International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 68

Competition Between Those Involved in Public Debate on Crime Statistics The CESDIP, producing statistics positioning themselves outwith official statistics, did not react in public debate regarding contents of productions from the ONDRP, what would have been allowed, in particular, for questioning their appropriateness for principles of the code of good practice of European statistics. It chose to discredit the ONDRP, in theory as it does not belong to the “scientific world” However, such criticism appears off subject regarding producers of official statistics aiming, not as a scientific label, but as “public statistics”. For every researcher, the most relevant means for expressing needs and eventually its grievances regarding public statistics consists of addressing the CNIS, the national council of statistical information. In doing so, it does not position itself in a situation of competition but as a user of statistics distributed by official producers. Thus, on the June 15, 2011, before the commission “Public services and services to the public” of the CNIS 29 , in a short speech, Philippe Robert provided comment which might appear as a first element of interpretation of the reaction of the CESDIP of what it perceived as competition in the field of victimization studies. Philippe Robert criticized the ONDRP without specifically naming it, for having given in to the “temptation of constantly starting afresh, in order to have the satisfaction of showing that they are the experts. ” For the CESDIP, the date at which it is presented into public debate as the first national victimization study is a major issue as it determines the status and the eventual reputation of its team of researchers in this field. The initiative of the annual victimization studies “Cadre de vie et sécurité” starting in 2007, this date seems to enter into competition in public debate with “the initial study in the middle of the 1980s” (Miceli, Névanen, Robert, and Zauberman 2009). Forgetting to remind us that the CESDIP was a first in France in terms of victimization studies “to have the satisfaction of showing that they are the experts. ” only exacerbates “tensions” with the ONDRP. In its opinion, the CNIS a major part of public statistics demonstrates itself as being more positive regarding the study and the ONDRP in general: “the current tools for collection presenting technical weaknesses which limit the capacities of public powers to respond as precisely as possible to these different expectations (in terms of knowledge regarding criminality) despite important progress carried out since the creation of the ONDRP the positive collaboration which is involved between the head of police and gendarmeries and the ONDRO and significant support from the annual “Cadre de vie et sécurité” study.” The CESDIP would undoubtedly have been less sensitive to the attention brought to its study in the 1980s if the development of “Cadre de vie et sécurité” studies led by INSEE and the ONDRP had not provoked a feeling of removal of the pioneer team. In a country like France, the design of an annual national victimization study. This was something which could only be imagined within the public statistics system. From then on, the researchers could not have a role in the process of development as important as statisticians from INSEE in charge of the project, with little experience on the subject of victimization. The project was started by an external request to the ministerial statistics service of the national education board via a recommendation from the board of adviser of the ONDRP renewed several times and insisted upon by its president at the ministry. It could !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29 http://www.cnis.fr/files/content/sites/Cnis/files/Fichiers/commissions/services_publics_services_a ux_publics/2011/compte_rendu/CR_2011_1re_COM_services_publics.PDF 67