Abstract
In this contribution, we reflect on the understanding we have gathered of European criminology during our five years as current Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of the European Journal of Criminology. Applying an analytic approach, we reflect on the defining features of European criminology, the boundaries of European criminology, and the goals of European criminology. We affirm that European criminology's most defining feature is its shared differences and scholarly goals to be theoretically guided, methodologically inclusive, empirically cross-comparative, and policy oriented. We conclude that the European Journal of Criminology provides an important space in which these differences and goals can be celebrated and shared.
Introduction
In this contribution, we share our impressions of European criminology gathered during our five years as current Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of the European Journal of Criminology (EJC), as embodied in the journey of the articles that have moved through the journal's peer review process during our curatorship. We consider European criminology from the perspective of analytic criminology, a branch of criminology that promotes theory-guided empirical research into the causes of crime and effective crime prevention. Applying this analytic approach, we reflect on the defining features, boundaries and goals of European criminology. In doing so, we aim to move the discourse on European criminology beyond describing European scholarship – for example, Who contributes to European criminology? What do European criminologists study? – to pose and begin to answer why and how questions – Why do we need a European criminology (we agree that we do!)? How can we support European criminology, particularly within our role in the EJC? Thus in this brief reflection, we will go wider and deeper by not only celebrating what European criminology is and has done, but also reflecting on the goals of European criminology and how the EJC can help achieve them.
The core mission of the EJC is to provide a forum for research and scholarship on issues pertaining to European criminology and criminal justice (Smith, 2014). A forum is a meeting point for exchanging ideas and viewpoints. Thus a core criterion of the journal, as described on its website (https://journals.sagepub.com/overview-metric/EUC), is that its articles should exchange ideas of relevance to European criminology and criminal justice, meaning they should have clear links to the European context; if they do not, the relevance for European criminology or criminal justice should be a key theme, and articles that address more general or global topics must still explicitly discuss their specific relevance for European criminology and criminal justice.
But what does it mean to be of relevance for European criminology? What is European criminology?
Defining features of European criminology
In his presidential address, European Society of Criminology (ESC) President Tom Vander Beken (2018–2019) along with several colleagues, provides a detailed analysis of abstracts from the ESC's annual conferences up to 2019, observing that ‘to date, only a handful of researchers have tried to establish the state of affairs of European criminology, explore the practice of doing European criminology, and map what is addressed in European criminological research’ (Vander Beken et al., 2021: 2). This remains the case; those who have include various presidents of the ESC (e.g., Tamarit et al., 2025; Vander Beken et al., 2021) and editors of the EJC (e.g., Knepper, 2018; Smith, 2006, 2014), examining key outputs of European criminology, such as ESC conference presentations, EJC publications, citations for European scholars and European scholarship, etc. (see also Cohn and Iratzoqui, 2016; Faraldo-Cabana and Lamela, 2021). These efforts are incredibly valuable: they show us what European criminology looks like and how it is evolving over time; they identify areas of particular interest to European criminologists, and areas that warrant further attention; and they document seminal debates, how these emerge, and are resolved. In European criminology's 25th year, the current EJC editorial team aims to contribute to this set of knowledge by compiling the first comprehensive dataset of all articles published in the EJC, creating a living and analyzable record of European criminological scholarship through which its width can be better understood and its depths more illuminated.
As valuable as such descriptive analyses are, analytic criminology encourages us to look beyond the current state of affairs or trends over time to better understand what underpins them. To explain something we must first understand what it is – we must identify its common characteristic. Thus we need to identify the common feature of criminological and criminal justice scholarship that has emerged in the European context and that sets it apart from scholarship dominating in other geographical regions.
