INTRODUCTION
A significant development in criminology in recent years is recognizing Western-centric bias. Asian criminology and Southern criminology are considered the most influential forces in this development (Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019b:257). Asian criminology stresses the importance of studying non-Western contexts to discover often ignored or overlooked knowledge and insights (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021, Reference Liu2022a). Southern criminology stresses the divide in knowledge production between the Global North and South, which also reflects a geographical divide and global economic inequalities between the North and South (Reuveny and Thompson Reference Reuveny and Thompson2008). Some affluent metropolitan States are referred to as the Global North or developed countries, and the rest of the world is called the Global South or developing countries (Carrington, Hogg, and Sozzo Reference Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo2016). Accordingly, there is “a staggering amount of inequality in the geography of the production of academic knowledge” (Graham, Hale, and Stephens Reference Graham, Hale, Stephens and Corinne2011:14), with the situation that the prestigious and influential centres for organized knowledge production are almost all in the Global North (Connell Reference Connell2017). The dominance of the Global North in the production of knowledge is substantial (Collyer Reference Collyer2018), and as Alatas (Reference Alatas2003:606) has documented “there is a relationship of inequality between the social sciences in the West, on the one hand, and the Third World, on the other”.
Meanwhile, through the process of globalization, Eastern perspectives have naturally been marginalized owing to Western control of the social sciences (Gunaratne Reference Gunaratne2009). Connell (Reference Connell2007:vii) has analysed “how modern social science embeds the viewpoints, perspectives and problems of metropolitan society, while presenting itself as universal knowledge”. As the International Social Science Council (2010:3) observed, “knowledge divides” exist between two units in cases of unequal production and disparities in worldwide visibility. The literature utilized in globalization studies is almost exclusively based on Europe and North America, and “more and more critics are beginning to question this one-way traffic bias” (Sklair Reference Sklair, Chase-Dunn, Salvatore and Baltimore2006:74). Specifically in the field of criminology, the North–South divide is also reflected in the hierarchical stratification in knowledge production and dissemination (Carrington et al. Reference Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo2016, Reference Carrington, Bill Dixon, Rodríguez Goyes, Liu and Zysman2019; Lee and Laidler Reference Lee and Joe Laidler2013; Liu Reference Liu2017a). Both Asian criminology and Southern criminology aim to reconceptualize social sciences and democratize knowledge on a global scale (Connell Reference Connell2007).
In the process of building a bridge between Global North and South, or Western and non-Western areas, Asian criminology has played an active and essential role in the interaction of the North and South over the decades of development and made essential contributions to linking the knowledge of North and South. As Sandra Walklate commented, “Asian criminology … stands at the positive intersection of the north–south and east–west in terms of geography and culture. It is well placed to think differently, both conceptually and methodologically, about the criminological enterprise, and the debates that such different thinking might generate” (Walklate Reference Walklate2016:57). Southern criminologists also pointed out that the South does not have a well-developed criminology discipline, except for Asia “with the establishment of the Asian Criminological Society and its journal” (Carrington et al. Reference Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo2016:3).
This article reviews and explains the main divide in criminology between the Global North and South, as well as the major processes and developments that Asian criminology has contributed to connecting the North to the South. Asian criminology has made increasing achievements in conceptual and theoretical frameworks including theoretical toolboxes of transportation, expansion, and conceptual and theoretical innovation, as well as institution construction such as academic societies, academic publications and educational programmes (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021), linking the Global North and South in a global dialogue.
THE DIVIDE IN CRIMINOLOGY BETWEEN THE WEST AND NON-WEST, OR THE GLOBAL NORTH AND SOUTH
With hegemony and marginalization over non-Western regions, the Western-centric bias in criminology is becoming widely acknowledged (Carrington Reference Carrington, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017; Carrington and Hogg Reference Carrington and Hogg2017; Carrington et al. Reference Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo2016; Dimou Reference Dimou2021; Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu2021, Reference Liu2022b; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019a, Reference Moosavi2019b). There are many dimensions to the criminological split between the Global North and South, or West and non-West, one of which is the uncritical application of criminological theories to non-Western societies by Western criminologists. This is a remarkably hegemonic export, ignoring the fact that the many theories are not perfectly applicable in non-Western societies and contexts. Meanwhile, the assumption of the universality of theories also exacerbates the marginalization of non-Western realities, knowledge and scholarship by the West. In addition, there are other significant divides in criminology, such as the obvious inconsistencies between the scholarship of the West and non-West concerning crime and criminal justice, the objective language gap between these two geographical units, the inadequate institutionalization of non-Western criminology compared with the West, and so on.
