KENT

Following the events of September 11 public concerns surrounding the related threats associated with terrorism have inevitably deepened. This course will provide a general introduction to the terrorism and pose a series of questions that rarely feature in mainstream criminological and sociological discourse. A central aspect of the course will be an examination of the actual risk posed by international terrorism and whether or not the threat is enhanced by the fears and anxieties generated by a risk-averse culture.Lecture list:- Introduction: a brief overview of key historical perspectives- Approximating the problem of terrorism: contested definitions- ‘True Lies’: conspiracy and secrecy in an age of uncertainty- Fanaticism 1: fundamentalist cultures- Fanaticism 2: the ‘psychology’ of the terrorist- Polarized moralities: culture wars and extremism from Oklahoma City to the ‘Brixton Bomber’- Uncertainty and risk: terrorism and the revolt against change in a globalized world- Living with the terrorist threat: public perceptions, ‘hyper terrorism’ and the media- Resilience and Vulnerability: How communities respond to terror- Review lecture: Framing fear post 9/11

LiteratureJenkins, P. (2003) Images of Terror: What We Can and Can’t Know about Terrorism, (Aldine de Gruyter : New York),White, J. R., (2002) Terrorism: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Hewitt, C., (2003) Understanding Terrorism in America: From The Klan to Al Qaeda. London: Routledge.Furedi, F., (1997) Culture of Fear: Risk Taking and the Morality of Low Expectations, Cassell. Hayward, K. J., and Morrison, W. (2002) ‘Locating ‘Ground Zero’: caught between the narratives of crime and war’ in Law After Ground Zero, edited by Strawson, J., London: Cavendish.Whittaker, D. J., (Ed) (2001) The Terrorism Reader. London: Routledge.Griset, P.L. and Mahan, S., (2003) Terrorism in Perspective, London: SageMartin, G., (2003) Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, London: SageWorcester, K., Bermanzohn, S. A., and Ungar, Mark (Eds) (2002) Violence and Politics: Globalization’s Paradox. London: Routledge.Walker, C., (2002) Blackstone’s Guide to the Anti-Terrorism Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40

Hagan, F. E., (1997) Political Crime: Ideology and Criminality. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Sorkin, M., and Zukin, S., (2002) After the Word Trade Centre: Rethinking New York City. London: Routledge.

InstructorProf Keith Hayward

Drugs, Culture and Control KENT

This module will be divided into three parts: the first will offer a detailed analysis of current and potential methods of drug control; the second will explore the cultural contexts of illicit drug use within modern society; the third will consider and evaluate practical issues facing the drug policy makers of today. Throughout the module curriculum, effort will be made to consider methods, issues and policies in a global, as well as national, context. Particular emphasis will be placed on the theoretical arguments underpinning the major debates in this field and up-to-date research will be drawn upon throughout.

LiteratureBarton, A. (2003) Illicit Drugs: Use and Control London: RoutledgeBennett, A. (2008) After subculture: critical studies in contemporary youth culture Palgrave MacmillanBlackman, S. (2004) Chilling Out: the cultural politics of substance consumption, youth and drug policy Maidenhead: Open University PressBoothroyd, D. (2006) Culture on drugs: narco-cultural studies of high modernity Manchester: Manchester University PressGelder, K. & Thornton, S. (Eds) (1997) The Subcultures Reader London: RoutledgeHall, S. & Jefferson, T. (Eds) (1976) Resistance through rituals: youth subcultures in post-war Britain London: HutchinsonInciardi, J. (Ed) (1999) The Drug Legalization Debate Sage PublicationsMaffesoli, M. (1996) The time of the tribes: the decline of individualism in mass society London: SageManning, P. (2007) Drugs and popular culture: drugs, media and identity in contemporary society Cullompton: WillanParker, H. (1998) Illegal leisure: the normalisation of adolescent recreational drug use London: RoutledgeSouth, N. (1998) Drugs: Cultures, controls and everyday life London: SageThornton, S. (1995) Club cultures: music, media and subcultural capital Cambridge: Polity Press

InstructorDr Caroline Chatwin

Young People, Crime and Place KENT

41

This module provides a critical understanding of young people’s involvement in crime and deviance and the various responses to youth crime, especially how young people are dealt with by youth justice systems. The focus is on the UK situation analysis is also extended towards an international perspective. The module focuses on five key themes that are underpinned by analysis of the sociological, cultural and spatial dimension of youth crime. We begin by examining current trends in youth offending and explore media responses and then go on to look at ‘the youth problem’ from an historical context. We will then go on to focus on the following key substantive themes; gangs, violence and territoriality; drugs, alcohol and night time economies; young people, urban space and antisocial behaviour; and the criminal justice response to youth crime. Throughout the module, attention is given to the importance of understanding the connections of youth crime with race, class and gender and at the same time, engages with key theoretical ideas and debates that inform our understandings of youth crime.