Ineke Marshall, currently at-large ESC Board member, wrote in the inaugural year of the ESC that ‘European criminology’ obviously means more than simply the collaborative efforts … between researchers and scholars from Europe’ (Haen-Marshall, 2001: 235). We heartily agree; to us, European criminology embodies the spirit of criminology in Europe, and while European criminology emerged from criminology in Europe, it is no longer limited to criminology in Europe (see also Barberet, 2001). For one's criminology to be European one does not have to be European or even a criminologist in Europe. In this way, European criminology reaches beyond its geographical boundaries. By clarifying the scope of the European criminological enterprise and its relation to geographical boundaries we may begin to address some of the issues Associate Editor Anna Di Ronco raises in her contribution to this collection and ensure European criminology remains inclusive of different perspectives, including those from outside of Europe, which are nevertheless of relevance to European criminology (Di Ronco, 2025, this collection). Associate Editor Adam Edwards also considers the importance of symbolic physical boundaries in his contribution to this collection, which posits online crime as a potential case study for testing whether European criminology warrants its own place in the criminological landscape for reasons distinct from its place in the geopolitical landscape (Edwards, 2025, this collection).
Many features of European criminology give it its unique flavor. Scholars (including ESC presidents, EJC editors, and many others) highlight European criminology's emphasis on human rights; policies and their reform; strong social science that values both quantitative and qualitative approaches; and comparative research (Bijleveld, 2023; Haen-Marshall, 2001; Knepper, 2012; Smith, 2004, 2014; Tonry, 2014). We agree with many of these scholars that one feature stands out as European criminology's most pivotal and most defining.
Each of the shared strengths of European criminology listed above is grounded in the fact that Europe encompasses a great diversity of jurisdictions, cultures, scholars, policies, and crime trends. David Smith, founding Editor-in-Chief of the EJC (2001–2005), wrote in its very first issue that ‘the variety of traditions and intellectual backgrounds on which criminologists in Europe draw … opens the way for a broader form of criminology in Europe … one more closely linked with reform agendas, with stronger development of theory allied to empirical methodologies, and with a particular emphasis on interdisciplinary and comparative approaches’ (Smith, 2004: 11). Ten years later, he reflected on the EJC's success as a forum exhibiting ‘a distinctively European criminology addressing European concerns and making use of the rich variety of politics, culture, and social and economic conditions among European countries’ (Smith, 2014: 2).
More than 10 years further on we feel this fusion of diverse perspectives and shared goals that characterizes the European approach to addressing criminological issues is European criminology's most defining feature (see also, e.g., Bijleveld, 2023; Haen-Marshall, 2001). A core strength of European criminology is that it appreciates, values and capitalizes on internal differences, and the opportunities they provide for meaningful research that can contribute substantively to criminological knowledge, both fundamental and applied. In her contribution to this collection Associate Editor Claire Hamilton looks at this juxtaposition of diversity and unity in light of widening divides in political perspectives across Europe, inspiring consideration of how European criminology can navigate these divides and their impact on criminological discourse and criminal justice approaches (Hamilton, 2025, this collection).
Rather than be divided by these differences, European criminology has historically been united by them and by a shared goal to ‘exchange information about crime and criminal justice and to work towards common standards’ in the practice of doing so (Smith, 2004: 8). The EJC provides a key forum for this exchange, and a medium through which, via peer review, European scholars can establish and apply those standards.
The scope of European criminology
It is unavoidable that in providing a forum for European criminology, the European Journal must exclude work that lacks a European element, an issue directly addressed by Di Ronco in this collection (Di Ronco, 2025). Its core criteria that articles be of relevance to European criminology is rooted in a necessary endeavor undertaken at the turn of the century to elevate European voices in a chorus of criminological scholarship dominated by voluble US choristers and to promote a more humanistic perspective that could refine more punitive US-led models of criminal justice (Barberet, 2001; Haen-Marshall, 2001; Killias, 2001; Smith, 2004). As EiC David Smith (2004: 9–10) writes in the EJC's inaugural issue, the journal ‘aims in a modest way to strengthen the base of criminology in Europe’ by focusing on European issues and institutions and communicating widely the progress made in doing so, helping to consolidate European criminology ‘based on positive values and solid achievements’ nurtured by ‘a much wider view of the world that takes in the variegated scenery of countries from Russia and Lithuania to Holland, Greece and Ireland’.