The main universal principle in criminology is that crime and social control are social and cultural phenomena, which concurrently explain the stark disparities between societies and cultures (Karstedt Reference Karstedt2001). However, “cultures are not monolithic” (Karstedt Reference Karstedt2001:285). National cultures have remained remarkably consistent over time (Hofstede Reference Hofstede2001; Sivakumar and Nakata Reference Sivakumar and Nakata2001). Thus cultural variation and differences are relatively persistent and stable across different regions, affecting people’s behaviours (Cronk Reference Cronk2017). Cultural and social contexts profoundly interact with crime and criminal justice, and different cultural factors and dimensions influence proceedings, adjudication and punishments (Härter Reference Härter2017). For example, Confucianism was a major tradition in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Singapore, where Confucianism continues to have a significant impact on the legal philosophy and law nowadays (Liu Reference Liu2009). John Braithwaite (Reference Braithwaite2002:20) regarded Confucius as the most influential philosopher of restorative justice. The Confucian ideas call for “benevolence” (Ren), “propriety” (Li), “moral integrity” (De), “heavenly justice” (Tian Li), “harmony” (He), “moral education dominates the administration of law” (De Zhu Xing Fu) and “no lawsuit” (Wu song). Confucius was the first to propose and systematically demonstrate thinking of non-lawsuit solutions. Harmony, the aim of Confucianism, necessitates a reduction in adversarial litigation, which is also the aim of restorative justice (Lee Reference Lee and van Wormer2008). In the Chinese modern justice system, the adoption of victim–offender mediation has commonly been viewed as a move toward “restoring the age-old Confucian ethics of societal balance and harmony” (Weatherley and Pittam Reference Weatherley and Pittam2015:279). In Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Islamic culture has an essential effect on the legal system (Farrar Reference Farrar2007). In the Global South, restorative justice ideas and practices have their roots in various indigenous and pre-modern forms of justice (Richards Reference Richards2009).
The enormous variations of culture, tradition and society across Western and non-Western regions might prompt possible disparities in the theoretical concerns between Western and non-Western criminologists. Certain types of crime, violent victimization and racial discrimination are of greater concern in Western than in Asian contexts (Agnew Reference Agnew2015). However, non-Western criminologists might draw greater emphasis on rural crime than Western scholarship (Donnermeyer Reference Donnermeyer2017). Compared with Western criminologists, Southern criminologists may be more willing to consider the importance of religion in relation to crime, because spirituality and the supernatural have strong importance in non-Western societies (Cross Reference Cross, Carrington, Hogg, Scott and Sozzo2018; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019b). In addition, regarding social control models, “cultivated by different civilizations”, Asian societies have offered distinctive and indispensable evidence that helped to comprehend and improve the social control models developed from Western societies, such as the transformation of Situational Action Theory and Institutional Anomie Theory (Messner Reference Messner2015; Zhong and Zhang Reference Zhong, Yunran Zhang and Henry2021).
Granted as “[o]ne of the first to recognize criminology’s Western-centrism” (Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019a:231), Cohen (Reference Cohen1998) criticized the way in which Western criminology was naively applied to non-Western contexts. Agozino (Reference Agozino2004) has also argued that Global North academics uncritically exported their theories to the Global South. Western criminologists often assert that their theories can be applied universally with the ethnocentrism of their discipline and neglect non-Western knowledge and experiences (Connell Reference Connell2006, Reference Connell2007; Dimou Reference Dimou2021; Liu Reference Liu2021; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019b). This “distorted” form of universality omits the realities as well as theories in non-Western regions, frequently disregards the experience of the majority of humanity, those living outside Europe and North America (Keim Reference Keim2010), and ignores significant results reported in non-English publications (Faraldo-Cabana Reference Faraldo-Cabana, Carrington, Hogg, Scott and Sozzo2018). However, different countries have differing crime patterns, judicial rules and customs, and hence dominant theories frequently do not work well in non-Western nations (Liu Reference Liu2023). Many mainstream criminological theories, while having been fully supported in Western regions in some research, might remain unsupported, or at best only partially supported, when put to scrutiny in non-Western contexts, as shown in several studies (Antonaccio and Botchkovar Reference Antonaccio, Botchkovar and Alex2015; Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b; Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Pai and Jahirul Islam2018).
