The question we wish to pose as longstanding observers and contributors to the discipline of criminology (as well as editors of this journal) is this – is there sufficient space and structured opportunity presently within the scholarly practice of criminology for robust engagement with other perspectives within (and even outside of) criminology? Here, ‘sufficient’ refers not just to the chance for different points of view to be shared, but for those views also to be heard and considered, and for there to develop, at least from time to time, a shared consensus around the ‘better’ view of knowledge and understanding on a particular topic. While criminology has offered, and can continue to offer, a range of critiques of existing practices and understandings, it ought, as many of its practitioners undoubtedly would endorse, to offer its audiences a strongly based conception of knowledge built upon the presentation of principles and propositions that have developed through presentation, contestation, and regard to the available evidence. While we would not argue that absolute consensus is required for knowledge to emerge credibly and in actionable from, there must nonetheless be a minimum, shared core of understandings about what constitutes good method and what can be considered material facts. Otherwise, we would suggest, the discipline will suffer (perhaps, continue to suffer) widespread dismissal in terms of its public and policy audiences. While not expecting a symphony or perfect harmony of opinion, those audiences would rightly reject a cacophony of views that offered only evidence of division and indecision on key matters of public concern, namely crime and criminal justice. So why raise this issue now? The stimulus arises from observing the operation of the discipline for several decades in a variety of roles: as conference attendees, as paper presenters, as submitters to academic journals, as reviewers of papers submitted to those journals, as peer reviewers in competitive grant competitions, and as editors of journals in the field. Neither of us has participated enough in the internal operations of other

中文翻译：

---

犯罪学的可竞争性

作为犯罪学学科的长期观察者和贡献者（以及本期刊的编辑），我们希望提出的问题是——目前在犯罪学的学术实践中是否有足够的空间和结构化的机会，以便与（甚至在）犯罪学之外？在这里，“足够”不仅指不同观点被分享的机会，还指这些观点也被听取和考虑，并且至少不时地围绕“更好地看待特定主题的知识和理解。虽然犯罪学已经并且可以继续提供对现有实践和理解的一系列批评，但它应该，正如其许多从业者无疑会赞同的那样，为观众提供一个基于原理和命题的陈述的强大的知识概念，这些原则和命题是通过陈述、争论和对可用证据的考虑而发展起来的。虽然我们不会争辩说，知识的可信性和可操作性需要绝对的共识，但对于什么是好的方法以及什么可以被视为重要事实，必须有一个最低限度的、共享的核心理解。否则，我们会建议，该学科将遭受（也许，继续遭受）公众和政策受众的广泛忽视。虽然不期待交响乐或意见完美和谐，但这些观众会正确地拒绝意见不一，只提供证据表明在公众关注的关键问题上存在分歧和犹豫不决，即犯罪和刑事司法。那么为什么现在提出这个问题呢？刺激源于几十年来观察该学科在各种角色中的运作：作为会议参与者，作为论文提交者，作为学术期刊的提交者，作为提交给这些期刊的论文的审稿人，作为竞争性资助竞赛的同行审稿人，并担任该领域期刊的编辑。我们都没有足够参与其他公司的内部运作