Search results

Criminology both as a field of study and as a practice draws on a broad range of disciplines from the social, behavioural, human, natural and medical sciences. However, over recent times, the natural and medical sciences have been dismissed, overlooked and even ridiculed, largely since the rise of critical criminology and related contemporary conflict and social harm approaches from the 1960s onwards. This has led to a chasm emerging between the study of criminology and the practice of criminology such as within a policing context. This paper aims to provide a review of an emerging forensic biological method, that of neuroscience, within a criminological context, to illustrate the importance of criminology embracing and reawakening its natural and medical science roots.

The paper draws on a conceptual design to realign criminology with the full range of disciplines used to inform its theory and application.

Through illustrating the role of forensic neuroscience, the paper reawakens the scientific method and inquiry of criminology reflecting the importance of the discipline being, and remaining, multi- and trans-disciplinary in nature. The paper, while reflecting on the limitations of scientific method and inquiry, outlines the strengths this approach to criminology engenders, promoting and delivering a scientific-based research agenda that aims to support industry partners in the prevention, disruption and reduction of crime, disorder and threats to public security.

Firstly, it is important for criminology as a field of study to (re)engage with its scientific method and inquiry. Secondly, criminology, by engaging in robust scientific method and inquiry, has a significant contribution to make to professional practice and the work of industry professionals. Thirdly, while there are limitations to such scientific method and inquiry, it should not lead to this component of criminology being discarded. Fourthly, there is a need for contemporary research in the area of scientific method and inquiry and its application to criminological contexts, including that of police practice. Finally, by engaging in scientific method and inquiry that is evidence based, a chasm between the field of study and the practice associated with criminology can be addressed.

This paper addresses the gap between criminology as a field of study and as a practice by reengaging with scientific method and inquiry, illustrating the need and value of criminology being and remaining multi- and trans-disciplinary, ensuring professions underpinned by criminology are supported in their practice.

In response to recent calls to better understand the brain’s role in organizational behavior, we propose a series of theoretical tests to examine the question “can brains manage?” Our tests ask whether brains can manage without bodies and without extracranial resources, whether they can manage in social isolation, and whether brains are the ultimate controllers of emotional and cognitive aspects of organizational behavior. Our analysis shows that, to accomplish work-related tasks in organizations, the brain relies on and closely interfaces with the body, interpersonal and social dynamics, and cognitive and emotional processes that are distributed across persons and artifacts. The results of this “thought experiment” suggest that the brain is more appropriately conceived as a regulatory organ that integrates top-down (i.e., social, artifactual and environmental) and bottom-up (i.e., neural) influences on organizational behavior, rather than the sole cause of that behavior. Drawing on a socially situated perspective, our analysis develops a framework that connects brain, body and mind to social, cultural, and environmental forces, as significant components of complex emotional and cognitive organizational systems. We discuss the implications for the emerging field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and for conceptualizing the interaction between the brain, cognition and emotion in organizations.

Effective leadership is critical in driving innovation and success in organisations, particularly in today’s rapidly changing environment. However, achieving effective leadership at all levels of the organisation can be challenging. This chapter argues that understanding how the brain functions is essential for innovation leaders to achieve positive results and higher rates of success in their projects. By analysing relevant research on neuroscientific functioning patterns and developing interventions based on these foundations, this chapter establishes that the brain’s self-organising ability and cognitive processing systems offer valuable insights for effective innovation leadership. Based on neuroscientific evidence this chapter concludes that effective innovation leadership should focus on inviting others to engaged co-creation, rather than directing others to perform specific tasks as if they were ‘a prolonged arm’. Additionally, effective innovation leadership integrates insights from information processing in the brain by providing behavioural-oriented impulses that activate the brain, enabling individuals to maintain focus, restore motivation or emotional stability, enhance mood and confidence, and increase cognitive flexibility. Evidence-based interventions range from structured breaks to powernapping and walking. The importance of self-leadership is stressed throughout the chapter. By deriving solutions from an understanding of how the brain functions, interventions that may have been known for a long time can become evidence-based and optimised for use in organisations. Future research could explore the intersection of neuro- and behavioural science with leadership to further innovate organisational principles.

Through a review of historically famous cases and a chronicle of neurotechnology development, this chapter discusses brain structure and brain function as two distinct yet interrelated paths to understand the relative contributions of anatomical and physiological mechanisms to the human brain–behavior relationship. From an organizational neuroscience perspective, the chapter describes over a dozen neuroimaging technologies that are classified under four groupings: morphologic, invasive metabolic, noninvasive metabolic, and electromagnetic. We then discuss neuroimaging variables that may be useful in social science investigations, and we underscore electroencephalography as a particularly useful modality for the study of individuals and groups in organizational settings. The chapter concludes by considering emerging science and novel brain technologies for the organizational researcher as we look to the future.