Additionally, research in Western comparative criminology mainly emphasizes comparison between Western social contexts, resulting in the neglect of Southern or non-Western criminology (Aas Reference Aas2012; Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu2021). Liu (Reference Liu2007) observed that the samples utilized in comparative criminological research has tended to include very few non-Western countries, which is a recurring issue. For example, LaFree (Reference LaFree2021) found that highly industrialized Western nations had significant overrepresentation in cross-national comparative criminological research. However, by examining criminological theories in different national or cultural contexts, scholarly comparative research can effectively test the generalizability of theories (Bennett Reference Bennett2009), revealing the extent to which unique socio-historical forces explain patterns of crime and fit in with certain criminological theories or not (Schaible Reference Schaible2012).
Criminology is still essentially a “Northern” field, despite the growing awareness of the pervasive North–South divide in knowledge production (Lee and Laidler Reference Lee and Joe Laidler2013). As many academics have noted and analysed, an objective language barrier is an important factor causing the worldwide knowledge divide between the North and the South (Carrington Reference Carrington, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017; Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021; Moosavi Reference Moosavi2019a, Reference Moosavi2019b). English is presented as a global language in academic research and scholarship, serving as the lingua franca in academia (Mazenod Reference Mazenod2018; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Sacha Darke, Newbold and Earle2014), and “the quasi-hegemony of English in scientific publications is now a fait accompli” (Gentil and Séror Reference Gentil and Séror2014:18). English publications and bibliographical databases predominate and influence the hierarchy of research agendas, with a close link between the linguistic barrier and the regional divide in the world (International Social Science Council 2010). In the discipline of criminology, English is also considered as the common language (Suzuki et al. Reference Suzuki, Pai and Jahirul Islam2018), despite the fact that “the majority of the world’s scholars do not possess English as their first language” (Flowerdew Reference Flowerdew2008:77). On the one hand, non-English research theories, practices and products may be ignored, although such research may enhance data integrity and reduce knowledge gaps (Angulo et al. Reference Angulo, Christophe Diagne, Tasnime Adamjy, Ahmed, Banerjee, César Capinha and Dobigny2021). On the other hand, in the education programmes of countries of the Global South, “poor access to scholarly resources in English is a problem that exacerbates the knowledge gap between the two worlds” (Ceccato Reference Ceccato2022:5). Though the translation engine becomes increasingly available for academic purposes in academia, some research found that when translating academic texts between English and other languages, translation engines such as Google Translate is not yet sophisticated enough to provide appropriate target text with “a polished or professional standard of language” (Groves and Mundt Reference Groves and Mundt2015; Van Rensburg, Snyman, and Lotz Reference Van Rensburg, Snyman and Lotz2012). Thus, though the language barrier might be less of a problem in the future, it has been a kind of division between the Global North and the South in criminology (Medina Reference Medina, Cindy, Zhang and Barberet2011).
Moreover, the institutionalization of criminology has greatly promoted the rapid growth of Northern criminology (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu2021). The Western criminological paradigm, primarily developed in Europe and the USA, has made criminology a fruitful and thriving discipline by establishing various academic institutions, producing many influential English publications, creating and disseminating theories, methods and concepts, and developing educational programmes, etc. (Liu Reference Liu2021). The International Society of Criminology, the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in the USA, the European Society of Criminology, and other academic associations, all provide important global platforms for criminologists to exchange and share ideas. In contrast, the lack of systematic institutionalization in the non-West is detrimental to both the integrated development of non-Western criminology and the visibility of non-Western criminologists on the international stage. John Braithwaite (Reference Braithwaite, Carrington, Hogg, Scott and Sozzo2018) commented that while Southern scholars applied or tested Northern theories in Southern societies, and tweaked theories from the metropoles into Southern relevance, Southern theorists who develop Southern theory via inductive reflection on Southern experience are largely neglected in this North–South complex. Systematic institutionalization of criminology will be beneficial to both the self-development of non-Western criminology and enhance international exchanges in global criminology.
