 |
Chapter contents. Hannah Bows. Introduction. Developing a research methodology
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER CONTENTS
· Introduction 94
· Developing a Research Methodology 94
· Deciding Methods of Data Collection 97
¡ Primary research methods 97
¡ Secondary research methods 105
· Ethics 107
· Summary and Review 107
· Study Questions and Activities for Students 108
· Suggestions for Further Reading 108
· References 109
GLOSSARY TERMS
descriptive research methodology ontology epistemology quantitative qualitative
qualitative research quantitative research method
survey questionnaires interviews
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Hannah Bows
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on different methodological approaches in criminological research. Even before a research topic and question have been finalized, it is necessary to consider the research methodology, which provides the framework for the study and determines how the research will be conducted. The terms ‘methodology’ and ‘method’ will be used throughout this chapter, and it is important at the outset to explain what the terms mean. Despite often being used interchangeably, they actually refer to different things. Methodology concerns the process of examining methods and comparing the kinds of knowledge they produce (Greener, 2011). This process is underpinned by epistemological concerns, which are based on how the researcher views knowledge and the best way to gain knowledge about a particular social phe- nomenon. The end product is a particular method (or methods) which is/are adopted to conduct the research. The methodology can therefore be thought of as the system and methods as the tools. Figure 4. 1 outlines how these core elements overlap and combine to create the methodology. This chapter begins by providing an overview of developing a research methodology before moving on to consider approaches to decid- ing on appropriate method(s). We then consider some of the most common methods in social research, broadly categorized as primary and secondary methods, and close with a discussion of the key ethical considerations in criminological research.
|
|
|
 |
FIgure 4. 1 Core elements of methodology
DEVELOPING A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
There are three broad research strategies: descriptive research, explanatory research and exploratory research:
· 
Descriptive research describes people, situations or phenomena. Usually, there will be guiding questions underpinning the research but not a strict hypothesis.
This research is useful to provide contextual data which can then be developed into a hypothesis.
· Explanatory research intends to explain why a phenomenon occurs and is usually
developed to test a particular hypothesis. It is concerned with producing conclu- sive answers.
· Exploratory research is often used when little is known about a phenomenon.
This type of research seeks to create hypotheses rater than test one. It is not intended to produce final and conclusive answers, but instead focuses on develop- ing some initial knowledge about an issue or phenomenon.
 |
The research strategy you choose is the foundation for your methodology – it will guide how you design and conduct your research, which is shaped by the type of knowledge you want to gain. The methodology provides the framework for your research and is the approach to studying the research topic and turns the research questions into projects (Robson, 2002). There are two broad approaches to research: qualitative and quantitative, although increasingly a third category of mixed methods is also used. Whilst some scholars have suggested other ways of categorizing research methodologies (e. g. Robson, 2002 who suggests using variance or process thinking as a starting point), these remain the two most commonly described and used. Each approach is steered by several sets of assumptions and these assumptions guide which approach is deemed the most appropriate for the research.
The assumptions are based on your ontological and epistemological positions. A good way of thinking about the differences in these positions is to use the ‘tree in the forest’ analogy. This philosophical question asks, if a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it make a sound? The quantitative ontology would say it did – the tree fell and made a sound regardless of whether anyone knew about it or heard it. Qualitative ontology, however, would say that a sound can only be a sound if some- one hears it – the two cannot be separated, one is linked to the other. The way in which you view the world and reality (ontology) therefore shapes the type of knowl- edge (epistemology) you seek to gain and the way (qualitative or quantitative) you gain that knowledge.
Qualitative methodology is concerned with exploring the behaviour, opinions or perspectives, feelings and experiences of people as individuals or groups. It lies in the interpretive approach to social reality: reality exists not independently of people, but rather is socially constructed, and meaning is developed through experience. Consequently, qualitative methodology is rooted in a constructivist epistemology. Who heard the tree fall, what sound did they hear? The methods most appropriate for this approach are inductive, meaning data is analysed to see if any patterns emerge and the findings are rooted in the data itself. Therefore, qualitative method- ology does not seek to test out preconceived ideas or theories (hypotheses). For example, research questions in qualitative research examining domestic violence might be:
|
|
|
· What are the emotional impacts of domestic violence on victims?
· What are victims’ experiences of accessing support services?
· What does ‘justice’ look like for domestic violence victims?
In contrast, quantitative methodology is concerned with measuring or testing exist- ing ideas or theories (hypotheses) and generally assumes that reality exists independently of human construction and experience. This epistemology is positiv- istic and is concerned with scientific fact, which can be observed by rigorous, independent testing. Central to this methodological approach is validity and reliabil- ity and scientific methods are viewed as the ‘best’ methods to gain valid, reliable knowledge. Put another way, it is concerned with the accuracy of measurement. Reliability focuses on consistency of measurement and replication. In criminology, quantitative researchers are concerned with explaining crime and predicting future crime, what causes crime and how this can be prevented. For example, quantitative research examining burglary might ask:
· What characteristics of neighbourhoods are associated with high burglary crime levels?
· What socio-economic factors are associated with high levels of burglary?
· What effect do anti-burglary measures such as CCTV or alarms have on levels of burglary?
Traditionally, these two methodological approaches have been positioned as distinct and incompatible; however, increasingly researchers are realizing the benefits of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. In particular, there is an increas- ing appreciation of the ability of mixed methods to ‘triangulate’ research and achieve internal validity. There are two types of methodological triangulation: ‘across method’ which combines both quantitative and qualitative data collection, and ‘within method’ which involves the use of different approaches within either qualita- tive or quantitative methods. In 1970 Denzin referred to ‘triangulation’ in research and outlined four broad types of triangulation:
1. Data triangulation involving time, space and people
2. Investigator triangulation involving multiple observers of the same object
3. Theoretical triangulation involving multiple perspectives on the same set of objects
4. Methodological triangulation, either within method (i. e. more than one quanti- tative method) or mixed method (i. e. combining quantitative and qualitative methods).
These are revisited later in the chapter to consider how different methods can pro- duce different knowledge and be used in combination to examine specific phenomena.
|
|
|
