 |
Box 4. 3 police perceptions of ‘risk’in relation to older sex offenders
|
|
|
|
I recently conducted some research for Durham Constabulary to examine how pub- lic protection officers at six forces across England and Wales were responding to the growing number of ‘older’ sex offenders on their caseloads. In particular, the research was concerned with exploring the current practices around risk manage- ment where the older offender had care or support needs, for example dementia and/or needed residential care. In order to understand the issues and the practices of officers at these forces, semi-structured interviews were conducted over the tele- phone with officers working in public protection units. Interviews focused on:
1. The number of sex offenders aged 50+ and 60+ living in the community and cur- rently being managed by the force.
2. Whether there had been an increase in the number of older offenders on the caseloads.
3. What issues, if any, age presented in terms of managing the offender in the community.
4. How ‘risk’ (to the public and the offender) was managed and whether age affected this.
5. Current practice around older sex offenders with care needs.
A semi-structured interview schedule allowed for these topics to be covered but allowed flexibility for participants to discuss other related issues as and when they
(Continued)
Focus groups
There is no single definition of a focus group; however, the key characteristics are a col- lective, organized discussion and interaction between a group of people. They are distinguished from group interviews, where the researcher interviews more than one person at a time but the emphasis is on the researcher asking questions which the individual(s) respond to. In a focus group, participants interact with each other, asking each other questions or making statements which other participants respond to. In a study examining young women’s responses to safety advice and associated safety behaviours in licensed venues, Brooks (2011) conducted focus groups with 35 women to examine their perceptions, understandings and responses to safety in bars, pubs and clubs.
One of the primary benefits of using focus groups is that participants help to stimulate and develop data through their discussions with each other. Focus groups are useful in analysing not only what the group say to each other, but also how they say it and how they interact. The attitudes and reactions may be independent of the focus group environment but are revealed in a particular way within the group gath- ering. Another strength of the focus group is that it allows the researcher to gather a large amount of data in a short period of time, compared to individual interviews or surveys. Furthermore, whilst observational methods require the researcher to wait for things to happen, the focus group is guided by interview schedules or questions which facilitate discussion around particular themes or topics.
The primary limitations of focus groups are that certain people in the group may be more vocal, or controlling, of the discussion than others. Some participants may not contribute much, or may feel they have to agree with comments made by other members. In some environments, people may not feel comfortable answering ques- tions honestly and focus groups may not be appropriate for all research topics, for example those on sensitive issues such as domestic or sexual violence. However, some of the above issues can be mitigated by the researcher ‘chairing’ the discussion effec- tively. In particular, the role of the lead or Chair is to facilitate the discussion with open questions, keep the discussion going with prompts, to ensure the discussion does not veer off topic and to interrupt sessions if there appears to be any upset or distress in the group. Furthermore, by paying close attention to the dynamics of the group,
|
|
|
the Chair can ensure each participant has the opportunity to contribute by inviting and encouraging individuals to share their thoughts or perceptions – this is particu- larly useful if a group session is being dominated by one or two individuals.
Ethnography
Ethnography is an umbrella term for a methodology which incorporates a number of different approaches, including observation, participant observation, autoethnography and interviews. Ethnography has a rich history, dating back to ancient times from when travellers and outsiders lived among strangers, or tribes, and recorded their way of life (Brewer, 2000). Consequently, ethnography is often associated with anthropology, where researchers would immerse themselves within the lives and cultures of particular people or groups in order to develop rich data on their everyday lives. However, in criminology, ethnography has its roots in the Chicago School, with scholars including Ernest Burgess, George Mead and Robert Park, emerging in the 1920s and 1930s.
One of the most common ethnographic methods is participant observation. Participant observation involves observation of individuals or groups of people in their natural setting to understand more about them, their lives and cultures. It is a form of ‘fieldwork’. In the context of crime, that might mean observing a group of offenders, or victims, or indeed practitioners – for example, observing young people in youth offending institutions to examine what their everyday lives are like (see Box 4. 4). Hammersley (1991) identifies this as a key issue, criticizing ethnography on the whole as producing data which merely provides descriptions of events and does not present generalizable data or theories.
 |
Creative methods
Whilst the methods described so far in this chapter are some of the most popular methods, a range of other research methods exist and are increasingly used to address research questions. One umbrella group of methods are referred to as ‘crea- tive’ methods.
Such methods can be used alone but are often used in combination with other methods. These methods have been particularly useful in research with young peo- ple, but also those in ‘hard to reach’ groups. An example of one category of creative methods is discussed here but there are many more, including the use of art, draw- ings, craft and poetry (see also Chapter 19 by Lippens in this volume).
|
|
|
Photo elicitation and photo voice
Visual or ‘image-based’ methods using photo images are often considered a new technique; however, they have a track record of application in social research dat- ing back to the 1970s (Balomenou and Garrod, 2016). These methods are increasingly used in criminology, leading some scholars to suggest the field is experiencing a visual turn. Specifically, within criminology, scholars have sug- gested that the field is experiencing a ‘visual turn’ (Rafter, 2014).
Photos can be used to stimulate discourse in interviews or focus groups (typically referred to as photo elicitation – see Matteucci, 2013) or can be used as part of a participatory-action approach to research. There are a number of ways this method can be utilized; however, one of the most common is to give participants cameras and ask them to take photos representing particular topic(s) (photo voice or photo documentation), with the resulting photographs either analysed (qualitatively or, occasionally, quantitatively) or used to stimulate discussion in focus groups or inter- views (photo elicitation) (see Box 4. 5). The latter provides researchers with laddering or multidimensional analysis (Balmoneou and Garrod, 2016).
These methods enable participants to be actively involved in constructing knowl- edge. They provide the researcher with an in-depth look into the lives of participants. Though the method often uses small sample sizes, the aim of qualitative methodol- ogy is not to produce generalizable findings and this criticism is not in itself a reason not to use these methods.
 |
Mixing methods
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the two primary approaches to research (qualita- tive and quantitative) were traditionally seen as distinct and incompatible with each other. There was something of a ‘paradigm war’ between the two approaches (Oakley, 1999). However, increasingly researchers are now using these methodolo- gies in combination with each other and a variety of methods are being utilized to examine criminological issues. The benefits of combining methods, for example surveys with interviews, is that it allows researchers to examine both the extent and nature of a particular problem (for example, theft) by surveying a large number of people, as well as exploring how these crimes impact communities and victims, and the needs of victims following this type of offence through interviews with affected individuals. A more complete, rounded understanding is therefore possible where a combination of methods is used.
|
|
|