This Western-centrism has generated multiple problems and will be the major flaw in the future growth of criminology (Carrington et al. Reference Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo2016; Liu Reference Liu2021). Criminologists “have long approached the South through a northern gaze” (Hogg, Scott, and Sozzo Reference Hogg, Scott and Sozzo2017:6), although “globalization affords us the opportunity to do cross-cultural testing and development of criminological theory” (Adler Reference Adler1996:5). So, how can various barriers reported in international academia be broken through? And how can a role be played in the process of globalization with realities, knowledge and experiences in non-Western societies, which are great difficulties and challenges for non-Western criminologists? Southern criminology and Asian criminology are both dedicated to decolonizing criminology and rectifying this bias. Under the framework of the Asian criminological paradigm, Asian criminology establishes a unique Asian discourse.
Liu (Reference Liu2009) was aware that criminology in Asia progressed slowly in comparison to the rapid development of criminology in the Global North. In the pioneering article “Asian Criminology – Challenges, Opportunities, and Directions”, which was considered an “inspirational article” by Belknap (Reference Belknap2016:250), Liu traced the development of criminology in Asia, and found criminology had yet to evolve into a mature field with “consensus in its paradigm and institutionalization” (Liu Reference Liu2009:3). With decades of development within the framework of the Asian criminological paradigm, Asian criminology has made great progress in theoretical development strategies and institutionalization, playing an important role in linking the Global North and South.
THEORETICAL STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE WEST AND ASIA
To bridge the divide between the West or Global North and the non-West or Global South, Asian criminology has developed its own theoretical toolbox to accomplish this objective. For years, criminological theories were evaluated on the basis of Western data (Antonaccio and Botchkovar Reference Antonaccio, Botchkovar and Alex2015). However, with the expansion of criminology in Asia, the data of Asian criminological publications indicate a substantial increase (Belknap Reference Belknap2016), and the empirical literature on criminological ideas grew in volume (Suzuki et al. Reference Suzuki, Pai and Jahirul Islam2018). Asian scholars have established the “Asian criminological paradigm” and “relational justice theory” (Liu Reference Liu2014, Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b), and systematically developed the linkage between Western and Asian knowledge with three theoretical strategies (Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021). These strategies represent three stages of paradigm development: (1) relatively straightforward theory transportation and testing of theories; (2) more sophisticated elaboration and transformation of theories; and (3) ultimately, conceptual innovations (Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021), aiming at developing knowledge that is valuable to both Asia and the North.
The first strategy, transportation, means empirically testing the Northern concepts and theories within the diverse Asian contexts, assessing the strengths and limitations of the theories (Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021, Reference Liu2022a). A considerable number of criminological theories have been tested in Asian contexts, especially through empirical research methods. As many of the aforementioned scholars have already criticized, Western-centric criminologists uncritically assume that Western criminological theories are applicable worldwide, which is contradicted by the results of the empirical tests of the theories. In general, the outcomes of the criminological theory testing may present three scenarios according to the extent of application: full applicability, partial applicability, and non-applicability. Numerous studies have demonstrated that crucial theories that have undergone thorough examination with great success in the West may not always perform perfectly in the Asian context.
For example, the General Strain Theory (GST) has grown to be one of the most popular theoretical explanations of criminal behaviour during the past two decades (Agnew and Brezina Reference Agnew, Brezina, Marvin and Hendrix2019; Antonaccio and Botchkovar Reference Antonaccio, Botchkovar and Alex2015). The application of GST has shown diverse outcomes in non-Western contexts. Except for the research results of full applicability (Chen Reference Chen2021; Chen and Cheung Reference Chen and Cheung2020; Choi Reference Choi2019; Lin Reference Lin2012; Oh and Connolly Reference Oh and Connolly2019), GST found only partial support in several studies (Agnew Reference Agnew2015; Gao and Wong Reference Gao and Wong2018; Jang and Song Reference Jang and Song2015; Lin and Mieczkowski Reference Lin and Mieczkowski2011), or found no support in non-Western regions (Ngai and Cheung Reference Ngai and Cheung2005). There are multiple other theories that are not fully supported or are associated with more complex results in Asia, such as the Self-Control Theory (Cheung and Cheung Reference Cheung and Cheung2008; Jiang, Chen, and Zhuo Reference Jiang, Chen and Zhuo2020), Routine Activity Theory (Chen and Zhong Reference Chen and Zhong2021; Xu Reference Xu2009), Social Learning Theory (Kim, Kwak, and Yun Reference Kim, Kwak and Yun2010; Kobayashi, Farrington, and Buchanan Reference Kobayashi, Farrington and Buchanan2019), Social Control Theory (Bao, Haas, and Tao Reference Bao, Haas and Tao2017; Chui and Chan Reference Chui and Choon Oliver Chan2012; Kobayashi and Fukushima Reference Kobayashi and Fukushima2012), Social Capital Theory (Han Reference Han2021; Zhuo Reference Zhuo2012), Social Disorganization Theory (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Messner and Liu2007), and so on.
