Jeffrey Ian Ross
  • Blog
  • Publications
    • by Type
      • My Books
      • Articles
      • Chapters
      • Recommended Books
    • by Subject
  • Expert Witness
  • Consulting
  • Speaking
  • Media
  • Bio
    • Vitae
    • Teaching
  • Contact
  • Menu Menu

Blog

Two Sundays In a Row

May 24, 2026/by Jeffrey Ian Ross

On my first visit, I brought my Japanese knives (the short deba and the long yanagiba), packed away in my knife case. Then, standing at the trunk of my car, parked across the street from the restaurant, I decided to leave them in the trunk.

I had been studying and cooking Washoku (traditional Japanese food) for six years. I held a Bronze-level certification from the Japanese government. I had an Instagram site where I posted the Japanese dishes and meals I prepared. I cook Japanese meals at least three times a week, and almost all the others have one dish that is Japanese or Japanese-inspired. And I had just returned from Japan.

But none of that stopped me from standing across the street, second-guessing my cutlery.

I was hoping he might agree to a stage (a short, unpaid stint in his kitchen), over the course of a few days, once a week, or even once a month. And if this worked out, maybe it might lead to a part-time paid position sometime in the future.

Two months earlier, my wife and I had eaten at the counter, and I’d struck up a conversation with the chef. He was rocking a Jiro Dreams of Sushi vibe, already in his seventies. I knew him by the quality of the food he prepared and served. His establishment was known to be the most authentic Japanese restaurant in town, and he had decades in the game.

I told him about my background. He seemed genuinely interested. Before we left, he told me to come by on a Sunday afternoon, and he’d show me some techniques. I thanked him and said I’d be in touch after the trip to Japan.

At the end of May, I called the restaurant. He sounded as if he remembered me, confirmed the invitation, and told me to come the following Sunday in the early afternoon. I hung up feeling excited about the forthcoming meeting.

When I walked in, he looked up and said he had forgotten I was coming.

My first thought wasn’t anger. It was: did I get the day wrong? Did I misinterpret our communications? I replayed the phone conversation in my head. No, I had the right day and time. But for a moment, I doubted myself completely before I understood what had actually happened: I had obsessed about something he had probably not thought about once since we last spoke.

He was unhurried, precise, entirely in his element. He talked about his life the way a man talks when he has nothing left to prove, seven generations of rice farmers in his family, an apprenticeship that began at fifteen, nearly four decades cooking in another big American city before this one. He estimated the day’s rice by feel. His sister, he mentioned, washes rice seven times.

The conversation was interesting enough. But I was also sitting there, increasingly aware that none of it was moving in the direction he promised and I wanted.

At some point, almost as an aside, he told me he doesn’t give instructions. He doesn’t like to tell his workers what to do.  They learn through observation. Knowledge and skill development are acquired in his kitchen indirectly, through watching, proximity, and what he called, with a slight smile, a lot of bullshitting.

Toward the end of our conversation, I asked him directly: could I come in once a week, unpaid, for a few hours, just to observe and learn? He said there were no once-a-week arrangements like that. Maybe one day a week, paid positions, he said. I took that as a hopeful sign.

Before I left, he served me kalbi (flanken-cut beef short ribs), marinated in something I couldn’t quite identify. I asked about the marinade. He said the recipe was complicated. I pressed gently. He declined. I knew variations of the basic recipe were readily available online. I had made it myself a couple of times. Whatever he was protecting, it wasn’t a secret.

I had brought my knives, driven fifteen minutes, and listened to this bullshit for two hours, all for this?

As I was leaving, he said: Come back next Sunday for the staff meal.

Maybe I was misreading the whole thing. Perhaps this was how it worked. Acceptance was slow, indirect, a test of commitment. I decided to give it one more Sunday.

The following Sunday afternoon, I came back. Again, he had forgotten I was coming.

