Narrative Criminology and Ethnography

This chapter outlines how criminological researchers can attend to narrative as part of their ethnographic practice. Attention to the narrativity of speech, conversations, and texts pertaining to both individuals and groups has the potential to enrich ethnographic research on crime, criminal justice, and victims/survivors. It accentuates that stories told in field, between research participants—and to the researcher—are paramount for most ethnographic fieldwork. Ethnographers can draw much from contemporary developments in narrative criminology. We outline two insights in particular: talk is a kind of social action that does things and, second, stories motivate and guide behaviour. We review research in narrative criminology to demonstrate the importance of stories for understanding crime and justice: they delineate insiders and outsiders, convey identity, supply know-how, and display criminal capital. Vengeance and violence are also a way to tell or enact stories. This chapter also explores questions of methodology and discusses some practical issues such as how to invite storytelling and how to use recording devices in the field. We conclude with some thoughts about future directions for narrative criminology and ethnography.

Do Better Prisons Reduce Recidivism? Evidence from a Prison Construction Program

I study the effects of prison quality on recidivism using individual-level data from Colombia. To estimate causal effects, I leverage the quasi-random assignment of inmates to newer, less crowded, and higher service prisons. For inmates assigned to newer facilities, I find that the probability of returning to prison within one year is 36% lower. Criminal capital, access to rehabilitation programs, and negative prison experiences—which could trigger changes in intrinsic preferences over illegal occupations—seem to be important mechanisms. The program led to substantial welfare gains, even when assuming a low social cost per crime.

On the Conceptualization of Criminal Capital

Objectives: The first objective of this study is to provide a conceptualization of criminal capital. The second objective is to present an illustrative analysis of dimensionality and concurrent validity of criminal capital acquired in prison. Methods: One hundred eight inmates in three correctional reentry facilities in a mid-Atlantic state were interviewed at two times: in prison and nine months postrelease. Postrelease interviews included six items that tapped into criminal human capital and criminal social capital acquired in prison. Factor structure was examined with confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory was used to examine each of the items. Regression models examined concurrent validity for the criminal capital construct on the willingness to offend, perceived rewards to crime, illegal earnings expectations, and making money from crime. Results: Criminal human capital and criminal social capital acquired in prison represent a single unidimensional latent construct. Regression models demonstrated concurrent validity for the criminal capital construct. Conclusions: Working toward a consistent conceptualization of criminal capital is important for a cohesive body of knowledge. Future work should investigate how dimensionality and validity differ across contexts.