LiteratureMuncie, J. (2009) Youth and Crime: A Critical Introduction London: SageFrance, A. (2007) Understanding Youth in Late Modernity Open University Press Goldson and Muncie (eds.) (2006) Youth Crime and Justice London: Sage Muncie, J. Hughes, and McLaughlin (eds.) (2002) Youth Justice: Critical Readings London: SageSmith, R. (2006) Youth Justice: Ideas, Policy and Practice Cullompton: WillanSkelton,T. & Valentine, G. (eds.) (1998) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Sage

InstructorDr Kate O’Brien

Sociology of Violence KENT

The module is organized into four sections:1. Sociological theory and violence including the nature and definitions of violence: sociological and psychological perspectives on violence and aggression. Predatory and conflict violence.2. Data on the prevalence, nature and effects of violent crime. Violence, aggression and masculinity. 3. Public and private violence. Domestic violence. Violence and power. Racist violence and hate crime. Inequality and crime.4. Solutions to violence and conflict resolution. The effects of intervention strategies. Non-juridical responses to violence.

LiteratureAye Maung, N. and Mirrlees-Black, C. (1994) Racially Motivated Crime: A British Crime Survey Analysis, London, Home Office. Bowling, B. (1998) Violent Racism: Victimisation, Policing and Social Context, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Campbell, B. (1993) Goliath: Britain's Dangerous Places, London, Methuen.Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R.P. (1992) Women, Violence and Social Change, London, Routledge.Fawcett, B. (ed.) (1996) Violence and Gender Relations: Theories and Interventions, London, Sage.Fitzgerald, M. and Hale, C. (1996) Ethnic Minorities: Victimisation and Racial Harassment, London, HMSO.Howells, K. and Hollin, C.R. (eds.) (1989) Clinical Approaches to Violence, Chichester, John Wiley.James, O. (1995) Juvenile Violence in a Winner-Loser Culture, London, Free Association Books.Newburn, T. and Stanko, E.A. (eds.) (1994) Just Boys Doing Business? Men, Masculinities and Crime, London, Routledge.

42

Rapoport, A. (1995) The Origins of Violence, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers.Scheff, T.J. (1994) Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism and War, Boulder, CO, Westview Press.Stanko, E. A. (ed.) (1994) Perspectives on Violence, London, Quartet.

InstructorProf Larry Ray

Elective Courses: HAMBURG

Governing Security, Society, and Law HAMBURG

The rise of security as a theme in criminology may be taken as an indicator of political and social change. Striving for security and the effort to be governed in the name of security form an essential part of contemporary everyday life. How these changes impinge on our concepts of state & citizenship, on rights and the rule of law will be discussed and analysed by drawing on case studies and through the development of individual research projects.

Literature:Amoore, Louise / de Goede, Marieke (eds.) (2008) Risk and the War on Terror, London, New York; J. Peter Burgess (2011); Burgess, J. Peter (2011) The Ethical Subject of Security. Geopolitical reason and the threat against Europe, New York; Buzan, Barry/Wæver, Ole/Wilde, Jaap de 1998: Security. A New Framework For Analysis, Boulder/Col.; Fassin, Didier / Pandolfi, Mariella (eds.) (2010) Contemporary States of Emergency, New York.

InstructorProf. Susanne Krasmann

Advanced Analytical Approaches in Criminology HAMBURG

Social phenomena are always mediated. They cannot be isolated from the forms of knowledge, practices and procedures that render them visible in the first place. Knowledge, truth or facts by themselves are never independent of their mediated forms, namely of political, cultural, and technological networks. The emergence of criminological problems, images and imaginaries will be analysed by drawing on various theoretical and analytical approaches.

