 |
Chapter contents. Jerzy Sarnecki and Christoffer Carlsson
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER CONTENTS
· Introduction 298
· Why Study the Life Course? 299
· Life-Course Research and the Longitudinal Method 300
¡ Prospective and retrospective designs 300
· Quantitative and Qualitative Methods 305
¡ Two forms of quantitative data 306
¡ Qualitative data: process, life history and context 307
· Mixing Methods 309
· Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Research: The Main Differences 311
¡ People 311
¡ Variables 313
¡ Time 314
· Summary and Review 315
· Study Questions and Activities for Students 316
· Suggestions for Further Reading 317
· References 317
GLOSSARY TERMS
longitudinal study life-course study cross-sectional longitudinal research
developmental and life- course criminology
cross sectional studies methodology
prospective design retrospective design persistence and desistance
in crime operationalization
DOING LONGITUDINAL AND LIFE - COURSE CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH1
Jerzy SarneckI and ChrIstoffer Carlsson
 |
1 A longer version of this chapter appears as Chapter 4 in An Introduction to Life-Course Criminology
(Carlsson and Sarnecki, 2015).
INTRODUCTION
What follows is a brief introduction to the field of longitudinal Study and life-course Study research in criminology. Initially, we outline the justification for the time- and money-consuming enterprise of life-course research. Having done so, in the second section we distinguish between two broad forms of life-course research designs – prospective and retrospective approaches. This is followed by a discussion of quantitative and qualitative methods. We then turn to the question of mixing meth- ods. In criminology, life-course researchers are perhaps more prone than others to combine quantitative and qualitative data to best answer a research question. Finally, our chapter revisits the longitudinal life-course approach and contrasts it with its opposite, the cross-sectional approach, to help the reader more sharply distinguish between the two. We end with a summary and review. Throughout the text, we illus- trate and explain the main methodological issues we address with well-known criminological studies, such as the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development and the Glueck Study.
|
|
|
Time is a funny thing. It can move so slowly, while at other times it flies. We struc- ture our lives according to it and invent ways to keep track of its stream: we use the shadow of the sun, or construct clocks. Time is, in that sense, a constant. It is always there.
When we conduct research, time is also one of our greatest challenges. A number of research questions are not bound by the issue of time, but many are. Think about it: as soon as you start asking questions about a ‘before’ and an ‘after’, or a ‘now’ and a ‘then’ – for example, ‘was the individual’s risk of criminal recidivism higher before he left the gang, compared to his risk of recidivism after he left the gang? ’ or ‘are there any significant differences in the outcomes of the treatment group and the control group after treatment, compared to before treatment? ’ – you are perceiving your research topic temporally.
Longitudinal research has traditionally been conducted on individuals, and it is to research on individuals that we devote much of this chapter. However, we should note, today criminological longitudinal research is also conducted where communi- ties and cities, rather than individuals, constitute the unit of analysis (e. g. Sampson, 2013). They all have one thing in common: this mysterious, constant, seemingly banal but deeply challenging issue of time.
Longitudinal research rose to fame as a method and mode of working, within the field commonly known as criminal career research (Blumstein et al., 1986) and, later, developmental and life-course criminology (Sampson and Laub, 1993). As this field has blossomed, the methodology behind this branch of research has developed and become increasingly sophisticated. Several important methodological works have been published in the form of books and articles, mostly on quantitative methods. Our purpose here is not to conduct an exhaustive review of these methods; such a review can, for example, be found in the great work by Biljeveld and van der Kamp (1998).
Here, instead, we concern ourselves with a number of basic core issues. Our aim is quite simple, and practical: to provide you, the reader, with enough knowledge of longitudinal and life-course methodology to enable you to understand the main methodological problems, opportunities and possibilities in this kind of research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