ESC President Catrien Bijleveld (2021–2022) provides a resonating description of this era in her recent Presidential Address, describing the emergence of specific forums for European criminology as a ‘quantum jump’ from the ‘distinctly odd situation’ experienced by European scholars and European scholarship when they were confined to criminological forums in which the dominant issues were ‘largely out of sync with our European criminological reality’ (Bijleveld, 2023: 785–786).
Where is the relationship between European and US criminology today? Several recent papers cite continuing US dominance (e.g., Cohn and Iratzoqui, 2016; Tamarit et al., 2025) drawing on evidence that US scholars remain the most cited in European criminology. The reliability of this metric as a measure of influence has been questioned (Faraldo-Cabana and Lamela, 2021), as it is confounded by differences in citation culture across fields and jurisdictions. In the US, a compelling publish or perish culture drives a higher rate of publication and citation among US scholars, and instills a greater impetus to cite other US colleagues so they don’t perish (Van Dalen and Henkens, 2012); scholars also naturally tend to cite scholars from their own jurisdiction, for reasons of familiarity and relevance. Tangled in this citation culture is the greater appetite for basic textbooks in the US and the tendency for these publications, as a point of entry, to influence audiences that lack knowledge of the wider literature (Cohn and Iratzoqui, 2016). Add to this the prominence of US publishing companies in producing criminological books and journals, and the active involvement of US scholars in leading editorial roles, and one can see how US scholars remain the most cited. However, it is important to recognize that these higher rates of citation reflect the inflated selection of US criminological scholarship as well as an inflated estimation of its significance.
What about the comparable selection and estimation of European criminological scholarship? Although we can’t give this an in-depth treatment here (but see Nivette, 2025, this collection), it is telling that the most cited scholars in the field, regardless of their nationality, are active in European criminology, and recognize the added value of the European perspective. We have seen an increase in textbooks and handbooks with a focus on European criminology since the ESC's inception (e.g., Body-Gendrot, 2014; Routledge Handbook on European Penology, forthcoming). The EJC has led the field in populating its editorial board and editorial team with European scholars (Faraldo-Cabana and Lamela, 2021).
So although European criminology does still occasionally need to remind some US scholars about its large body of scholarship, on the whole we feel progress is being made to realize the ambitions set out by the EJC's first EiC David Smith, as EJC EiC Paul Knepper (2011–2016) describes, ‘to develop a knowledge base separate from US criminology … [but that] would encourage a cross-Atlantic exchange of ideas and information’ (Knepper, 2012: 225). European criminology has and continues to contribute to and benefit from a ‘flow of information and debate in both directions across the Atlantic’ (Smith, 2006: 8).
The ‘exchange of ideas’ (Knepper, 2012: 225) ‘which reflect, describe and analyze [European countries’] varied political, social and economic conditions, and which express the cultural and intellectual climate in various parts of Europe’ (Smith, 2014: 15) remains a cornerstone of European criminology and the EJC, which disseminates European scholarship not only among European scholars but also across the wider discipline (Smith, 2006: 6). Understanding European criminology as a scholarly community reflecting shared goals and standards as well as unique attributes and perspectives is a helpful starting point for conceptualizing the jurisdiction of the EJC; appreciating the broad community of criminological and criminal justice scholars the EJC serves, and their shared as well as diverse interests and expertise; and establishing how the EJC can best serve as a forum for all the ideas (theories), tools (methods) and knowledge (empirical findings) that underpin their scholarship. This is reflected in the EJC's core criteria, as well as the structure of its editorial board and editorial team, its openness to a broad range of topics and approaches, and its efforts to support the growing body of scholarship and scholars addressing underresearched topics and regions, for example, through the provision of opportunities for language support and constructive peer review, which the ESC's second President Josine-Junger Tas (2001–2002) cites as one of its founding principles (Junger-Tas, 2001). We recently expanded our editorial team, initiating an open call for associate editors to ensure our team reflects this regional and topical diversity and encompasses the expertise to support high-quality scholarship across so many domains. Representation impacts participation in key forums such as the EJC and ESC. In the EJC, this has a particularly significant impact on comparative rates of publication by country/region – which are explored by Associate Editor Amy Nivette in her contribution to this collection (Nivette, 2025) – as rates of submission by region are a key factor in differential rates of publication by region. We have also helped bring together scholars from different regions to contribute to joint publications, most notably in the upcoming Special Issue on Crime and War in Ukraine. Intertwining distinct perspectives promotes a richer and deeper understanding of their distinct contributions, as well as appreciation and attainment of common goals (see Killias, 2001).