Faced with objective situations where these theories cannot be applied well, the second strategy, elaboration, was proposed. Elaboration means modifying the Northern concepts and theories for application in non-Western societies, considering enormous cultural variation and the differences in social systems between the North and Asia (Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021, Reference Liu2022a). Compared to transportation, the elaboration process is far more complex (Liu Reference Liu2017a), requiring more theoretical relevance to the social realities of non-Western societies. The numerous pieces of evidence from cross-cultural psychological and criminological research in non-Western societies call into serious doubt the viability of merely transferring viewpoints from the West to the East (Messner Reference Messner2015). Several significant criminological theories have been transformed or re-worked to fit within the specific social and cultural contexts in Asia, such as Routine Activity Theory, Self-Control Theory, Situational Action Theory, and Institutional Anomie Theory (Messner Reference Messner2014, Reference Messner2015).
The third strategy is putting forward new concepts and theories originating from empirical studies within Asian contexts. While more and more research has come to focus on the testing and elaboration of Western criminological theories, there is an impression that non-Western or Southern regions “serve simply as the providers of empirical data for analysis” (Tauri Reference Tauri, Carrington, Matthew Ball, O’Brien and Tauri2013:220). In contrast with this, Braithwaite (Reference Braithwaite2015), for instance, advanced conceptual innovations in restorative justice based on Asian contexts. He used five cases of radical diversity concerning reconciliation in Asia, proposed substantial innovative conceptual advancements for restorative justice, and provided insights for better explaining why most Asian societies have been more successful in preventing crime than Western societies (Braithwaite Reference Braithwaite2015).
THEORIES PROPOSED TO CONNECT WESTERN OBSERVATIONS WITH ASIAN OBSERVATIONS
Due to the significant contrasts between the Western and Asian contexts, some influential theories cannot be implemented in Asian contexts even after the elaboration stage (Liu Reference Liu2014, Reference Liu2021). In terms of criminology, a critical challenge is to resolve the tension between the presumed universality of theories and the cultural variations frequently observed across societies and countries (Liu Reference Liu2023). As Braithwaite (Reference Braithwaite2015:184) enthusiastically appealed:
It is the right time in the development of criminology in Asia to move away from an international division of scholarly labor whereby influential theories are developed in the west, while Asia’s role is to apply or test those theories in Asian contexts or adapt them to Asian realities. It is time for a new era of criminological theory that was given birth in Asia by Asian scholars.
Asian criminologists have proposed theories that link Western observations with Asian observations, which can be understood as a response to this critical challenge (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2022a). For example, the Asian paradigm states that there is a significant difference between the Western and Asian concepts of justice, due to the differences in social organization and cultural traditions (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu2021, Reference Liu2022a). Liu (Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu2022b) proposed the “the context-focused approach”, which emphasizes the significance of the distinctive characteristics of non-Western contexts, and concentrates on uncovering ignored or missed ideas existing within these contexts to expand internationalized knowledge. Asian societies tend to prefer to consider the concepts of crime and justice as relational concepts and the North tends to prefer to consider the concepts of crime and justice as individualistic concepts, these conceptual differences producing important differences in the criminal justice systems and behaviour. The Asian paradigm adds concepts that are more visible in Asia to existing Western observations (Liu Reference Liu2016, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b), and links Western and Asian concepts to provide a more integrated explanation of the differences between the North and Asia, bridging global gaps in criminological knowledge production.
THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CRIMINOLOGY IN ASIA
Asian criminology links the North and South in the academic institutionalization of criminology in Asia. Academic institutions represent the establishment of an academic discipline. The institutionalization of Western criminology played a significant role in helping Western criminology to develop towards being a more unified concept (Liu Reference Liu2009, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b, Reference Liu2021). This included the establishment of academic societies and scholarly communities, academic journals and influential publications platforms, and academic teaching programmes and departments. Systematic institutional establishment of criminology originated in the West; there was little institutionalization in the South, including Asia. Asian criminology is among the earlier efforts to establish academic institutions in the non-Western/Southern region (Liu Reference Liu2009).
Academic Societies
As the past President of the American Society of Criminology, Joanne Belknap (Reference Belknap2016) has commented that Asian criminology has expanded quickly, especially since the Asian Criminological Society (ACS) was founded in 2009. On 17–20 December 2009, about 50 criminologists from 14 different countries and regions gathered at the University of Macau to establish the ACS, and held its first annual conference. Since then, criminologists from all over the world who are interested in crime and justice in Asia have come together to share their knowledge and insights at the ACS’s annual conferences (Liu Reference Liu2022a). After the Macau inaugural conference, annual conferences were held in Chennai (2010), Taipei (2011), Seoul (2012), Mumbai (2013), Osaka (2014), Hong Kong (2015), Beijing (2016), Cairns (2017), Penang (2018), Cebu (2019), Kyoto (2021) and Gujarat (2022). The coming 14th ACS conference will be held in Columbo, Sri Lanka, in October 2023; the 15th conference is scheduled to be held in Manila, Philippines, and the 16th conference in Brisbane, Australia.
The Asian paradigm’s infrastructure is built through institutionalization. There had been sporadic cooperation between Asian scholars in different nations before the founding of the ACS (Liu Reference Liu2009), which provided a significant forum for academic exchange (Liu Reference Liu2017a, Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b). The annual conferences have grown to be significant occasions for academics, and justice and legal specialists in Asia. For example, the conference in Osaka, Japan attracted 575 participants. Her Royal Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol (J.S.D.) of Thailand made a speech at the conference in Seoul, Korea.
In addition, the ACS is also a nexus of criminology between North and South. The Society has held annual international conferences in both English and local languages, regularly attended by scholars from the North and Asia exchanging information and ideas, setting up cooperative research projects, and disseminating discoveries from Asian countries, making the conferences important international platforms for academic exchange. Themes and papers at ACS conferences consistently convey novel information regarding crime and justice in Asia while also considering their wider implications to enhance general understanding (Liu Reference Liu2023). Many criminologists from the North, such as Robert Agnew, Steven F. Messner, Sandra Walklate, and others, participated in the conferences and presented their views on Asian or Southern issues, extending their research horizons to non-Western perspectives, thus increasing the exchange between North and South.
There are growing numbers of national criminological societies in Asia, some of which were established with the support of the ACS. For instance, the Sri Lanka Society of Criminology was newly formed in 2015, and Jeeva Niriella was elected as the President of the Society. In 2022, she was elected Vice President of the ACS. Leaders and members of the ACS are also closely related to members of regional criminological associations in Asia. Outside Asia, the ACS also has established collaborative relationships with Northern criminological societies, such as the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and with the International Society of Criminology, and received support from them.
Academic Publications
Publications make scientific knowledge accessible to the public, allow other academic audiences to assess the research (Kaur Reference Kaur2013), and are the cornerstone of scholarly communication and academic exposure. Influential academic publications provide favourable support for institutionalization. Medina (Reference Medina, Cindy, Zhang and Barberet2011) proposed that Western publications have tended to focus on Western scope and contributions, with a publication bias against those from non-Western regions. Specific to the publication bias in criminology, Setsuo Miyazawa (Reference Miyazawa2016) examined the reception of Asian research in mainstream Western criminology journals. By analysing articles published in Criminology, the British Journal of Criminology and the European Journal of Criminology, he found that the leading journals and influential theorists undervalue Asia and show little enthusiasm for Asian regions except China (Liu, Travers, and Chang Reference Liu, Travers, Chang, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017a). In order to bring crime and criminal justice in Asian contexts to global attention, Asian criminologists have to dedicate themselves to establishing high-quality and influential academic products.
