International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 67

International Journal on Criminology
researchers and the ministry of the interior which with the OND, has gained an
intermediary for its questions. ” (Didier, Névamen, Robert, and Zauberman, 2009). We
will find this type of argument as saying in a concealed way that the study would have
been designed by the ministry of the interior thanks to “an agency of the ministry of the
interior” (Miceli, Névamen, Robert, and Zauberman 2009).
We can suggest an interpretation of these participants in public debate on crime
statistics as a reaction of the CESDIP to what they perceive as competition in the field of
victimization studies.
The competition of the ONDRP is presented implicitly as unfair since “the official
ONDRP organizes a ban so that INSEE can only communicate data from the 2010 study
to the research centres only in 2011. ”.
To take value away from this competition, the CESDIP positions itself on a field of
“scientific” legitimacy. This argument is underlined by expressions such as “truly
scientific” (2010) and “ (real) scientists) ” 2012.
As Frederic Ocqueteau remarks, “this warning regarding the work of the ONDRP is
characteristic of a completely Franco French tendency to believe that critical
interpretation of quantified data on criminal phenomena should only be up to ‘scientists’
as if an impossible barrier opposed them to other interpretations which are less legitimate.
This belief is founded on the need for putting a distance between other kinds of experts
and scientists. In particular, given that renowned for being less forced epistemologically
and a lot more listened to by politicians and the media. There was then a lot of tension
between the different representatives of different kinds of expertise with their beliefs
which seem sometimes to be a kind of a lecture to others” (Ocqueteau 2012).
Sent back in this way by the CESDIP outwith the “scientific world”, publications
from the ONDRP on victimization are qualified as “summarising” and their credibility is
strongly contested. Competition felt by the CESDIP is of a very different nature from that
of the first cases studied.
In fact, between the ONDRP and the ministry of the interior, the competition taking
place within official statistics between an initiative which claims it represents public
statistics and institutional communication. The feeling of competition regarding the
production of statistics collected by agents from the ministry of the interior was moreover
mutual. After that when the “official” producers of statistics entered into competition in
public debate, the cacophony involved was subject to regulation within the
administration.
The ONDRP cannot consider in relation to victimization studies, the CESDIP as a
competitor equivalent to what the ministry of the interior can be in terms of statistics on
crime recorded. For this, it is necessary for the CESDIP to produce official statistics
where, even better still, it wants to publish data recognized as coming from “public
statistics. ”.
The existence of those producing statistics which were not official, a condition of
pluralism of the use of statistics in public debate, is not necessary for competing directly
with a producer of official statistics in its specific role, especially if it claims it is
representative of public statistics.
It must be reminded that those producing statistics trying to insert their action in
public statistics is held, according to the code of practice for European statistics:
to rely on the “scientific principles and methods”, and to publish studies “with
respect for scientific independence” (principle 6) It is also invited “when it is possible to
organise”, the co-operation with the scientific community […] in order to improve
methodology, efficiency of methods used and encouraging the development of better
tools. (indicator 7.7).
66!