Posted: April 1st, 2015
A Critical Review of Research Methods used in Criminology
Outline
Questionnaire about Shoplifting. 4
Discussion of the Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. 5
Data Collection under the Research Methods. 10
Questions Addressed by the Research Methods. 12
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to provide a critical review of the methodology used in the shoplifting research to study customers shoplifting behavior. To determine how effective the quantitative and qualitative methods were for the research, the essay will provide a detailed explanation of how the research was carried out and in the process highlight what went well and what should have been done better. The numerous advantages of qualitative and quantitative methods tend to provide a depth of understanding that relates to crime, criminals and the operations of justice system (Newburn, 2007).
This paper presents a review of the research methods used in the shoplifting research and how effective or ineffective they were. Later a discussion of the qualitative and quantitative research methods would be provided.
Review of Research Methods
This section provides a discussion of the research methods used in the research.
Two approaches were used and are described here.
Tabulated Computerized Data
In the research, data generated from a computer was tabulated and provided useful information for determining the amount of shoplifting that was happening at the shop. Items that could not be accounted for was classified as having been shoplifted.
| Month | Inventory In | Inventory Accounted For | Inventory Unaccounted For |
| May | 132505 | 125162 | 7343 |
| June | 162402 | 152591 | 9811 |
| July | 178111 | 169654 | 8457 |
| August | 121821 | 112795 | 9026 |
Semi-structured Interviews
The amount of shoplifting was also assessed by a semi-structured interview with Jason Smith, the line manager. Although Smith responded to the questions asked, better results would have been realized if the interview had been well planned. Despite the fact that it was done hurriedly, it was unethical to disclose official data on shoplifting to Smith. This act would also be responsible of influencing his responses.
The following table shows data gathered before and after CCTV equipment was installed. From the results show in the table, it can be seen that the installation of the CCTV led to a huge decline in shoplifting.
| Month | Inventory In | Inventory Accounted For | Inventory Unaccounted For |
| December (month before) | 268142 | 254735 | 13407 |
| February (month after) | 139023 | 132072 | 6951 |
The use of the CCTV was certainly a very useful addition to the research. From the results obtained, a solution to the shoplifting problem was finally being realized. The installation of CCTV and covertly observation without warning was, however, unethical and an infringement on others privacy.
Questionnaire about Shoplifting
The fact that only a few people filled and returned their questionnaires shows that the questionnaires were not designed with the right questions. Questions included were very sensitive and could easily discourage a respondent.
Although the use of questionnaires may have seemed inappropriate for the research, it is the only suitable approach for establishing why people shoplift. Questionnaires would have the advantage of being filled anywhere as long as the respondent felt comfortable.
Discussion of the Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods
Qualitative research focuses on the meanings, traits and defining characteristics of events, people, interactions, cultures and experience (Berg, 2007). Generally, qualitative research is never focused on the number, or numerical descriptions of things and their relationships.
The missing aspect of amount or quantity in qualitative research is addressed by the quantitative type of research. Typically, quantitative research offers a more scientific approach to doing social science. The focus is on using specific definitions and carefully putting into operation what particular concepts and variables mean.
The two methods used in the shoplifting research have their strengths as well as weaknesses. Depending on what the research is meant to accomplish, a researcher may prefer one method over the other. There are, however, instances where both methods will complement each other quite well.
So, why should social scientists use qualitative methods? What is the benefit of such an approach to the study of crime and criminal justice? In simple terms, qualitative methods are about gaining true understandings of the social aspects of how crime occurs and how the agents, structures and processes of responding to crime operate in culturally grounded contexts (Bell, 2007).
Qualitative methods provide a depth of understanding of issues that is not possible through the use of statistically based quantitative investigations. Qualitative methods centralize and place primary value on complete understandings, and how people understand, experience and operate within settings that are dynamic, and social in their foundation and structure.