Political science is often derided for being a “soft” science, one unable to generate hard predictions about political behavior, or without the ability to test its hypotheses, unlike physics, biology, or, among the social sciences, economics. Standards of hypothesis testing, data collection, and testing were unfairly seen to be lacking in comparison with the hard sciences. Accordingly, political scientists often had to struggle to have the knowledge produced about political behavior taken seriously. It would not be too remiss to identify an inferiority complex among political scientists, when they discussed the pantheon of scientific disciplines and their low position in it.

Purpose – First, to look closely and critically at Hayek's treatment of science in The Sensory Order. This provides hints as to the difficulties in maintaining a theory of scientific knowledge as a selective sum of the identifiable contributions of individual scientists. Second, to generalize from Hayek's theory of how the brain generates an individual's knowledge to a theory of how science generates scientific knowledge, knowledge that is not a simple sum of individual contributions. Third, to apply this picture of science to understanding developments in postpositivist philosophy and post-Mertonian sociology of science.

Approach – We provide a short survey of the conventional understanding of science and scientific knowledge, including that of Hayek in The Sensory Order. We examine in more depth the ways in which developments in postpositivist philosophy and sociology have transformed our understanding of science. We describe how, by analogy with Hayek's theory of the brain, science can be seen as an adaptive system that adjusts to its environment by classifying the phenomena in that environment to which it is sensitive, and we apply this systemic picture of science with a view to integrating much of the more moderate content of recent philosophy and sociology of science.

Neuroscience, with its promise to peer into the brain and explain the sources of human behavior and human consciousness, has captured the scientific, clinical, and public imaginations. Among those in the thrall of neuroscience are a group of ethicists who are carving out a new subspecialty within the field of bioethics: neuroethics. Neuroethics has taken as its task the policing of neuroscience. By virtue of its very existence, neuroethics presents a threat to its parent field bioethics. In its struggle to maintain authority as the guardian of neuroscience, neuroethics must respond to criticisms from bioethicists who see no need for the subspecialty. We describe the social history of neuroethics and use that history to consider several issues of concern to social scientists, including the social contexts that generate ethical questions and shape the way those questions are framed and answered; strategies used by neuroethicists to secure a place in an occupational structure that includes life scientists and other ethics experts; and the impact of the field of neuroethics on both the work of neuroscience and public perceptions of the value and danger of the science of the brain.

In this chapter, we overview different neuroenhancement techniques that could be applied for accelerating the learning process in a number of tasks that are associated with occupational roles. The techniques range from: (1) pharmaceutical and invasive methods with limited applicability to the healthy population, due to possible side effects and obtrusiveness; (2) game-based brain training that shows task-specific potential, but may not generalize; and (3) a promising new research direction in which the goal is to “train” the brain to reach an optimal cognitive state for performing a given task, and remain in this state by self-regulation. However, in order to accomplish this goal of brain training, the neurological markers that best discriminate good task performance need to be identified. We also review a number of initial studies in this chapter which have analyzed such markers in a variety of training-related applications for different occupations, such as military/security (e.g., marksmanship, deadly force judgment and decision making, submarine piloting and navigation, phishing detection), medicine (e.g., robot-assisted surgery), banking (e.g., financial traders), sports (e.g., golf, archery, and baseball), or entertainment (e.g., musicians and actors). The promising results of these early studies are fueling interest in neuroscience-based technology and methods in the rapidly developing field of organizational neuroscience (e.g., leadership research). We conclude the chapter with a discussion of future research directions.

Neuroscientific research on addictions has prompted a paradigm shift from a moral to a medical understanding – with substantial implications for legal professionals’ interactions with and decision-making surrounding individuals with addiction. This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives: the potential “next generation” of legal professionals in the USA (criminal justice undergraduates) and legal professionals from another system (Germany). This paper aims to assess their views on the brain disease model of addiction, dominance and relevance of this model, the responsibility of affected persons and preferred sources of information.

Views of 74 US criminal justice undergraduate students and 74 German legal professionals were assessed using Likert scales and open-ended questions in an online survey.

Neuroscientific research findings on addictions and views that addiction is a brain disease were rated as significantly more relevant by American students to their potential future work than by German legal professionals. However, a majority of both samples agreed that addiction is a brain disease and that those affected are responsible for their condition and actions. Sources of information most frequently used by both groups were publications in legal academic journals.

In the USA, information for legal professionals needs to be expanded and integrated into the education of its “next generation,” while in Germany it needs to be developed and promoted. Legal academic journals appear to play a primary role in the transfer of research on addiction into legal practice.

This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives.