Urgent issues and prospects at the intersection of culture,memory, and witness interviews: Exploring the challenges for research and practice

The pursuit of justice increasingly relies on productive interactions between witnesses and investigators from diverse cultural backgrounds during investigative interviews. To date, the role of cultural context has largely been ignored by researchers in the field of investigative interviewing, despite repeated requests from practitioners and policymakers for evidence-based guidance for the conduct of interviews with people from different cultures. Through examining cultural differences in human memory and communication and considering specific contextual challenges for investigative interviewing through the lens of culture, this review and associated commentaries highlight the scope for considering culture and human diversity in research on, and the practice of, investigative interviewing with victims, witnesses, and other sources. Across 11 commentaries, contributors highlight the importance of considering the role of culture in different investigative interviewing practices (e.g., rapport building, questioning techniques) and contexts (e.g., gender-based violence, asylum seeking, child abuse), address common areas of cultural mismatch between interviewer–interviewee expectations, and identify critical future routes for research. We call for an increased focus in the investigative interviewing literature on the nature and needs of our global community and encourage constructive and collaborative discussion between researchers and practitioners from around the world to better identify specific challenges and work together towards evidence-based solutions.     

Carriers of the Creed: Examining Democrats’ Commitment to Egalitarianism as Principle and Policy

Political Behavior - The Democratic Party is a coalition of interests sharing a common desire to use government to ameliorate societal inequities. Research shows that the party’s programmatic...     

Der Biotopverbund nach § 3 BNatSchG

Mit § 3 Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (BNatSchG) wurde im Jahr 2002 auf Bundesebene eine Bestimmung zum „Biotopverbund“ eingeführt. Im folgenden Beitrag werden der Schutzgegenstand der Vorschrift, inhaltliche überschneidungen mit sonstigen verbundbezogenen Vorschriften im BNatSchG und die von den L?ndern zu ergreifenden Umsetzungsma?nahmen erl?utert. Untersucht wird au?erdem das begrenzte Steuerungspotential des § 3 BNatSchG. Abschlie?end wird ein überblick über bisherige Anpassungen des Landesnaturschutzrechts gegeben.     

China and UN environmental policy: institutional growth,learning and implementation

The focus of this article is on whether, and to what extent, the major UN bodies for environmental issues—the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD), and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)—have had any impact upon how China addresses and approaches its environmental issues. The UN bodies seem to have had some degree of day-to-day influence in a range of fields. UNEP has provided assistance in terms of policy formulation, technical assistance, training of personnel, public awareness and networking. The CSD seems to have made fewer practical and concrete contributions to China’s environmental policies; it serves as an arena for learning and discussion of environmental issues, rather than as a body for policy implementation. The GEF, on the other hand, has been an important source for the implementation of environmental policies in China. As to China’s contribution to environmental issues on the global arena, China does not seem to give priority to the international level of environmental policies. It is an active participant and stakeholder in international bodies such as UNEP and the CSD, but it is currently not providing any leadership. This is in clear contrast to domestic policy, where environmental issues are becoming increasingly important, attracting the attention of the media, policy-makers and the public. The article concludes that should this trend consolidate, establishing the management of the environment and natural resources as major issues in Chinese politics, it is reasonable to expect that China will in the future aim to play a leading role in environmental politics at the international level.     

Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals Between 1990 and 2015 and Comparisons with the Asian Journal of Criminology

The main aim of this article is to assess the most-cited scholars in 20 criminology and criminal justice journals in 2015 and to compare them with the most-cited scholars in these journals in 1990–2010 and with the most-cited scholars in the Asian Journal of Criminology (AJC) in 2015. Five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals have been studied since 1990. The most-cited scholars tended to be those who carried out research on developmental and life-course criminology. Most of these highly cited scholars were also highly cited in previous years, showing the persistence of scholarly influence. Generally, the most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice journals overlapped considerably, as did the most-cited scholars in American and international journals. Also, the most-cited scholars in AJC in 2015 overlapped considerably with the most-cited scholars in these other categories of journals. We conclude that there is considerable agreement in American, Asian, and international criminology and criminal justice on the most-cited, and therefore most influential, scholars.