Literature, a list will be updated for each course; these are just some examples: Ericson, Richard/Doyle, Aaron (eds.) (2003) Risk and Morality, Toronto/Buffalo/London; Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.) (2010) The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, London; Grusin, Richard (2004) ‘Premediation’, Criticism 46(1): 17-39; Richard Hindmarsh and Barbara Prainsack (eds.) (2010) Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing, Cambridge; Smith, Marquard (ed.) (2008), Visual Culture Studies, Los Angeles, London.

InstructorProf. Susanne Krasmann

Current Issues in International Criminal Justice and Security Policy HAMBURG

Candidates will be offered the choice between different subject matters within the broad field of global crime and control (e.g. illegal markets, non-economic crime such as war crimes and genocide,

43

drug policy, transitional justice, truth and reconciliation commissions, international criminal courts, peacemaking processes, etc.), but they will also be free to propose a subject of their choosing within that frame.

LiteratureEach time this course is offered there will be an updated list of literature with specific references to the respective topics.

Given the critical focus of this course it might be useful to look into the writings by John Braithwaite, such as, for example, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002), or ‘Peacemaking Networks and Restorative Justice’, in J. Fleming, D. Wood (eds.), Fighting Crime Together: The Challenges of Policing and Security Networks (2007).

InstructorProf. Sebastian Scheerer

Terrorism: Origins, Conflicts, and Human Rights HAMBURG

(1) Analysis of subjective intentions and objective conditions linked to the use of terrorist methods by state and non-state actors

(2) Questions of the development and the end of terrorist conflicts, intertwined with a special attention to the fate of human rights.

LiteratureEach time this course is offered there will be an updated list of literature with specific references to the respective topics.

A useful introductory reading would be David Luban (2005) Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb. 91 Va. L. Rev. 1425-1461.

InstructorProf. Sebastian Scheerer

On Comparative Criminology HAMBURG

The course will focus on the approaches, conditions and limits of a comparative criminological perspective. Its aim is to sensitise candidates to the dangers of simplistic comparisons as well as to examine the developing processes of ‘glocalisation’ from a criminological perspective.

In distinction to quantitative, descriptive or purely policy-oriented approaches of main-stream comparative criminology, the course will problematise the question of the equation of nationality to culture from an interpretative perspective. Candidates will work on the question of how the production of meaning of, for example, social problems and their associated criminal / security policy become objects of change at the local level in the context of globalization. With the concept of “Glocalisation” (Robertson) as a basis, we will look for the diversity of regional adaptations of the globalizing influences and develop a different view on comparative research.

Literature:Bierne, P. (1983): Cultural Relativism and Comparative Criminology, in : Contemporary Crises, 7, 371-391. Feeley, M.M.: (1997): Comparative Criminal Law for Criminologists: Comparing for What Purpose,

44

in: Nelken, D. (Hrsg.): Comparing Legal Cultures, Aldershot, 93-104. Nelken, D. (ed 2000): Comparing Legal Cultures, Aldershot. Ritzer, G. (2004): Social Problems: A Comparative International Perspective, in: ders. (Hg.) Handbook of Social Problems. A Comparative International Perspective, Thousand Oaks. Robertson, R. (1995): Glocalisation: Time, Space and Homogeneity-Heterogneneity, in: Featherstone, M./Lash, S./Robertson, R. (eds): Global Modernities, London, 25-44. Sheptycki, J.W.E. (2005): Relativism, Transnationalisation and Comparative Criminology: Sheptycki, J.W.E./Wardack, A. (Hg.): Transnational and Comparative Criminology, London/Sydney/Portland, 69-88.

InstructorDr. Bettina Paul

Contemporary Ethnographic Approaches HAMBURG

The course focuses on new developments of ethnographic approaches that will allow candidates to undertake research on the topic of (international) security and surveillance. The aim is for candidates to gain insights to contemporary ethnographic methodology – for example, virtual, visual and focused ethnography. The course contains an introduction to each of the methods, and then works through the different stages of a small research project in order to see the potential, significant obstacles and very specific field conditions that accompany these approaches.

LiteratureHine, Christine (Ed. 2005): Virtual Methods. Issues in Social Research on the Internet, New York.Hine, Christine (2001): Virtual Ethnography, London/New Dehli/Thousand OaksKnoblauch, Hubert (2005). Focused Ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), Art. 44, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503440.Pink, Sarah (2007): Doing Visual Ethnography. Images, Media and Representation in Research, London/Thousand Oaks/New Dehli, 2nd Ed.