Shared goals of European criminology
We have argued that the key defining feature of European criminology is that it is united by its differences and shared scholarly goals. Within the work of European scholars we have curated – including that of our reviewers as well as our authors, and that of those actively supporting the journal through the editorial team and editorial board – we perceive four core shared goals that unify European criminology as well as distinguish it. European criminological and criminal justice scholarship is
Theoretically guided Methodologically inclusive Empirically cross-comparative Policy oriented.
European criminology is theoretically guided
The fundamental importance of theory guidance in criminological research is a feature we see reflected in papers submitted to the EJC and consistently encouraged by our reviewers, and it is a feature we uphold as an editorial team. This general appreciation of a robust theoretical component in criminological scholarship sets European criminology apart from approaches prominent in other jurisdictions that can be more content with the mapping of descriptive (e.g., narrative) or statistical relationships without robust explanation.
Having strong theoretical framing helps delineate the connections between seemingly disparate pieces of research, allowing European criminology to bridge different perspectives and link phenomena across different contexts (see Junger-Tas, 2001). This valuable facet of European criminology may have emerged from its sociolegal roots, which placed particular value on concepts and explanations, in combination with the need for European criminologists to communicate their different perspectives, establish shared definitions, and overcome language barriers. This theoretical and conceptual rigor imparts a unique and accessible richness to European criminology – part of the depth that EiC David Smith wrote about in 2014.
EJC EiC Paul Knepper writes, and we very much agree, that ‘theory-driven, empirical research into issues of cross-jurisdictional significance is particularly welcome’ in the EJC (Knepper, 2012: 225). He further argued, and we further agree, that ‘to develop European criminology, we need to find ways of getting more European theorists onto the pages of the EJC’ (Knepper, 2018: 656). Many prominent criminological theories have been developed outside of Europe, but given its diversity of experiences and perspectives, there is no doubt European criminology has much to add to the debate regarding how to understand and explain as well as study, prevent, and respond to crime. We encourage theoretical contributions in the EJC, and, having found these face particular challenges in peer review, sparking considerable debate among reviewers, authors, and editors, we are exploring the possibility of promoting discussion pieces which would share these debates with the readers of the EJC, to stimulate conversations among criminologists inside and outside of Europe about fundamental assumptions of our explanations of crime, the links between theory and evidence, and how to use theory to improve criminological scholarship, guide criminological research, enhance crime prevention, and augment criminal justice. These activities reflect a distinct analytic approach. Indeed, Europe is the birthplace of analytical/analytic (theory-driven) criminology (Pauwels et al., 2009; Wikström and Kroneberg, 2022; Wikström and Treiber, 2013), which is further evidence of the value European criminology places on criminological theory and, beyond this, theory-testing.
European criminology is methodologically inclusive
EJC EiC David Smith observes that while ‘the ambition to promote deep thinking about crime implies that theoretical articles should be given priority … the theoretical ideas discussed in [the EJC] will be ones that are developed in a close dialogue with relevant evidence’ (Smith, 2014: 13). This reflects a second shared goal of European criminology to conduct strong social scientific research that can produce robust empirical evidence to support explanations of crime, efforts to prevent it, and criminal justice (Smith, 2014: 13; see also Barberet, 2001). Promoting shared standards of scientific enquiry and scholarship underpins the ability of European criminology to encompass diverse perspectives, methods, and outcomes with confidence that, while varied in their approach, remain uniform in their validity and reliability.