This is not to say that all social scientists recognize and value qualitative research, nor do all social scientists believe that what qualitative methods offer is superior to quantitative methods, or even contributing to the foundations that establish a body of knowledge (Jupp, 1989). For many scholars of criminology and criminal justice qualitative research is inferior to what can be gained from quantitative methods, and provides only undependable, non scientific examples of marginally interesting and valuable insights.
In the eyes of many criminology and criminal justice scholars, qualitative is the rare method behind published scholarship in the field. As reviews of published research articles in criminology and criminal justice indicate, less than 11% of articles in top tier journals in the discipline employ qualitative methods, and less than 15% of articles in non top tier criminal justice journals utilize and report results from qualitative studies (Tewksbury, DeMichele & Miller, 2005).
Although qualitative research is less common than quantitative research in criminology and criminal justice, it is recognized for the value and unique contributions it can make. Editors of scholarly journals in the discipline acknowledge that qualitative research is less common among the published scholarship in criminology and criminal justice, but they also acknowledge the importance of qualitative research. In fact, according to Buckler (2008), editors of criminology and criminal justice journals wish they had the opportunity to publish more qualitative research.
As Worrall (2000) contends, one reason that quantitative research enjoys widespread heightened respect in the discipline lies in the predictive advantages his method of inquiry possesses. Indeed, the ability to make correct predictions is one of the more outstanding characteristics of quantitative methodology. To make such a claim, Worrall and other like minded scholars had to work from the assumption that prediction is necessarily a quantitative task. While one can certainly measure past and current events in the social world, and use what is and has been as a basis for predicting what will be, to do so does not require statistical analysis (Venkatesh, 2009). However, while the ability to predict what is to come is suggested as being central to the value of quantitative research, those who advance such a view also find it important to defend against the fact that the efficacy of prediction in social sciences is marginal or tenuous at best.
Although arguments have been presented indicating that qualitative research provides a great foundation for theoretical understandings, this is used by opponents as to argue that qualitative research is weak and inferior in comparison to quantitative research. Consequently, qualitative research is also marginalized and minimized in importance, at least in the minds of staunch quantitative enthusiasts, for the role it plays in developing theory. Simply stated, qualitative research is secondary in importance because of its significance for theoretical development.
Despite strong opposition, proponents are convinced that when used well, qualitative research does provide valuable insights and advances to the body of knowledge. Generally, the contributions of qualitative research differ from those of quantitative research. However, this should not be taken to imply that one is not as valuable as the other. Qualitative methods produce knowledge that mutually complements that produced by quantitative research (Rumsey, 2004).
Qualitative methods of research, while often viewed by novices as easier because the actions of researchers look and sound a great deal like what we all do in daily life are in fact more time consuming, require a greater emphasis on researchers themselves clarifying and defining what things mean, and rely on the intellectual abilities of researchers to organize, manage, analyze and interpret data.
There is no one and only correct way to work with qualitative data. Rather, qualitative researchers are challenged to find meaningful ways to work with their data and identify patterns and trends in the data. While there are certainly general guidelines often based on the successful experiences of previous qualitative researchers for guiding how to work with qualitative data, the actual tasks and actions of data collection, analysis and interpretation require some degree of creativity and innovation (Bell, 2005).
The data that is used in qualitative research come from a range of collection methods. These include interviews with individuals, observations of people, places and interactions, immersion in settings so as to understand the what, how, when and where and how of social structure and interaction, the analysis of media content and guided conversations with groups of individuals. Each of these approaches to data collection differs when it comes to sources of information and the actual tasks the researcher has to do to collect information. However, they all include the idea of pulling together examples of the content of regularly encountered situations and things (Moskos, 2008).
Interviews are typically structured conversations that researchers have with individuals. Just as in everyday life, one of the most productive ways to learn about a person, place, or set of activities is to actually ask questions of people who have knowledge about that topic. Interviews are used to solicit information from people, just as quantitative researchers ask questions with surveys. However, the difference is that when a qualitative researcher asks questions of a person they are interested in understanding how the person being interviewed understands, experiences or views some topic.
