Mixed Methods in Criminology

Vicky Heap, Jaime Waters

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351388924
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Mixed Methods in Criminology is the first book to bring together the discipline of criminology with the mixed methods research strategy, which has become increasingly prominent within criminological teaching and research.

The book is structured so that it charts the course of a criminological mixed methods study. Starting with an introduction to mixed methods and its implications for criminology and criminological research, the book then works systematically through the planning stages of a research project. Developing research questions, aims and objectives is discussed alongside literature searching skills and the project planning process, before the principles and practice of ethical research are summarised. Next come chapters on philosophy, mixed methods design, combining the data, research design and sampling, data collection methods and data analysis; delivering a comprehensive overview of how to undertake a mixed methods research project in practice. This is followed by a chapter on troubleshooting, which provides useful advice from experienced mixed methods researchers, before a detailed account of how to write-up mixed methods research is presented. The book concludes with a range of real-life mixed methods case studies to demonstrate how the techniques outlined in this book have been employed in reality and to inspire new criminological mixed methods projects.

Providing straightforward, easy to follow guidance, Mixed Methods in Criminology is the essential student companion for any criminological mixed methods research project. Drawing on the authors' years of experience teaching research methods, the book is written in a supportive and encouraging tone that will serve as a reference and guide for those embarking on their adventures 'in the field'.

1 Introduction to mixed methods

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

• Introduction

• Quantitative and qualitative research strategies

• Introducing mixed methods

• Why use mixed methods in your research?

• Mixed methods vs multiple methods

• Mixed methods in criminology

• Chapter outlines

• Summary

• Learning questions

Introduction

Welcome to Mixed Methods in Criminology!

This book shows you how the mixed methods research strategy can be productively utilised in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice. Mixed methods is a relatively new methodological strategy, which has become increasingly prominent over the last three decades or so (Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie, 2015), and in particular since the turn of the 21st century (Plano Clark and Creswell, 2008). It is an approach where both quantitative and qualitative methods and data are employed in the same research project, and it is now frequently used across many disciplines in the social, behavioural, and health sciences in situations where it can greatly assist in the exploration of complex and multi-faceted phenomena.

The recent growth of mixed methods is the result of a variety of different factors. Chief among these has been pressure from governmental funding bodies, private funding bodies, and other stakeholders, who are increasingly demanding that mixed methods are used in order to explore social policy issues (Hesse-Biber, 2010). One result of this growth has been an explosion in the number of mixed methods publications, of which this book is a part. The discipline of criminology and criminal justice has been especially keen to embrace mixed methods, in some way because of the particular issues and complexities that studying crime, deviance, and victimisation entails.

This book delivers a step-by-step guide on how to carry out your own mixed methods research project. The two main objectives of this book are:

• To show how the mixed methods research strategy can be used within the discipline of criminology.

• To provide you with a practical guide on how to approach and design your own criminological mixed methods research project.

This first chapter delivers a comprehensive introduction to the topic of mixed methods. It will begin with a brief discussion of quantitative and qualitative research strategies, the component parts of mixed methods research. It will then go on to present an overview of mixed methods itself, discussing its emergence as an explicitly recognised methodological strategy over recent years. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the mixed methods strategy will be explored, before we go on to consider why using mixed methods is a good option for many research studies. Then, we will distinguish mixed methods from so-called ‘multiple methods’ or ‘multi method’ approaches and examine the use of mixed methods in the discipline of criminology. All this will provide the foundations for the chapters that follow. The chapter ends by outlining the rest of the book.

Throughout the book, you will be introduced to the terminology that is associated with mixed methods research. As mixed methods is an emerging field, terminology and definitions are often contested and used in contradictory or inconsistent ways by different authors (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2010). It is therefore vital to have a sound understanding of the concepts that are being referred to and the terminology used to describe them. Where there is debate and dissensus over terminology, we will make this clear. The ‘Glossary of key terms’ at the end of the book will also assist you in this regard.

Quantitative and qualitative research strategies

A research strategy is an overall general approach to a research project. Quantitative and qualitative research strategies are the building blocks of mixed methods research. It is therefore crucial to understand them before going on to discuss the mixed methods research strategy itself. Whilst some researchers favour quantitative over qualitative, and others the opposite, one of the key features of the mixed methods strategy, as we will see over the course of the book, is that neither quantitative nor qualitative is seen as being inherently superior; the needs of the project dictate which strategy, if any, should take priority. This point will become clear over the forthcoming chapters. For now, let us concentrate on the basics of the quantitative and qualitative strategies (for further detail, see www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html).

Quantitative research

The quantitative strategy prioritises numbers. Its focus is on producing and analysing numerical data. When researchers first became interested in learning about the social world, this tended to be the way that they sought to measure it, borrowing from the established disciplines of the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) in the early 1800s. Quantitative research has four main concerns:

• Measurement (e.g. how much crime?)

• Causality (e.g. what causes crime?)

• Generalisation (e.g. can findings apply elsewhere?)

• Replication (e.g. can the research be repeated to yield similar findings?)

Caulfield and Hill (2014: 229) sum up the quantitative strategy as a ‘systematic approach to research that relies upon statistical analysis’. Examples of quantitative criminological research include large-scale victimisation and crime surveys (e.g. Crime Survey for England and Wales, Uniform Crime Report, US Victimisation Survey Data, United Nations crime data), structured observations, quantitative content analysis, secondary data analysis of existing datasets from crime statistics (police-recorded crime, court, prison, and probation statistics), and smaller/local crime and victimisation questionnaires.

