Criminology, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has built on anthropology (and other social sciences) in its development. This contribution addresses the question which insights in criminology have most been inspired by anthropology. First, it looks into the ‘criminal anthropology’ of Lombroso; then it embarks on an appreciation of the ethnographic research design within criminology (as first adopted by the Chicago School); and, finally, it assesses the link between anthropology, and cultural and global criminology. I conclude that anthropology has been valuable to our discipline on four levels: methodologically (in the importance of the ethnographic research design), theoretically (in its role in the development of symbolic interactionism and structuralism, for example), geographically (in the global scope of anthropological research), and analytically, in its experience with ‘doing ethnography’ in economically, politically and culturally embedded ways.

Multi-national corporations are increasingly facing attention and disapproval by different actors, including authorities, public and (non-) commercial organizations. Digital globalization and especially social media as a low-cost, highly interactive and multidirectional platform shape a unique context for this rising attention. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to top-down approaches and strategies that corporations use to avoid stigmatization and sanctioning of their behaviour. Reactions to corporate harm are, however, seldom researched from a labelling perspective. As a result, corporations are not considered as objects towards whom labelling is targeted but rather as actors who hamper such processes and who, as moral entrepreneurs, influence which behaviour is labelled deviant. Based on theoretical analysis of literature and case studies, this article will discuss how the process of labelling has changed in light of the digitalized, late-modern society and consequently, how the process should be revisited to be applicable for corporate deviance. Given a diversification of moral entrepreneurs and increasingly dependency of labelling and meaning-making on the online sphere, two new forms of labelling are introduced that specifically target institutions; that is bottom-up and horizontal labelling.

Talk, chat, and stories are ubiquitous in ethnographic research. Engaging with the recently burgeoning literature around narrative criminology, this article argues that considerations of stories and storytelling can add much to cultural criminologists’ pursuit of ‘criminological verstehen’ (Ferrell, 1997). In doing so, we focus on one case study: ethnographic research grounded within the USA’s contemporary ‘doomsday’ prepping subculture. The article considers the value of attending to narrative during the pursuit of verstehen at two levels. First, we address the importance of storytelling upon entry to the ethnographic field – drawing attention to how the narratives researchers share, and their respect for certain stories, can facilitate deep and experiential access to stigmatized fields of activity (such as prepping). Second, we explore how narrative remains in play during immediate experiences. In particular, we argue that fleeting excitements featured in prepping lifestyles are often shaped by the significance of the ‘moments’ in which they occur to numerous personal narratives. We therefore contend that, for ethnographers interested in verstehen, a consideration of narrative offers a means to expand and deepen empathetic appreciation of participants’ worldviews and activities.

In the introductory article of this special issue on ‘moral entrepreneurs’ in the 21st century, we situate different notions of moral entrepreneurship. Particularly foregrounding Howard Becker’s definition, we discuss its origins and use in subsequent research. The question that we’ve put forward in the ‘call for papers’ for this special issue is to what extent the notion is relevant in contemporary research and who is considered as ‘moral entrepreneur’. The research papers discuss ‘entrepreneurial’ practices of university ethic commissions, medical professionals, police officers and the leaders of cannabis social clubs. We conclude that the underlying rationales and discourses of moral entrepreneurs that the authors identify, reflect contemporary neoliberal ideals.

Cultural Criminology (CC) is one of the most recent and exciting developments in criminological theory. Its main argument is that mainstream criminological theories provide inadequate explanations of crime due to epistemological and theoretical flaws. CC’s alternative involves assuming a phenomenological and interpretative approach that focuses on the cultural and emotional components of crime. In this article I shall argue that although CC makes a valid demand for more realistic and complex explanations of crime, its own alternative needs to deal with two main challenges referred to its conceptualization of explanation and emotion. First, two problematic antagonisms should be avoided: understanding vs. causal explanation; and universal nomothetic explanations as opposed to ideographic descriptions. Considering recent developments in philosophy of social science, particularly the ‘social mechanisms approach’, CC should focus on explaining retrospectively through identification of specific causal mechanisms rejecting universal and predictive pretensions. Second, although cultural criminologists rightly question the emotionless character of criminological explanations, they lack an articulated alternative conceptualization of emotions to explain crime. A more refined concept needs to be elaborated in dialogue with recent advances in social sciences.