EJC guidelines state that articles should reflect a rigorous social scientific approach, whether the material is theoretical or empirical (or both), or the methods quantitative or qualitative (or both). European criminology's shared regard for robust quantitative and qualitative research adds to its diversity, depth and richness. As ESC President Michael Tonry (2013–2014) writes, being ‘neither primarily quantitative like American criminology nor primarily qualitative and social theoretical like British, European criminology is less tribal and more genuinely multidisciplinary’ (Tonry, 2014: 2). ESC President Vander Beken et al. (2021: 12) evidence ‘the absence of a theoretical or methodological domination in European criminology’, finding that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are reflected among the five most prevalent topics of papers presented at ESC conferences during its first two decades.
The papers published in the EJC continue to reflect this variety of approaches and the absence of domination by particular theories or methods. While as EJC EiC David Smith (2014: 5) muses, ‘it is too much to expect complete reconciliation between the humanist and science camps … the European Journal of Criminology should do what it can to encourage a more flexible and broad-minded approach and to favor articles that draw on both traditions’. These remain key aims for the Editorial Team, which by design includes scholars with expertise encompassing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and which, along with the independent contributions of our reviewers and Editorial Board, provides guidance to authors on how to ensure and present high-quality research – whether this means, for example, supporting stronger theory guidance in quantitative studies or the presentation of methodological robustness in qualitative studies – with the shared goal of ensuring articles make a solid contribution to evidence, its interpretation, and its explanation.
European criminology is empirically cross-comparative
We have described how, as a forum for European criminology, the EJC serves as a meeting point for exchanging knowledge about European criminology and criminal justice. One important way of sharing ideas across such diverse contexts is through cross-comparative research, which has become a cornerstone of European criminology (although one that continues to develop, see Nivette, 2025, this collection). The broad scope of knowledge emerging from within and between Europe's diverse social contexts has particularly unique value and lends itself naturally to comparative research on the causes of crime as well as the evaluation of policies and practices to prevent, manage and respond to it (Smith, 2004, 2006, 2014). This was highlighted by the ESC's first President, Martin Killias (2000–2001) who wrote at the time of the society's inception that ‘comparative research should really become the first priority in European criminology’ (Killias, 2001: 329).
European criminology has the unique capacity for cross-comparative research within the European context and between Europe and other contexts. As EJC EiC David Smith writes, the EJC's ‘international mission includes the dissemination of the best research results within Europe, but also the interchange of information between Europe and other parts of the world’ with ‘a particular emphasis on comparative research’ (Smith, 2006: 6), a sentiment later echoed by EiC Paul Knepper (2012: 225).
Cross-comparative research allows European criminology to link together shared as well as divergent experiences within Europe and between Europe and other global regions, allowing for a much deeper understanding of the role of social, cultural and historical contexts in shaping the nature and impact of crime and criminal justice practices. It also facilitates a broader assessment of transnational crime, including cybercrime (see Edwards, 2025, this collection). Ultimately, it is a medium through which regions can learn from each other's experiences, challenges, and successes, as cataloged and compared by criminological and criminal justice scholars. This has huge benefits for clarifying the processes through which crime emerges, and through which crime prevention and criminal justice can exert their effects, and determining if these are shared across jurisdictions, even if the inputs to those processes (kinds of people and kinds of places) vary. This can further clarify the relevance of those inputs – factors that exert a causal effect on crime versus factors that pick up spurious or selection effects. To capitalize on the potential of cross-comparison, the comparative element should be central to the research design, theoretically and methodologically, and not a post hoc consideration or peripheral reflection. European criminology's emphasis on strong theory-driven scientific research is vital to its ability to undertake robust cross-comparative research, which by its nature presents exponentially more theoretical and methodological challenges than research in a single context (Davidov et al., 2018; Tonry, 2015). Strong scientific research and strong cross-comparative research may have iteratively promoted and consolidated each other as important shared goals of European criminology.
