Seminaret ble holdt på Island 1.-.4. mai i år og hovedtema var «new challenges in criminology; can old theories be used to explain or understand new crimes?». Presentasjonene til Sunde og Jon er nå tilgjengelige i PIA.
Nina Jon presenterte sitt bidrag fra antologien «Masculinities in the Criminological Field» (2014):
Transforming Cowboy Masculinity into Appropriate Masculinity
Criminological enquiry commonly overlooks the gendered aspects of the social control of men. By studying a protective school for boys with a gender perspective, I have found that controlling boys to a great extent means controlling masculinity. In my study, I have analysed empirical material from Foldin protective school (1953–1970). Through an analysis of the narratives about the boys employed by the school and other social support and control systems, I aim to uncover the masculinity discourses that shaped the school’s work. Is a well-documented fact in criminology that those who are registered as criminals and subjected to social control in the form of court orders and custody by the child welfare services, predominantly are working class boys (Willis 1977, Christie 1982, Mattsson 2005). My analysis of Foldin’s effort to form a proper boy is therefore also an analysis of a class-specific masculinity discourse.
Inger Marie Sunde var invitert inn som keynotespeaker og holdt innlegget:
A new thing under the sun?: Crime in the digitized society
Computer systems can be used to commit – and be targets of – crime. The article investi-gates whether so-called “digital crime” can be regarded as a new thing under the sun. The question itself is not new. It was originally raised in the 1950ies when computer technology had become sufficiently advanced to be put into use by large financial corporations and insurance companies (McQuade 2006: 11). Concomitantly, the opportunity to commit com-puter fraud emerged, an opportunity not lost on insiders. As the era of network technology and mobile devices had not yet arrived, outsiders did not have easy access to corporately owned computers, thus they were practically excluded from committing computer crime. Since insider crime in such corporations was regarded as being “white collar”, computer crime was perceived as a form of white collar crime.
Publisert: - Sist oppdatert: |