 |
Chapter contents. Disciplinary tension
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER CONTENTS
· Introduction 386
· Disciplinary Tension 386
· The Ethnographic Approach in Social Science 387
¡ The ethnographic process 388
¡ Challenges: ontology and generalizability 393
· The Ethnographic Approach in Criminology 394
¡ Research ethics: deception, safety and confidentiality 396
¡ Insiders/Outsiders 397
¡ Anonymity and confidentiality 399
¡ Covert research 399
¡ Semi-structured interviews 400
· Advanced Ethnographic Approaches in Criminology 400
¡ Critical ethnography 401
¡ Feminist ethnography 401
¡ Auto-ethnography 402
¡ Visual ethnography 402
¡ Online ethnography 403
¡ Ultra-realist ethnographic networks 404
· Summary and Review 405
· Study Questions and Activities for Students 405
· Suggestions for Further Reading 406
· References 407
|
|
|
GLOSSARY TERMS
participant observation fieldwork observation(s)
covert research overt research transcription realism
interpretivism generalizability research ethics inductive research non-participant
observation symbolic interactionism
DOING ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH IN CRIMINOLOGY
Steve Hall
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a brief introduction to the ethnographic approach in crimino- logical research. The next section discusses the tension within the criminological discipline between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and stresses the impor- tant role that qualitative research and the ethnographic approach should play in a rebalanced discipline. The third section offers a brief history of the ethnographic approach, its various positions and its role in the development of Western social sci- ence. This is followed by a discussion of some of the principal methods and research stages, which also highlights some of the methodological and practical problems ethnographers encounter. We then examine the use of ethnographic methods in criminological research. The discussion focuses on the specific and sometimes extreme methodological, practical and ethical difficulties researchers encounter when they use the ethnographic approach and its principal methods to research hard- to-reach groups involved in crime or its control. The final section discusses the way contemporary ethnographers have collaborated with theorists to draw inspiration and learn lessons from modern criminological classics to develop new, advanced ethnographic methods and theoretical frameworks that will hopefully enhance criminology’s explanatory power in a changing world.
DISCIPLINARY TENSION
Respected scientist and mathematician Warren Weaver once distinguished between simple systems, disorganized complex systems and organized complex systems (1948). The two former types of system consist of variables that are active but predictable and therefore amenable to quantitative analysis. The latter type of system consists of active, unpredictable and relatively autonomous constituents such as individuals, cit- ies, social institutions, cultural values and global markets, which create both complexity and unpredictability. Social science deals with the latter type of system, therefore mathematically based quantitative models are of limited use. This problem has reached a critical point in economics. The orthodox mathematically based neo- classical model has, time after time, proved incapable of predicting the capricious behaviour of actors in markets. For instance, only a handful of economists who were working outside the neoclassical orthodoxy predicted the recent financial crash in 2008 (Keen, 2011).
Yet quantitative methods are still dominant throughout the social sciences. This problem is particularly acute in criminology. A study in 2005 suggested that 94% of articles in the top five criminology journals are based on research that used quantita- tive methods (Tewksbury et al., 2005). Their more recent study showed that even in journals more receptive to qualitative work, it constitutes only about 30% of
published articles (Tewksbury et al., 2010). Today’s academics are under intense pressure to publish their research. Researchers’ own evaluations of the chances of getting their research published affect their choice of methods, and so the striking bias towards quantitative research continues to be reproduced. Criminology students who opt for qualitative research should be aware that they are not only entering a struggle to explain crime and evaluate systems of justice, but also a struggle for cred- ibility within the discipline itself.
|
|
|
Criminology has neglected both mixed methods and the qualitative approach. Yet, in a calamity that rivals that of the economists, quantitative criminologists failed to predict or explain the so-called ‘crime decline’ in the 1990s. More recently, they also failed to predict or explain the recent refutation of the ‘crime decline’, which came to light when cybercrimes were belatedly added to the official figures in the UK. This addition might well prove to be the tip of a larger iceberg consisting of shadowy unresearched criminal markets operating online and in the real world (see Hall and Antonopoulos, 2016). If we accept the basic wisdom that we should have a fairly clear idea of what exists out there to be counted before we start counting it, such elusive phenomena require sophisticated qualitative research and theoretical work before the initial stages of quantification even become possible. This would suggest that qualitative research should have primacy in any mixed methods approach. Some argue that qualitative research is best for theory development whilst quantitative research is best for theory testing (Jacques, 2014), whereas others argue that qualita- tive research is better all round (Young, 2004). However, until there is a marked change in the discipline’s culture and some sort of balance is achieved, qualitative research will be left to continue its struggle for credibility or perhaps even survival.
|
|
|
