 |
Anonymity and confidentiality. Covert research. Semi-structured interviews. Advanced ethnographic approaches in criminology
|
|
|
|
Anonymity and confidentiality
However, even key informants often feel the need to conceal many activities and motivations because any suspicion of ‘grassing’ carries harsh summary penalties in many communities where criminal activities are to be found. The taboo placed on grassing is in direct conflict with the ethical imperative to disclose crimes (Yates, 2004). To overcome this problem, anonymity and confidentiality are of the utmost importance; the only legitimate way of reconciling the ethical imperative to disclose information about crime with the taboo on grassing is for the informants to totally anonymise all discussions from the very beginning. The anonymity of the research setting, the actors and the actions can guarantee confidentiality without hampering the gathering of data and the construction of a narrative. However, to remain ethical the anonymity of actors and actions must be established by the informants and not retrospectively by the researcher, even though the researcher can suggest this general rule at the beginning of the project, because the researcher cannot disclose incrimi- nating details that s/he has never known.
Covert research
Powerful actors associated with white-collar, corporate or governmental crime are able to close rank and construct a wall of silence and non-cooperation that is often impenetrable to the researcher. In such settings, covert research would appear to be the only possibility, but this method is unlikely to achieve ethical approval. Because access is so difficult, ethnographic work on the crimes of the powerful is very rare. Ho’s (2009) and Luyendijk’s (2015) serialised studies of investment bankers are two of a small number of exceptions. Ho was an insider working in investment banking,
while Luyendijk was an outsider who had to arrange access to the social periphery of the research setting and use the techniques of retrospective interviewing and snowball sampling. Despite numerous disappointments, he managed, by sheer persis- tence, to persuade his slowly expanding group of informants to almost become informers by anonymously disclosing corporate crime and malpractice and describ- ing in fine detail the characters of the criminals and their actions whilst retaining the anonymity of both themselves and the perpetrators.
Semi-structured interviews
Today’s criminological ethnographers often use semi-structured interviews during participant observation of the non-criminal periphery of the research setting. Some of these interviews might last a few seconds and produce rather glib responses (Smith, 2014), but they can be followed up with longer semi-structured interviews conducted with key informants and former criminal perpetrators as they emerge dur- ing the research (see Ellis, 2016; Hall et al., 2008; Winlow, 2001). Interviews with groups are useful for overcoming the problem that actors will invariably have differ- ent interpretations of their actions and motivations (see Alasuutari, 1995). Semi-structured interviews with key informants or informal focus groups might last hours or even continue in sequence for days (see Treadwell et al., 2013). Essential to these methods is the establishment of trust between researcher and informants. Once trust is gained, the interviewing researcher can initially engage in dialogue that taps into broad issues to allow themes to emerge before gently nudging the interviewees towards focusing down in greater depth and clarity on significant events, meanings and practices as the conversations develop. Collecting rich and reliable data in criminological research is difficult, but with persistence and effective techniques it is certainly not impossible.
|
|
|
ADVANCED ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACHES IN CRIMINOLOGY
‘Classic’ ethnographies are always worth reading for glimpses into the past and a flavour of the historical development of methods. However, it is probably more important to read ‘modern classics’ which have tried to overcome some of these prob- lems. Unfortunately, academics have different ideas of what constitutes a ‘classic’. Most social scientists are either middle-class individuals or working-class individuals under pressure to conform to middle-class values and understandings (Dews and Law, 1995). The optimism of the middle-class progressive liberal, based on the ontological assumption that people are basically pragmatic problem-solvers who usually mean well, has become the norm. Consequently, there is a tendency throughout the social
sciences to understate serious structural socioeconomic problems and overstate the ability of individuals and their cultural codes and practices to overcome them (see, for instance, Anderson, 2001). Since the 1980s, various new types of ethnographic research have been introduced into the discipline in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of the ‘classics’ and move forward.
|
|
|
