Methodology as a Knife Fight: The Process, Politics and Paradox of Evaluating Surveillance

This paper uses the analogy of an unregulated fight to examine the rhetorical politics of evaluation research pertaining to surveillance measures. It outlines how, in addition to being standard fare in social scientific debates, methodological issues have a parallel existence as part of the rhetorical politics of surveillance and crime control. After briefly sketching some of the ways that advocates try and accentuate methodological concerns in attempts to undermine the position of their adversary the paper considers how certain groups are comparatively advantaged and disadvantaged in such exchanges. The concluding section takes a larger view of these dynamics to address some of the risks inherent in engaging in this style of discursive politics.