InstructorDr. Bettina Paul

ELECTIVE COURSES: ELTE

Globalization, Social Change and Social Exclusion ELTE

The course will study the complex processes of market, social and political changes in post-communist societies in the light of globalization and changes in value systems at the global level. Democratic transition provides a background for understanding the changing forms of crime and their relationship to transformations in the social landscape. The course examines (i) the differentiation of society (poverty, new elites, segregation, migration and exclusion of minorities); (ii) the transformation of values and norms, and the consequences for wider society. An analysis of all these processes will contribute to a deeper understanding of crime, criminal justice and crime control in post-communist societies. The peculiar burdens of post-communist transformation and the wider processes of globalization present particular challenges to East-European societies, their governmental institutions and systems of criminal justice.

45

LiteratureGreen, P. and A. Rutherford (eds.) (2000) Criminal Policy in Transition. Oxford: Hart PublishingBrown, M. and J. Pratt (eds.) (2000) Punishment and Social Order. London – New York: RoutledgeKarstedt, S. and K.D. Bussmann (eds.) (2000) Social Dynamics of Crime and Control: New Theories for a World in Transition. Oxford: Hart PublishingMorris, L. (1994) Dangerous Classes. The Underclass and Social Citizenship. London – New York: RoutledgeSassen, S. (2007) A Sociology of Globalization. W.W. Norton & CompanyBauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity PressBryand, Ch.G.A. and E. Mokrzycki (eds.) (1994) The New Great Transformation? Change and Continuity in East-Central Europe. London – New York: RoutledgeEriksen, Th.H. (2007) Globalization. The Key Concepts. Oxford – New York: BergGönczöl, K. (1992) Crime and Crime Prevention in Hungary at the Time of the Change in Regime. In. Crime and Social Policy. London: NACRO, 37-52

InstructorP Prof. dr. Zoltán Fleck

Crime, Law and Social Change ELTE

Developments in countries-in-transition over the past two decades can be viewed as a large-scale social experiment with consequences for crime and criminality. The course focuses on special types of conflict related to criminality (e.g. urban violence, hate crimes, crimes against minorities, etc.), as well as new types of offenders (violent juveniles, sex offenders, criminal groups, young females, illegal immigrants, the urban poor, etc.). Topics include new forms of criminality (confidence crimes, corruption, organized crime, illegal markets and crime-profit organizations, domestic violence, war crime, etc.) and transnational crime (e.g. drug-related criminality, terrorism, trafficking in human beings). The course will examine human rights and victim issues (child victims; victims of sex trafficking; war crime and victimization; etc.), and explore relationships between crime and fear of crime in the transition countries.

LiteratureIrk, F. (1995) Social Changes and Delingnency in Central and Eastern Europe. In: De Nike, H.J. Ewald, and C.J. Nowlin (eds.) Crime in East Europe. Bonn: Forum Verlag Godesberg, 139-180Kerezsi, K. (2009) Crime prevention in Hungary: Why is it so hard to argue for the necessity of a community approach? In. A. Crawford (ed.) Crime Prevention Policies in Comparative Perspective. Willan Publishing, 214-233Kerezsi, K. and M. Lévay (2008) Criminology, Crime and Criminal Justice in Hungary, European Journal of Criminology, 5: 239-260Korinek, L. (1997) Social and Habitual Changes and the Public's View of Crime in Budapest during the Transition Period. In: U. Ewald (ed.) Social Transformation and Crime in Metropolises of Former Eastern Block Countries: Findings of a Multi-City Pilot Study 1993. Bonn: Forum Verlag GodesbergKorinek, L. (1997) Fear of Crime: A Contemporary Example from the Former "Eastern Bloc", Eurocriminology, 11: 81-88

InstructorProf. dr. Klára Kerezsi

46

Transitional Societies, Politics and Crime Control ELTE

The course focuses on how the democratic transformation in the Central and East European countries has influenced the development of criminal justice and crime control, particularly penal policy. It will analyse the politicisation of the problem of crime in the region. The driving forces of changes in crime control and in the discourse about crime will be touched upon. The course will also deal with migration policy, minority rights and drug policy issues in the transitional societies.