It has long been recognized that journal articles are essential for scholarly communication (Nicholas et al. Reference Nicholas, Anthony Watkinson, Blanca Rodríguez-Bravo, Abrizah, Świgoń and Herman2017; Wakeling et al. Reference Wakeling, Valerie Spezi, Creaser, Pinfield and Willett2019). However, before 2006 most Asian criminological research was published in local journals in different Asian languages, which was a major obstacle to the development of criminology (Liu Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b). In order to advance criminology and criminal justice research in Asia, Liu founded the Asian Journal of Criminology in 2006 in partnership with Broadhurst (Broadhurst Reference Broadhurst2006). As the official journal of the ACS, it is a key platform to share academic issues about Asia, with English as the common language. The journal publishes articles that always concentrate on Asian contexts or make comparisons between Asia and other continents using a variety of techniques, including quantitative, qualitative, historical and comparative methods. As the first Asian criminological academic journal included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), the Asian Journal of Criminology was selected into the SSCI in 2018, and has been included in the list since then. The journal also performs well on the other journal evaluation system SJR (SCImago Journal Rank), ranking in the top quartile in both 2020 and 2021.
Besides the journal, there are also innovative books concentrating on Asian criminology and criminal justice. In 2013, Springer released the Handbook of Asian Criminology, with the aim of enhancing the relevance of research about Asia (Liu, Hebenton, and Jou Reference Hebenton and Jou2013:5). Additionally, there is a significant series with a focus on criminology and criminal justice in Asian contexts, named the “Springer Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research”. The series has published nine books from 2018 onwards, introducing innovative concepts, theories and policies originating in Asian societies to Western scholars. This series mainly focuses on China (Ghazi-Tehrani and Pontell Reference Ghazi-Tehrani and Pontell2022; Ma Reference Ma2022; Shen Reference Shen2018; Yuan Reference Yuan2017), India (Krishnaswamy et al. Reference Krishnaswamy, Sane, Shah and Aithala2022; Rajput Reference Rajput2020; Thilagaraj and Liu Reference Thilagaraj and Liu2017) and Japan (Liu and Miyazawa Reference Liu and Miyazawa2017), with the broad themes of crime, victimization, criminal justice and restorative justice. The series also focuses on comparative criminology in Asia, presents research from both Western and Asian perspectives, contrasts theoretical issues in both quantitative and qualitative methods, and discusses criminological topics related to theories and other important issues (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017b).
Since 2015, Palgrave Macmillan has successively published 21 books in the book series “Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia”. The regional contexts of the books in this series involve the whole of Asia (van Zyl Smit et al., Reference Van Zyl Smit, Appleton and Vucong2022), East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Specifically, the regions in East Asia focused on include mainland China (Bao Reference Bao2018; Chen Reference Chen2018; Shen Reference Shen2014, Reference Shen2017), Japan (Bui and Farrington Reference Bui and Farrington2019; Johnson Reference Johnson2020, Reference Johnson2023; Watson Reference Watson2016), South Korea (Bax Reference Bax2017), Taiwan (Berti Reference Berti2016) and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) (Chan and Ho Reference Chan and Ka-Ki Ho2017; Fun Reference Fun2015; Wong Reference Wong2016, Reference Wong2019). India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have also been studied among regions in South Asia (Atkinson-Sheppard Reference Atkinson-Sheppard2019; Parackal and Panicker Reference Parackal and Panicker2019; Roy Reference Roy2017; Shahidullah Reference Shahidullah2017). In Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Quraishi Reference Quraishi2020), Vietnam and Laos (Luong Reference Luong2019) have attracted criminologists to conduct research.
Educational Programmes
In addition, criminological academic educational programmes are also one of the pillars of institutionalization of Asian criminology. As has been observed, several Asian countries have devoted significant resources to research institutions focused on crime and criminal justice, such as China, Japan and South Korea, offering educational programmes studying crime and criminal justice in law schools (Liu Reference Liu2009). In 2013, Maggy Lee and Karen Joe Laidler found that there were special criminology departments based in Taiwan, India and the Philippines, and many criminologists conduct research in South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan and Pakistan, though affiliated to faculties of law and social sciences (Lee and Laidler Reference Lee and Joe Laidler2013). Liu (Reference Liu2022a) found that criminological academic educational programmes have grown rapidly in Asian countries in all parts of Asia namely East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, West Asia and Central Asia.