Quantitative research is often criticised for its attempts to measure the social world in the same manner as the physical sciences attempt to measure the natural world, without taking into account the considerable differences between the two, most notably the idea that individuals in the social world can react to being measured and alter their behaviour. Concerns have also been repeatedly raised that the quantitative measurement of the social world can sometimes seem rather artificial and spurious, that the quantitative research process disconnects data from everyday life, that the measures typically used tend to lack complexity and can dehumanise people, and that quantitative work can suffer from reverse operationism (the overly deductive operationalisation of concepts) (see, for example, Bryman, 2016: 167). It is also worth noting that the cost and practicalities of quantitative research are often prohibitive, especially for student researchers or those working alone. Large-scale probability questionnaires, for instance, require a great deal of time to set up, ready access to participants, some efficient means of distribution, and enough time for what could be a significant amount of data entry. In recent years some of the time and costs involved have been reduced because of the growth in online data collection tools, but the advance of technology has not alleviated all the problems associated with quantitative research. Table 1.1 provides a summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative data and data collection. Our ordering of ‘quantitative’ before ‘qualitative’ throughout this book reflects this historical quirk and our desire for consistency, and does not represent a favouring or perceived superiority of the quantitative strategy.

Qualitative research

The qualitative strategy prioritises the production of data that usually takes the form of words, but can also take the form of pictures, or indeed anything other than numbers. It ‘has a long and distinguished history in the social sciences, arising in part from dissatisfaction with quantitative approaches’ (Noaks and Wincup, 2004: 3). In the social sciences, the seminal work of the Chicago School in the 1920s and 1930s was vital in establishing qualitative research as a viable alternative to quantitative research.

Qualitative research involves the collection of data through the process of, for example, interviews, focus groups, or observations, and it tends to be much more open-ended than quantitative research. It is an ‘approach to research that focuses upon the gathering of in-depth data through which meaning can be derived’ (Caulfield and Hill, 2014: 229), paying close attention to context and the so-called ‘lived experience’ of the participants. If quantitative research can be viewed as dehumanising the participants of research, then qualitative seeks to address this and often attempts to view the world through the eyes of the researched. Analysis of the data often precedes attempts to discern key themes or repeated tropes. Examples of qualitative criminological research might include studies that seek to investigate the attitudes of people committing crime, that focus on the experiences of victims of crime, or that explore how criminal justice practitioners carry out and view their work. Such studies seek to understand how people experience their own lives and place that understanding in some kind of wider social context.

Table 1.1 Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative research (adapted from University of Southampton, 2017)

A range of criticisms have been levelled at the qualitative strategy. Some consider qualitative research to be too subjective because it is heavily reliant upon the researcher themselves to interpret and understand the data. It has also been suggested that qualitative projects suffer from a lack of replicability; this is in large part because the researcher is so integral to the nature of the data collected and the analysis that is carried out. The lack of transparency inherent in much qualitative research can also be problematic; once again, this derives from the fact that case selection and data analysis are far more dependent upon the researcher. Qualitative data have also been criticised because it is often difficult to generalise from its findings given that it regularly utilises non-probability sampling techniques with relatively few participants. Table 1.1 outlines some of the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research.

Moving beyond quantitative and qualitative research

In recent years, there has been increasing unease with research strategies that see quantitative and qualitative as diametrically opposed and irreconcilable opposites. Researchers have steadily come to reject the sense that they must necessarily be in one of two opposed ‘camps’, either quantitative or qualitative. Moving beyond this traditional division in research strategy is crucial to the whole notion of mixed methods research.

As Bryman (2016) has argued, whilst there self-evidently are differences between quantitative and qualitative research, it is important not to exaggerate them. For example, qualitative research sometimes exhibits features normally associated with a natural science model, such as quantification, and quantitative research aims on occasions to engage with what would normally be seen as a rather interpretivistic stance. In the end, Bryman goes on to suggest that research strategies are more self-determining in relation to epistemological commitments than is often appreciated (see Chapter 4 – Philosophy). What is therefore important to recognise here is that whilst quantitative and qualitative strategies are often taught and treated as separate and distinct entities, there is in fact a great deal of overlap between the two, particularly when the practicalities of real-world research are considered. The two strategies can potentially be complementary rather than opposed. Once this has been acknowledged, the adoption of a mixed methods approach begins to look increasingly sensible in certain contexts.

Introducing mixed methods

Mixed methods is the systematic bringing together of quantitative and qualitative research strategies into one coherent research approach. Over recent years it has steadily become more influential across a range of different disciplines. As Hesse-Biber (2010: 2) points out, it has a long pre-history, with the classic European studies of poverty conducted by Frédéric Le Play (in 1855), Charles Booth (from 1892–1897), and Bohm Rowntree (in 1901) utilising both quantitative and qualitative methods, ‘including the use of demographics analysis, participant surveys and observations, and social mapping tech...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Foreword by Professor Shadd Maruna
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction to Mixed Methods
• 2 Creating a Mixed Methods Question and Project Planning
• 3 Ethics
• 4 Philosophy
• 5 Mixed Methods Design
• 6 Combining the Data
• 7 Research Design and Sampling
• 8 Data Collection Methods
• 9 Data analysis
• 10 Critique
• 11 Troubleshooting
• 12 Writing-up
• 13 Case studies
• Glossary of Key Terms
• References
• Index