LiteratureBárd, Károly (2007) The Development of Hungarian Criminal Procedure between 1985-2005 In: Andras Jakab, Peter Takacs and Allan F. Tatham (eds.) The Transformation of the Hungarian Legal Order 1985-2005. 2007. Kluwer, pp.214-233Gönczöl, Katalin (1992) Crime and Crime Prevention in Hungary at the Time of the Change in Regime. In: Crime and Social Policy. NACRO, London, 1992, pp. 37-52.Gönczöl, Katalin (1993) On the Changing Face of Crime in Hungary. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Volume 1, No. 4. Kugler Publications, The Hague, 1993, pp. 123-132.Kerezsi, Klára – Lévay, Miklós (2008) Criminology, Crime and Criminal Justice in Hungary. European Journal of Criminology, 2008;5. pp. 239-260.Kossowska A., Crime In Poland In the Period of Rapid Social Change, in: Szamota-Saeki B., Wójcik D. (eds), Impact of Political, Economic and Social Change on Crime and its Image In Society, Warsaw 1996Lévay, Miklós (2009) Development of Criminal Policy in Hungary during the First Decade of the 21st Century, Archiwum Kriminologii Tom XXIX-XXX 2007-2008. Warszawa 2009, pp. 543-554.Lévay, Miklós (2000) Social Changes and Rising Crime Rates: The Case of Central and Eastern Europe. In: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 8/1, pp. 1-16. Mościskier A., New Forms of Crime In the Time of Transformation from Socialist to Market Economy, In: Szamota-Saeki B., Wójcik D. (eds) Impact of Political, Economic and Social Change and its Image In Soci-ety, Warsaw 1996.

InstructorProf. dr. Miklós Lévay

47

Transitional Societies and Criminal Justice ELTE

There has been an increasing interest by human rights scholars and activists on the issue of so called “transitional justice”. Transitional justice refers to situations in which a previously authoritarian regime has given way to a democratic one, and the new democracy is faced with the problem of how to address the human rights abuses of its predecessor.Transitional societies necessarily face with the past in general, and the legacy of human right violations in the previous regime in particular. The way of dealing with past very much depends on the power relations at the time the transition towards democracy starts. The most radical revolutionary way of transition is the violent overthrow or collapsing of the repressive regime, there is then a clear victory of the new forces over the old order. Democracy can also arrive at the initiative of reformers inside the forces of the past, or as a result of joint action by and negotiated settlement between governing and opposition groups. The lectures will discuss the differences in the type of transitions affect efforts to deal with the past.Through presentations, case studies, and discussion the candidates will get a comparative perspective of different models of transitional justice. We will provide a short outline for the general discussions of the philosophical and practical issues to achieve justice in evolving societies.

LiteratureTransitional justice : how emerging democracies reckon with former regimes / Neil J. Kritz, Published Washington, D.C. : United States Institute of Peace Press, 1995Nino, Carlos Santiago. Radical Evil on Trial. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press 1996Transitional justice and the rule of law in new democracies / edited by A. James McAdams Published Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1997Teitel, Ruti G. Transitional justice Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2000Retribution and reparation in the transition to democracy. Edited by Jon Elster Published Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006 Descript ix, 341 p. ; 24 cmTransitional justice in the twenty-first century : beyond truth versus justice / edited by Naomi Roht-Arri-aza and Javier Mariezcurrena. Published Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2006. Transitional justice in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union : reckoning with the communist past / edited by Lavinia Stan. London : Routledge, 2008.Nalepa, Monika: Skeletons in the closet : transitional justice in post-Communist Europe Published New York : Cambridge University Press, 2009.Assessing the impact of transitional justice : challenges for empirical research / editors, Hugo van der Merwe, Victoria Baxter, and Audrey R. Chapman. Washington, DC : United States Institute of Peace, 2009.

InstructorDr. Péter Hack

ELECTIVE COURSES: UTRECHT

48

Critical Reflections in Criminology UTRECHT

The aim of this course is that candidates learn to build and support independent, well-grounded opinions about criminological problems, theoretical explanatory models and the formal and informal reactions to them. We will handle several key contributions to criminology from a critical perspective. Each week, a classical or key criminological text will be read and commented upon. With the help of some questions, candidates will be asked to analyse the texts and put them in context. Candidates will analyse these texts through questions such as: what theoretical perspectives can be identified in the text, and why? Or how could we describe and explain the same criminological problem from a different theory or perspective? The course has discussion meetings and feedback sessions. During the discussion meetings, candidates confront their different positions on the text, while one or more candidates also moderate the meeting. During feedback sessions, candidates have the opportunity of writing on paper their positions in the form of short essays, under the supervision of the teacher.

