Secondary research methods. ETHICS

Secondary research methods

Secondary research involves the analysis of existing data and is often termed ‘desk- based’ research, as it does not involve the collection of primary empirical data. There are a number of secondary research methods: re-analysis of existing data (for exam- ple, crime surveys or published police data, newspaper or media articles) or analysis of existing literature (for example, policy documents, reports, peer-reviewed articles and books).

Secondary analysis of data

Secondary analysis of existing data is used to find answers to research questions that differ from the questions asked in the original research (Hinds et al., 1997). There are a number of benefits to this method. First, it is a cheap and relatively quick way of producing ‘new’ findings on a particular issue. The data has already been collected and this saves the researcher the time and effort of going through the primary data collection process. Bypassing these steps also cuts down on cost, as the data is avail- able for analysis immediately and this limits the cost to researcher time.

Literature reviews and rapid evidence assessments

One of the most common forms of secondary analysis is a literature review. Reviewing existing literature (books, journal articles, policy documents) allows the researcher to examine what data and theory exist in relation to a particular topic or area of inquiry. The author of this chapter recently conducted a critical literature review of sexual violence against older people (Bows, 2017) to examine what is cur- rently known about the prevalence, nature and characteristics of victims and offenders. This involved searching for, and analysis of, literature across elder abuse, sexual violence and domestic violence fields using a range of databases including EBSCOHOST, Ingenta-Ingenta connect and JSTOR. The review helped to identify existing knowledge but also gaps in knowledge.

Most researchers conduct literature reviews as part of a study, either at the pro- posal stage (to get an idea of what already exists and where the gaps are, in order to make a rationale for their study) or when they begin their study, to enable them to situate their findings within the broader literature. For the literature review described above (Bows, 2017), the review was conducted for the latter reason. However, lit- erature reviews can be methods in themselves and can take a number of forms.

Systematic reviews are generally associated with quantitative methodology. Farrington et al. (2001: 340) describe systematic reviews as using ‘rigorous methods for locating, appraising, and synthesizing evidence from prior evaluation studies. They contain a methods and results section and are reported with the same level of detail that characterizes high-quality reports of original research’.

Another form of literature review is the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a quantita- tive, formal, epidemiological study design used commonly in medical sciences, to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about that body of research (Haidich, 2010). Often, a meta-analysis will follow on from a systematic review.

Other forms of reviews include rapid evidence assessments (REA) and scoping reviews. RAEs are typically conducted over a very short period of time, involve assessing what is known about a policy or practice issue, usually by adopting a sys- tematic approach but involving critical appraisal of the existing literature. A scoping review is usually a smaller review which attempts to assess the scope of available literature on a particular topic.

ETHICS

Ethical concerns are at the heart of social research and are the key principles which inform, and shape, research practice. Being aware of ethical issues in criminological research is critically important and it is essential that ethical issues are considered prior to, and throughout, the research process. Most disciplines have official ethical guidelines – in criminology, this is provided by the British Society of Criminology (BSC) (n. d. ).

The BSC code of ethics categorizes the key ethical responsibilities into five groups: general responsibilities; responsibilities of researchers towards the disci- pline of criminology; researchers’ responsibilities to colleagues; researchers’ responsibilities towards research participants; and relationships with sponsors. The largest category concerns the responsibilities towards research participants and incorporates physical, social and psychological well-being as well as other concerns such as data protection.

All university-based projects have to go through internal ethical approval which usually involves completing an ethics form, detailing the project and identifying the key ethical concerns and how these will be addressed, which is scrutinized by a panel who decide whether enough consideration has been given to the full range of issues identified. In addition, many public sector institutions have their own ethical approval forms and processes. For example, if you want to conduct research in pris- ons, you will have to go through the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) ethical process for your project to be approved prior to you being allowed to conduct your research.