He was at the counter peeling a large, thick daikon, drawing a knife around the outside of it in one long, continuous motion, producing a single unbroken sheet (katsuramuki). It’s a technique that looks impressive to onlookers, but after some minimal practice, I can easily do it myself.

After about forty-five minutes, the staff meal was ready, curry ladled over ramen, served in ten bowls. He picked up a bowl, a glass of water, and a small bowl of miso, and sat alone in a corner near the door. I followed and sat nearby, leaving a space between us that I assumed a worker would fill. Nobody did.

Workers filtered in one by one, took bowls from the counter, ate in silence, and left when they finished. He neither introduced me to anyone nor did any of the workers come up to introduce themselves. Nobody spoke. I found myself wondering whether this was tradition or whether everyone hated his guts.

I showed him some photos from my Japan trip and mentioned the kaiseki meal we’d eaten in Kyoto. He looked at the photos and said that what I ate was not kaiseki. It was for tourists. He said it more than once.

After finishing his meal, he got up, muttered something about getting ready for dinner, and walked into the bathroom.

I sat at the counter for five minutes. What the fuck. No goodbye. I got up and left.

On the drive home, and a handful of times since, I tried to make sense of the interaction. To begin with, I don’t think the chef was intentionally being mean, but other things were happening.

He simultaneously expressed a considerable amount of bitterness towards his workers, other Japanese restaurants, the city he lives in, and venerated Japan with the intensity of someone who feels the place he actually lives has never given him his due. I suspect that he had spent decades feeling undervalued.

Perhaps he was operating according to a system of knowledge and skill transmission that has no mechanism for what I was asking, that in the tradition he came from, knowledge and skills move through years of proximity and hierarchy rather than formal arrangements, and that my certification and years of practice didn’t have any currency that he recognized.

Alternatively, maybe he was adopting the habit of many experts who are dismissive of the work and skills of others. The overall effect was an attempt to minimize my efforts in trying to master Washoku. It reminded me of the countless interactions I’ve had with contractors or tradespersons who throw a previous tradesperson’s work under the bus (a process called trade denigration), but when asked for specifics, provide nothing but mumbo jumbo.

In the end, it didn’t much matter which explanation was closest to the truth. What mattered was recognizing that whatever he knew, he had no interest in passing it on. That was enough.

Since then, I’ve eaten at the restaurant a couple of times. It’s still probably the best Japanese food in town, though I’ve had better in New York City and Los Angeles. On my last visit, I walked past the counter, and we exchanged glances. Nothing registered in his expression.

Three times, he had forgotten me. That said something about him. It also saved me from wasting my time.

https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1034.png 1170 2532 Jeffrey Ian Ross https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.png Jeffrey Ian Ross2026-05-24 03:39:392026-05-25 12:53:43Two Sundays In a Row

What Your Graduate Advisor Never Told You About the Criminology Job Market

May 10, 2026/by Jeffrey Ian Ross

Unlike some other social sciences, criminology and criminal justice consistently produce job openings. But not all positions are created equal, and where you land can affect your career and your mental health in ways your graduate advisor never mentioned. And many young criminologists enter their first position with unrealistic expectations about just about everything. Whether you are still in graduate school or already a few years into a job that isn’t quite what you expected, the same blind spots apply.

Start with the basic pecking order. Community colleges sit at the bottom, R1 universities at the top, with regional teaching institutions somewhere in the middle. Each tier comes with its own culture, expectations, and daily grind.

Community colleges expect lots of face-to-face interaction with students. Creativity in the classroom is limited, students are often indifferent to the subject matter, and your colleagues are more likely to be current or former practitioners than scholars interested in academic research.

At the R1 end, the pressure is on grant-funded research, longitudinal data collection, and the methodologically rigorous but sometimes soul-numbing work that may look great on a vita but reads like advanced calculus.

Regional teaching universities sit in the middle and are genuinely fine, possibly even quite good, depending on what you want from academic life. The catch is that almost all junior faculty there seem to be pining for something better.