LiteratureReader Critical Reflections in Criminology

InstructorProf. dr. Dina Siegel

Comparative Penology UTRECHT

Recent decades have shown an enormous increase in the use of imprisonment. These developments are worldwide, but there are also important differences between jurisdictions. While the United States is the undisputed leader, Canada has been able to restrict the growing use of imprisonment. In Europe, the Netherlands have undergone the biggest transformation while in the Scandinavian countries, Finland in particular, imprisonment rates only started to rise in recent years. Besides growing prison populations, other important international developments are going on in the field of Penology: while penal populism and cell shortages put human treatment and legal position of prisoners under pressure in the separated jurisdictions, the international instruments to protect their position gain influence. Both the range and the use of community sanctions and measures have increased significantly in most states in Europe and North America, but only for a small part as a replacement for imprisonment. As a consequence, impressive bodies of people are put under some form of supervision in the community nowadays, but theoretical background, aims and legal framework of these developments are only scarcely studied at a comparative level. At the same time, alternatives for imprisonment are still lacking or not effectively used outside the Western World. Finally, high recidivism rates and public call for security, has put effectiveness of sentencing high on the political agenda, but heavy debate is going on concerning the best methods to reach this aim. This course aims to make candidates aware of the explanations, social consequences and guiding principles of punishment in general and sentencing in particular, comparing different contexts, cultures and countries. During the lectures, attention will be paid to the theoretical assumptions, normative implications and empirical knowledge on punitivity and sentencing, in comparative perspective. During the seminars, candidates will be stimulated to analyse and compare key developments on the different topics mentioned above.

LiteratureReader Comparative Penology.

49

InstructorProf. dr. Miranda Boone

Drugs and Drug Policies UTRECHT

The course tackles the particular, remarkable position of the Netherlands in the field of (illegal) drugs and drug policies. It focuses on three different levels: drug use, drug trafficking and drug policies (and law enforcement). As an introduction, the candidates will explore the social, cultural, political and economic processes that shape our understanding of and policies toward illegal drugs; in other words, the social construction of the ‘drug problem’. The long and singular history of the Netherlands with licit and illicit drugs, from colonial times up to the 1970s, will be reviewed and discussed. Focusing on four different substances/markets (cannabis, heroin, cocaine and synthetic (ATS) drugs) the course will describe and explain developments regarding the use of these substances in the Netherlands: to what extent have drugs been used, by whom, what kind of problems and anxieties are connected to drug use, and what kinds of drug cultures can be identified. The third part of the course deals with drug trafficking in the Netherlands, from drug production to retail selling. Topics to be presented here are: the role of the Netherlands as a transit country for cocaine and heroin, production and export of synthetic drugs and cannabis, the ‘coffee-shop’, and the Dutch involvement in drug trafficking abroad. Finally, after reviewing the main legal, policy and law enforcement trends from the 1970s up to date, the fourth part of this course will centre on recent and future directions of Dutch drug policies. The candidates will concentrate on issues such as: the criminalisation of ‘dangerous’ and ‘at risk’ populations, the role of the Netherlands  in the international war on drugs, the dismantling of local production, the pressure on coffee-shops, and the future of the harm reduction approach. In addition to the two primary lecturers, the course will include input from expert guest-lecturers from other disciplines and backgrounds such as anthropology, epidemiology and history.

LiteratureReader Drugs and Drug Policies

InstructorDr. Tim Boekhout van Solinge / Dr. Damián Zaitch

Green Criminology and ‘Glocal’ Frictions UTRECHT

This course focuses on the relatively new and growing field of ‘green criminology’. Green criminology is the study of environmental harm, laws and regulation by criminologists. The course starts with an introduction of the main theoretical perspectives and key concepts which can be derived from a number of disciplines such as criminology, ecology, anthropology, philosophy, law and economics: environmental harm, eco-crime, ecological justice, selective and diffused victimisation, state corporate crime, environmental and social rights, the precautionary principle, social construction of 'natural disasters' etc. These concepts will be placed within the context of globalisation studies and linked to theories of risk and the impetus of mobility on avoiding such risk or. This will consequently lead to the exploration of the interplay between globalities and localities. The second part of the course focuses on specific forms of environmental harm – whether they take the form of long-term global processes,

50

localised events, state-corporate crime or violence, incidents, disasters, collateral damage or just risk – and on vulnerabilities of different groups of people who are confronted or have to deal with harm.