A particularly prominent area which benefits from cross-comparative research is crime and criminal justice policy. The rich diversity of contexts in Europe in which different approaches are taken to criminal justice, and different practices implemented under different conditions, provides a natural laboratory for studying their efficacy, the conditions under which they are effective, and how they may be effectively transferred to other contexts. This creates a valuable dialog between European criminologists regarding different approaches and practices, and a valuing of this dialog that extends to comparisons outside of Europe and enriches the entire field of international criminology and criminal justice, encouraging scholars to think differently about perspectives on and approaches to crime and justice.
European criminology is policy oriented
ESC President Michael Tonry (2014: 2) highlights that ‘European criminology is to a significant extent, more than American or British, openly concerned with policy’. European contexts are bound to a shared legal framework, reflecting ‘a distinct European outlook on the procedures with which we deal with crime and criminals’, while at the same time having ‘separate criminal codes per country, …separate police forces, [and] different cultures of punishment’ (Bijleveld, 2023: 2). This creates a unique environment in which to conduct cross-comparative research assessing the efficacy of different policies across contexts, and the efficacy of shared policies across different contexts.
Europe's shared goals in terms of responses to crime and criminal justice facilitate comparative research to explore different ways of achieving those goals, and how these may be applied in different contexts, highlighting differing policies and policy outcomes, and the potential for and possible means of reform. While differential policies and practices across European countries allow for cross-comparative research regarding their efficacy and potential transferability, shared policies and practices across European countries allow for cross-comparative research regarding their applicability and potential for standardization.
Europe presents a unique opportunity to examine the impacts and efficacy of harmonizing policies across jurisdictions, including policies that coordinate and align criminal justice practices (e.g., aspects of policing, court proceedings, and detention), as well as policies that set standards for higher education, and by extension European courses in criminology and criminal justice. These policies not only reflect common goals for European criminology, but also provide a framework for achieving them.
In their contributions to this collection, Associate Editors Gaetan Cliquennois and Rok Hacin highlight both shared and divergent aspects of European crime and criminal justice policy, encouraging a deeper look at the landscape of penology in Europe and penology in European criminology (Cliquennois, 2025; Hacin, 2025 this collection). Sharing knowledge not only about crime but what we can do about it is a fundamental feature of European criminology and an area in which European criminology can make a particularly unique and distinct contribution.
Providing a forum for European criminology
The EJC has played a central role in helping ‘Europe to build its own criminological tradition’ (Knepper, 2012: 225). It has done so by providing a forum for strong scholarship reflecting and shaping the shared values and goals as well as the diverse perspectives and interests that characterize European criminology, showcasing a wide range of articles addressing a plethora of different topics using various research and analytical methods across an array of social contexts. The exchange of criminological knowledge within this uniquely European forum has contributed to the wider criminological debate by sharing communal and comparative insights and providing a context in which common standards can develop and thrive.
European criminology has a unique essence. Shared differences make it stronger in many ways than criminology in jurisdictions that lack a diversity of viewpoints, social histories, and criminal justice practices, for example, in terms of theories with broad applicability and awareness of diverse discourses, experiences and evidence; methods that can tap into the most appropriate and robust approaches to a given research question as well as a wealth of diverse evidence to support this; and findings that advance knowledge that is contextually relevant for informing effective crime policies and practices. Beyond academia this will have a positive impact on wider experiences of crime and criminal justice across jurisdictions, unconstrained by geographical borders and underpinned by a deeper understanding of the mechanisms driving criminal behavior and how we respond to it. Capitalizing on its differences to achieve shared goals of scholarship that contribute to knowledge and debate broadens and diversifies (widens and deepens) European criminology's knowledge- and evidence-bases, and therefore its potential to impact people's lives around the world, and this enriches all of criminology and criminal justice.