Except for the great increase in popularity, the criminological academic educational programmes also contribute to a great improvement in the level of discipline construction. For instance, in the Philippines, there is the special criminological educational institution, the Philippine College of Criminology, providing courses related to crime, criminals and victims. Also, in terms of subject acceptance, the need for criminology disciplines in the Philippines has been recognized as significant by the government. In the Philippines, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) requires individuals who wish to pursue career development in criminology to successfully pass the Criminologists Licensure Examinations (CLE) (Habiatan Reference Habiatan2019). Over 28,000 people have passed the CLE, becoming licensed criminologists (Albina et al. Reference Albina, Balasabas, Ben John, Laquinon, Pampilo and Caballero2022), representing a large number of criminology talents for the Philippines from 2015 to 2019.
In general, these institutionalization processes have effectively linked the Global North to Asia. In terms of Asian criminological research, capacity building was and is “proceeding apace”, especially evidenced by the foundation of the Asian Journal of Criminology in 2006 by Springer Nature, and the formal establishment of the ACS in 2009 (Hebenton and Jou Reference Hebenton and Jou2013:171). Academic institutionalization of criminology in Asia has committed to constructing an international communication platform for criminology, which not only allows non-Western scholars to interact with each other, but also attracts Northern criminologists to participate in discussions on South-relevant topics. For example, Belknap (Reference Belknap2016) documented the expansion of Asian criminology and advancement of research and crime control practices by analysing articles published on the ISI Web of Science as well as in the Asian Journal of Criminology. The study proved the rapid progress of Asian criminology and underlined the advancements in criminological theory, the expansion in methodology and analytical framing, and innovative responses to crime.
CONCLUSION
Over the past decades, academia has grown aware of the realities and harms of Western-centrism in criminology, resulting in the emergence of various strands within criminology (Dimou Reference Dimou2021). Both Southern criminology and Asian criminology are dedicated to decolonizing the discipline from Western-centrism. This article has reviewed and summarized the main gaps in criminology between the Global North and South with the current state of Western-centrism, and how Asian criminology has become an important branch of criminology in its rapid development over the decades, playing an important role in bridging the global divide. Past President of the American Society of Criminology, Joanne Belknap commented that “it is such a global loss for criminologists, practitioners, and others to miss this scholarship … Western/Global North criminology has a lot to learn from Asian criminology” (Belknap Reference Belknap2016:262).
Through institutionalization, the theoretical toolboxes of transportation, expansion, and conceptual and theoretical innovation, Asian criminologists link Global North to South via Asia, creating a bridge for global knowledge. There is a vast potential for Asian criminology to challenge Western-centric epistemologies and develop original theories without having to acknowledge the universalizing discourses of Western-centric knowledge (Carrington Reference Carrington, Liu, Travers and Lennon2017). Despite a great deal of notable developments, Asian criminology is still actively exploring broader developments. Asia is multi-ethnic, multi-national and multi-textual, and rich in cultural and social differences, which presents both challenges and opportunities for the study of Asian criminology. While developing traditional criminology, Asian criminologists are constantly exploring new fields in criminology, such as interdisciplinary criminology, digital criminology, and so on. Therefore, in addition to bridging the global gap in criminology, Asian criminology is also actively seeking the leading development of criminology in the future.
Jie Zhang is on the Board of Directors of the Lingnan Institute of Social Policy in Zhuhai, China. She is an elected board member of the Macau Society of Criminology, and also serves as Secretary of the Asian Criminological Society. She is currently working on her PhD in the Faculty of Law, University of Macau. Her research interests include criminological theory, victimization, comparative study of crime, and criminal justice in China and Macau, and empirical studies of criminal law.
Jianhong Liu is a distinguished professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Macau. He earned his PhD from the State University of New York at Albany in 1993. His primary research interests are crime and justice in Asia, comparative criminology, and criminal justice theory. He is the winner of the 2016 “Freda Adler Distinguished Scholar Award” of the American Society of Criminology, Division of International Criminology, and the winner of the 2018 “Gerhard O. W. Mueller Award for Distinguished Contributions to International Criminal Justice”, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences International Section. He is the Founding and Honorary President of the Asian Criminological Society and elected President of the Scientific Commission of the International Society of Criminology. He is the Editor in Chief of the Asian Journal of Criminology, and Editor of the Springer Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research. He has published more than 190 academic publications including 31 books and more than 160 journal articles and book chapters.
Open access