And there’s another divide few people mention in graduate school, and that is how much of a “cop shop” criminology and criminal justice departments are. The cop shops (a term that is frequently used dismissively) primarily focus on training future practitioners, police officers, corrections workers, and probation officers. The job ad won’t tell you which one you’re applying to. If you don’t figure this out during your in-person interview, when faculty are typically on their best behavior, you’ll recognize it during your first faculty meeting when someone suggests the department needs more “practical” courses, and one third of the room nods enthusiastically while another third rolls their eyes, and the balance tries to sustain their best poker face.

The fit problem in criminology has a particular shape. The field draws from two very different pipelines: practitioners who tend to gravitate toward teaching and are generally comfortable there, and R1 graduates trained as researchers who take positions at regional universities or community colleges, telling themselves they’ll carve out time for scholarship.

Some colleagues (or administrators) may also expect (or encourage) you to initiate or collaborate on research projects with local criminal justice agencies or to guest lecture at events sponsored by them. If you’re a critical criminologist who studies police violence or mass incarceration, this creates awkward dynamics. You’re supposed to maintain town-gown relationships with institutions you critique in your research. Similarly, it’s difficult to be a scholar who critiques the carceral state while also serving on the committee that selects law enforcement officers for departmental scholarships.

The criminology-specific wrinkle is this: your institution sits next to police departments, courts, correctional facilities, and social service agencies that could generate meaningful research partnerships. But you don’t pursue them because you’re already planning your exit and don’t want to start something you might not finish. So the data goes uncollected, the relationships go unbuilt, and the publications don’t materialize, which makes the exit harder, not easier.

If you’re navigating any of this, Letters to a Young Criminologist was written for you.

Photographer: Changbok Ko

https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/changbok-ko-F8t2VGnI47I-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg 1710 2560 Jeffrey Ian Ross https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.png Jeffrey Ian Ross2026-05-10 12:22:022026-05-10 13:58:04What Your Graduate Advisor Never Told You About the Criminology Job Market

How to Think Like a Criminologist

April 26, 2026/by Jeffrey Ian Ross

There’s a big gap between what the general public thinks criminologists do and what we actually do. Most people assume we work in forensics, consult on detective cases, or spend our days profiling serial killers.

That’s understandable. The media leans hard into that image, and some criminologists do work in forensic-adjacent fields. But I’m an academic criminologist: someone who studies crime, criminals, and criminal justice systems as social phenomena.

The real question is whether that training produces a distinctive way of thinking, and whether it affects how we interpret the world beyond our research.

I think it does in subtle and often difficult-to-detect ways.

We expect measurment to be incomplete

One of the first things criminology teaches you is that official crime statistics are not accurate reflections of reality. They are outputs of a reporting and recording process shaped by incentives, institutions, and omission.

People and organizations don’t report crimes for many reasons: shame, distrust of police, fear of retaliation, or the belief that nothing will be done. Law enforcement agencies do not record everything they encounter. Even when data were collected, it passes through multiple institutional filters before it becomes “official.”

The practical effect is not total skepticism, but caution. It means asking how the data were produced before treating it as gospel. When I see a headline about crime rates dropping, my first instinct is not to accept or reject it. It’s to ask what system generated that number, what it excludes, and how this information is being used and to what end.

That habit generalizes. In other domains, such as health data, economic indicators, and organizational metrics, I tend to ask the same questions.

We resist single-cause explanations

Crime is rarely caused by a single factor. Poverty matters, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Plenty of poor people never commit crimes, and many wealthy people do. Neighborhood conditions matter. But so does individual history, opportunity, peer networks, and the presence or absence of capable guardians. The relationships are layered, conditional, and context-dependent.

When the drunk at the end of the bar confidently blames crime on a single factor, I cringe. Not because the take is unsophisticated, but because monocausal explanations are almost always wrong. Criminological training makes you skeptical of that kind of reasoning wherever you encounter it.

