So, I am waiting for a lift in a soulless American hotel during yet another criminology conference. It is 1999, I am certain, but I do not remember where we are. Also waiting is a famous American criminologist and two younger conference-goers whom I assume are his PhD students as they appear to hang on his every word and laugh nervously at his fairly pedestrian jokes. One of the students asks him, “Have you heard of this convict criminology thing?” He hadn’t. “I guess they are ex-prisoners who are now criminologists and writing about prisons,” she says. Sceptically, the professor asks, “So, the argument is, what, that you can't really understand imprisonment unless you’ve been locked up yourself?” He pauses for a moment, contorts his face and looks down at his shoes while he digests this unusual idea for the first time. Then he lifts his eyebrows, holds out his arms, palms up and shrugs, “Well… they’re probably right.” The two students (and I) gasp to ourselves. Really!? Then, the criminologist follows this up, “But, I mean, what are we supposed to do with that? Go out and commit a crime? I think you two best stick to your secondary data analysis.” And, with a sharp exhale of breath, the three of them have another laugh at the professor's wit. Most likely, none of the three of them will give convict criminology another thought.