This article focuses on mobile organized criminal groups that travel through Europe and commit a broad range of property crimes. The study aims to explore the perspective of individual group members. Information was gathered from fifteen criminal investigations that were carried out in the Netherlands in recent years (2013-2016). The study shows that members of these crime groups view their criminal activities primarily as ‘work’. It is work that is characterized by conflicts and consensus. Conflicts often have to do with the stolen loot and reveal disagreement about leadership, rules and obedience. Rows and threats of violence go along with feelings of fear and distrust. At the same time gang members belong to an international deviant community with a shared common way of life and feelings of togetherness. Performing within this international community gives the possibility to attain social status and to express success and richness. These contractive emotions and symbolic meanings characterize the everyday life of gang members and motivates their daily practices.

This article deals with three questions. What did resistance mean in the 1970s and what does it mean today? Have the rituals of resistance changed over time? What is the status today of moral panic theory? These questions directly refer to ‘Resistance Through Rituals’ (1976) and ‘Policing the Crisis’ (1978). For that reason, one of the authors answers these key questions in a contemporary framework of hegemony, security and neoliberal politics, and points to the continuing relevance of the political and critical tradition of British cultural studies.

In biographies a structure perspective is common to place the key person in a context of time and place. Apart from opportunities and obstacles, also cultural frames for interpretation vary with context. In this article a second, interaction perspective is added. This can best be applied if the key person cooperates in the research and if an emic approach is used. A recent life history of Jan Hoolwerf demonstrates how the key person comes to various presentations of self that can be understood as poses that fit specific settings.

This article offers an alternative view on litter as a sign of disorder (broken windows theory) by presenting qualitative research from the perspectives of juveniles on littering, and the various meanings they give to this behaviour. About 100 teenagers were observed in a variety of public places, such as parks and squares. A symbolic interactionist interpretation suggests that teenagers do not automatically break norms in a ‘disorderly’ environment as suggested by the broken windows theory, nor is this behaviour related to feelings of safety or lack thereof. Teenagers attach various symbolic meanings to litter and littering behaviour as these relate to their desired public identity. These results challenge the notion that litter is a reliable indicator of the experience of public safety, and calls for greater integration of symbolic interactionism within studies using the broken windows theory.

In this article we want to show how different actors (amongst whom residents, professional safety-functionaries and street youth) view the safety situation in Rotterdam’s problematic neighbourhood ‘the Old West’ in very different ways and start from very different parameters. We conclude that the one-dimensional image of an unsafe neighbourhood that emerges from the city’s official, quantitative measurement instrument, the so-called ‘Safety Index’ (Veiligheidsindex), does not do justice to the diversity of opinions and visions of the different actors in the neighbourhood and is thus unsuited as the political ‘compass’ for local safety policy it was intended for. This diversity comes much better to the surface in the qualitative, ethnographic research on which this article is based. Such research enables us first to better understand safety as a local phenomenon and secondly offers more concrete points of departure for policy.

How can the social environment of a prison be accurately assessed? Why is it important to measure? How should the prison experience be represented in empirical research? How do we capture distinctions between prisons, which can be good or bad in so many different ways? There is considerable consensus about the inadequacy of narrow and selective performance measures, such as hours spent in purposeful activity or serious assaults, in representing prison quality. The difficulties are both methodological and conceptual. This paper will outline one attempt to address these questions in England and Wales. Based on a series of studies aimed at identifying and measuring aspects of prison life that ‘matter most’, prisoners describe stark differences in the moral and emotional climates of prisons serving apparently similar functions. The ‘differences that matter’ are in the domain of interpersonal relationships and treatment. A developmental programme of empirical research on the quality of life in prison suggests that (a) some prisons are more survivable than others and (b) important differences in identifiable aspects of prison quality exist and may be related to outcomes. These findings have implications for our understanding of the meaning of terms like ‘inhuman and degrading’ treatment as well as for our uses and expectations of the prison.