We know that similar-looking things are not always the same

Jails and prisons look alike to most people. They’re not. Jails are locally operated and typically hold people awaiting trial, or those convicted of less serious offenses serving less than a year. Prisons are state or federally run, hold people convicted of more serious crimes, and incarcerate them for a year or more. The distinction matters enormously for policy, research, and the people inside them. Municipal police departments and the FBI both enforce laws, but their missions, cultures, and legal authorities are fundamentally different.

This habit of slowing down to ask whether two apparently similar things are actually comparable proves useful everywhere. Categories that look coherent from the outside are often messier on the inside.

We think about public safety differently

Criminologists tend to be more realistic about risk than the general public. We know that fear of crime and actual crime rates are loosely coupled at best. People are often most afraid of crimes that are least likely to affect them, and relatively unconcerned about those that are statistically more likely. We also know that public safety is produced by many institutions simultaneously: families, schools, communities, economies, and yes, police. Thus, relying on law enforcement to solve what are fundamentally social problems is, from a criminological standpoint, inappropriate.

Preceeding with Caution

None of this makes criminologists better decision-makers in their own lives. We are perfectly capable of making bad choices, holding inconsistent beliefs, and falling for the same cognitive shortcuts as everyone else. Training sharpens certain analytical instincts, but it doesn’t immunize you against being human.

Are you an academic criminologist? Do you find that your training, teaching, scholarship, or service changes how you see things outside your field? I’d be curious to hear what you’d add to this list and how it has affected you.

If these questions interest you, then I encourage you to explore my Letters to a Young Criminologist, a book written for undergraduate and graduate students and early-career academics in this increasingly popular academic field/discipline, and just about anyone trying to navigate a career as a criminologist who wants to learn more about its dynamics.

Painting: “The School of Athens” (1511)

Artist: Raphael

https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2026-04-24-at-11.06.13-PM.png 702 886 Jeffrey Ian Ross https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.png Jeffrey Ian Ross2026-04-26 05:01:032026-04-28 02:34:26How to Think Like a Criminologist
Page 2 of 100‹1234›»

Most Popular Posts

  1. What’s in a name? Ex-convicts, formerly incarcerated or returning citizen?
  2. My beef with Person Centered Language
  3. Exploring how graffiti and street art calls attention to social justice issues
  4. A police union’s endorsement of Trump is not a happy one
  5. Should You Earn a PhD in Criminology/Criminal Justice or an Allied Field?

See all 10 →

Tags

Activism (44)
American Indians / Alaska Natives & First Nations Peoples (3)
Authenticity (24)
Books (20)
Clothing (10)
Colleges & Universities (41)
Convict Criminology (11)
Cooking & Cuisine (16)
Corrections (35)
COVID-19 (21)
Crime (29)
Crimes of the Powerful (60)
Criminal Justice (87)
Criminology (39)
Elections (14)
Expertise & Mastery (110)
Food (21)
Graffiti & Street Art (49)
Inequality (38)
Japanese Cooking & Cuisine (11)
Language (12)
Leaders (15)
Lived Experience (8)
Memories (11)
Movies & Television Series (7)
Music & Musicians (15)
Police/Policing (40)
Political Crime (21)
Political Participation (47)
Power (65)
Prisons (28)
Protest (17)
Public Space (71)
Race & Ethnicity (22)
Scholarly Disciplines (32)
Scholarship (71)
Semiotics (16)
Sound & Noise (5)
Strategy/Strategic Planning (14)
Street Culture (53)
Street Ethnography (8)
Tourism & Vacation (1)
Travel (1)
Travel, Tourism & Vacation (17)
University Pedagogy (41)
Urban Mobility (10)
Urban Public Space (75)
Vacation (20)
Year End Review (6)

X Logo Linkedin Facebook Instagram

© 2026 Jeffrey Ian Ross

Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top