 |
Doing criminological surveys online
|
|
|
|
Doing criminological surveys online
While interviews are well suited to collecting qualitative data, social researchers gen- erally favour the use of survey questionnaires when seeking to amass large bodies of data that can be used as the raw material for quantitative analysis. Criminologists make frequent use of such surveys when researching topics such as: patterns of criminal victimization (as with the Crime Survey for England & Wales, formerly the British Crime Survey); self-report studies of offending (Thornberry and Krohn, 2000); and fear and anxiety about crime (Hale, 1996). Survey techniques are readily adaptable for online use, and take two main forms – the email survey and the web survey. As the name suggests, email surveys are distributed to respondents via mail (either included in the body of the email itself or included as an attachment) and returned to the researcher by the same means. As with email-based interviewing, there are considerable advantages in terms of cost, efficiency and the ability to reach respondents distributed across significant distances (Andrews et al., 2003). However, email surveys are also limited in terms of low response rates and their inability to reach respondents who are not computer users (something that becomes a particular problem if you are hoping to have a probability sample from which the results of analysis can be generalized to the population as a whole). Also, since respondents return their completed questionnaires using their email accounts, anonymity is potentially undermined as responses can be easily matched to their senders. This lat- ter problem can be side-stepped by using the second type of electronic survey, the web-based survey. Here, the researcher contacts potential respondents through a variety of electronic channels (such as email, social media, blogs and discussion lists), inviting them to complete the questionnaire which is hosted on a website. There are now available a number of such sites that enable the researcher to design their survey, collect data from respondents, and collate and download it for analysis once the survey is complete. While popular sites such as SurveyMonkey (www. surveymonkey. com) charge users for more advanced functions, basic surveys can be conducted for free, making them a popular choice with students conducting research for their dis- sertations. Amongst the benefits of administering a web-based rather than email-based questionnaire is that the compilation of responses into a downloadable form by the service means that you do not need to manually enter the data into software such as SPSS before analysis, something that reduces the likelihood of errors in data handling (Bryman, 2012: 671). Again, there are limitations insofar as the respondents are unlikely to be demographically representative of the population as a whole (with
younger people, better educated people and people with higher levels of income more likely to make themselves available for participation). Nevertheless, bearing this shortcoming in mind, such instruments can be very useful for data collection on a range of criminological topics.
|
|
|
 |
Doing criminological ethnography online
Thus far, we have considered a range of online research tools and techniques (litera- ture searches, mining secondary data, content collection, interviews and surveys) which have in common the maintenance of a separation or a kind of ‘scientific detachment’ between the researcher and that which they are investigating. Many involve little or no direct contact between the researcher and the researched. Even in the case of interviewing, where varying degrees of interaction take place, the researcher stands apart from the beliefs and behaviours they seek to explore, acting as a ‘sympathetic outsider’ while seeking insights into the lives of others. We now turn to consider the use of a notably different approach, namely that of online or ‘virtual’ ethnography. The practice of ethnography originates in the discipline of anthropology, denoting a form of research in which the investigator would immerse
themselves in a particular community over an extended period (months, if not years) in order to attain a deep understanding of that group’s distinctive ‘way of life’ (Jones, 2010). While criminologists and sociologists seldom enter into such an intensive and long-drawn-out engagement with their research subjects, they have nevertheless adopted and adapted some core principles from ethnography as the basis of a strat- egy for doing in-depth qualitative research. These include:
· studying people’s actions and interactions in the context or environment in which they naturally occur
· gathering data from ongoing informal interactions and observations as well as more formal or structured questioning in the form of interviews
· focusing on a relatively small number of people in a particular setting, such as a neighbourhood, workplace or other organization
· analysing the data gathered interpretively so as to elicit what actions mean to those who engage in them.
In undertaking ethnographic research, the investigator becomes a participant in the conduct and practices under study rather than simply observing from a distance. It is for this reason that the term ‘participant observation’ is often used as an alternative to describe ethnographic methods (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Since the early 2000s, social scientists, including criminologists, have sought to adapt the principles of ethnographic research and apply them to the study of online action and interac- tion, particularly in respect of ‘virtual communities’ (Hine, 2000). We will consider the use of such methods in criminological research below.
However, before we explore virtual ethnography proper, we need to consider what may be termed a partial or ‘quasi-ethnographic’ approach to online social research, namely non-participant and/or covert observation. Here, the researcher does not involve him/herself directly in interaction with the community being stud- ied, but simply observes and records the actions and interactions of others. In some cases, the researcher may not make their presence, or activity as a researcher, known to those being studied. In the case of online research, such an approach is often referred to as ‘lurking’ (Elgesem, 2002). Online or offline, it inevitably poses some serious ethical questions, as it breaches some key principles of informed consent: that subjects be aware that research is being conducted; that they be informed as to the nature, purposes and uses of the research and the data gathered; that they be given appropriate assurances about privacy, anonymity and confidentiality; and that they be given the right to withdraw their consent to participate in the research at any time should they wish to do so (Reid, 1996). There are numerous cases where such covert observation has been deemed justifiable, as, for example, when investigating prac- tices that are illegal and/or to which the researcher would likely otherwise be denied access (see, for example, Patrick’s (2013) study of violent street gangs in Glasgow, and Pearson’s (2009) research on football ‘hooligans’). In the online context, we can note Brotsky and Giles’ (2007) covert study of a ‘pro-ana’ (pro-anorexia/pro-eating
|
|
|
disorder) community on the internet. A criminological instance of such online eth- nography is provided by Banks’ (2013) study of a high-risk internet gambling sub-culture in which the possibility of criminal victimization is a prominent feature. However, any student wishing to engage in such research for their own project will likely face some vigorous questioning from their supervisors and have to justify their proposal through a process of ethical approval, the result of which would by no means be assured.
Returning to the more commonplace practice of ‘ virtual ethnography ’ or online participant observation, this is largely based on the idea that internet-based spaces can be treated as in some sense analogous to offline communities – places that people inhabit together, and within which they engage in interactions that are bound up with the formation of shared beliefs, norms and identities. As Williams (2008: 456) notes, such spaces take diverse forms, including ‘web pages, newsgroups, online dis- cussion lists, blogs, wikis, chat rooms, and graphical online communities’. His own criminological research provides a very good example of ethnographic research conducted in virtual spaces (Box 18. 4).
 |
As with other forms of internet-based criminological research, virtual ethnography provides valuable opportunities to investigate a rich variety of groups and communi- ties, from all over the world, who might otherwise be very difficult to observe and
interact with – after all, very few people have the time and resources needed to spend extended periods of time in a distant location for the purposes of research. Moreover, it has been argued that online ethnography needs to be included in our attempts to understand contemporary society (including issues of crime and deviance) simply because an increasing proportion of social action and interaction takes place in such virtual settings (Garcia et al., 2009); online existence is an ever more significant part of people’s everyday lives, and no account of those lives can in a sense be complete without exploring how they unfold in computer-mediated settings. However, there are also a number of challenges the researcher must address if attempting to under- take a successful online ethnography, including:
· gaining access and permission from those whose online lives are being studied
· establishing rapport and trust via interactions that lack a physical co-presence and that may take place largely through text-based exchanges
· acquiring the skills necessary to analyse and interpret interactions that can com- prise not only written communication, but also a variety of audio and visual data (such as photographs and video recordings).
These challenges notwithstanding, virtual ethnography offers some exciting opportuni- ties for broadening the scope of criminological research, enabling us to generate new insights into the dynamics of crime, deviance and social control in a multimedia age.
|
|
|