The course will also touch on the power struggles between different groups as these attempt to define what the environment should look like, how natural resources should or should not be exploited, how 'natural' disasters should be dealt with etc. Issues discussed in class will include illegal logging, declining biodiversity, illegal trade in flora and fauna, the transportation and dumping of toxic waste, chemical pollution, global climate change, water pollution, food criminality and food safety, land use change, ‘land grabbing’, harmful exploitation of mineral resources, animal exploitation and abuse, desertification, discrimination, war, genetic experimentation, and GMO. The final part of the course focuses on the responses to environmental harm. At the state level, the candidates will review the main problems regarding environmental law enforcement and regulation (global initiatives, protection legislation, certification systems, lack of control, corruption, etc.). At the corporate level, a critical discussion will be set up about the role and reactions of companies; from self-regulation and ‘socially responsible’ entrepreneurship to ‘green-washing’ and deception. Finally, at the societal level, the factors will be analysed which render individuals and groups more or less vulnerable to environmental harm as well as the possible responses from civil society including resistance from victimised populations, armed conflict, media exposure and consumer campaigns and attitudes.

LiteratureReader Green Criminology and “Glocal’ Frictions

InstructorDr. Tim Boekhout van Solinge / Dr. Brenda Oude Breuil

Human Rights in International and European Law UTRECHT

This course is concerned with international human rights law. Throughout the course, candidates will be familiarized with the origins and foundations of human rights, and the procedures developed for monitoring the implementation of human rights standards in practice. The course covers the United Nations machinery for the promotion and protection of human rights, the major global human rights treaties, including the International Bill of Human Rights, and regional systems. The course begins with an overview of the origins of human rights, the question of the universality of human rights and the different types of State obligations. Subsequently, it deals with the various universal and regional mechanisms that have been established to monitor States parties’ compliance with their international obligations. It further addresses issues such as the role of human rights in foreign policy, the role of non-governmental organizations and remedies for human rights violations.Upon completion of the course, candidates will have obtained sound knowledge of legal concepts and principles of international human rights law. They have insight in the functioning of the various procedures for monitoring implementation of international human rights norms principles, and the obstacles thereto. They can discuss the role of human rights in today’s world.

LiteratureKrause, C. and Scheinin, M. (eds.) (2009) International protection of human rights: A textbook. Turku: Abo Akademi University Institute for Human Rights.

Instructor51

Mr. C. Boerefijn

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights UTRECHT

It is generally agreed that all human rights are equally important and indivisible. Yet, when we look at day-to-day practice, it becomes clear that economic, social and cultural rights receive much less attention than civil and political rights. According to some governments and scholars, they cannot even be considered to be genuine human rights. In this course we will devote attention to economic, social and cultural rights and their place in the international law of human rights. Issues to be addressed include the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the role of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the developments relating to the adoption of an optional protocol making it possible to submit individual complaints and the principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, a number of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to housing, the right to health, the right to education and the right to food will be studied in more detail.

LiteratureReader Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

InstructorDr. Antoine Buyse

Corporate and Organized Crime UTRECHT

Contemporary societies feel increasingly threatened by crimes carried out by illegal and legal organizations and groups. In order to assess the ‘real’ threat and novelty of these crimes, this course envisages a critical study of the theories, patterns and control policies of two types of crime that usually take place in a group context: organized crime and corporate crime. For each crime type, the course examines a wide range of questions in order to provide candidates with a deeper understanding of the ‘real’ threat posed by each of them. In the case of organized crime, for example, the questions to be examined are the following:

- What is organized crime? How has the scientific, public and policy debate around this phenomenon evolved over time?- What are its contemporary patterns and how has it evolved over time?How to explain different forms of organized crime in different countries?- What motivates organized criminals?- What are the current organized crime control policies, how and why have they evolved over time?- How effective are contemporary control policies?

Similar questions will also be discussed in the case of corporate crime.Candidates will also be familiarized with sources and research methods used to study these phenomena and become aware of the idiosyncrasies and difficulties of empirical research on them. The course will be divided in two parts: the first one on organized crime; the second on corporate crime.

LiteraturePaoli, L. et al (ed.) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

52

InstructorProf. dr. Henk van de Bunt / Prof. dr. Dina Siegel

53