The quantitative researcher inquires about if and how a person knows something, and how that knowledge can be translated into a numeric value. This most frequently requires the use of closed-ended questions on surveys, limiting the possible answers to those identified by the researcher. Unlike in quantitative research, interview data gathered through qualitative research provides answers in an unlimited range of possibilities and with an accompanying context (Noaks, 2004).
Observation, the actual looking at and breaking down of actions and interactions of people, is an approach to data collection that looks quite simple and straightforward but is actually a very challenging method for gathering systematic information about people, places and things. Researchers who draw on observational data do so in one of two general ways. Either overtly in which they openly acknowledge to those being observed that this is what the researcher is doing, and covertly, when the researcher spies on the people, places and things that he or she is studying. The approach that is used varies by the setting in which observations are conducted, and most importantly by the research questions being addressed.
The challenge of observational data collection methods is to be able to simultaneously see both the obvious actions involved and also to be able to look beyond the obvious and see those things which might always be present, but are so normal and taken for granted that the observer typically fails to note their presence. These challenges are most difficult in settings and with people and things for which the researcher is most familiar (Arksey & Knight, 1999). That which is known to us on a regular basis is often seen with little attention to detail, or a failure to realize that details are important to the larger scheme of actions and interactions.
The actual data that an observational researcher collects and later organizes and assesses for analysis and interpretation are notes that the researcher takes while doing observation. To be able to take notes on everything one sees, and to be sure to get beyond the obvious, surface level of structure and events can be very challenging. Where observations have to be made covertly, identifying a means to simultaneously watch, think about what one sees, make notes that capture the details of actions and structures, and manage their own presence so as not to be detected, presents a serious challenge that requires significant degrees of both intellectual abilities and expenditures of energy.
Immersion in a setting, for purposes of gaining an understanding of how that setting operates, is the data collection method that drives the production of ethnography (Hunter, 2011). Originally advanced by anthropologists, ethnographic methods combine observational skills with interpersonal skills of navigating a new environment so as to find one’s way through a new world while learning how to be a non disruptive presence in that new world. The ethnographer typically spends protracted periods of time in the research setting, which itself can introduce serious stresses and challenges for the researcher. In the end, the ethnographer seeks to provide an analytic description of the setting under study that allows readers to not only understand how the setting is structured and operates, but also why it is the way that it is (Larsen & Monarchi, 2004).
Data Collection under the Research Methods
Collecting qualitative data differs significantly from collecting quantitative data in that the process requires a high level of interpersonal skills, creativity and the opportunities for accessing data may come with psychological stresses, dangers and limitations on particular researcher’s opportunities (Williams, Dunlap, Johnson & Hamid, 1992). Qualitative researchers collect data directly from people, whether by observing them, interacting with them or talking with them. In this regard the qualitative researcher needs to be able to establish rapport with people, must present himself as someone who is at a minimum non threatening, and ideally as someone with whom those being studied wish to spend time. The qualitative researcher also needs to be able to modify his presentation of self on a moment’s notice, and identify actions and means of interactions that are likely to be positive and productive with those being studied (Tewksbury & Miller, 2006).
These are issues that are non-issues for quantitative scholars. It takes little or no personality or skill to distribute a survey or download data to one’s computer. The qualitative researcher, then, must master the additional challenges of making friends, managing relationships and gracefully exiting from researcher sites in order to be successful.
It is also important to recognize that while any person can do quantitative research on any topic, the personal standings and traits of qualitative researchers can provide powerful barriers to successful completion of projects (Sharp & Kremer, 2006). Because interaction is required when collecting qualitative data, some researchers may have demographic, social or political traits that are defined as undesirable, deviant or otherwise overly negative and as a result those one desires to study may refuse to interact with the researcher. These are not issues that confront and puzzle quantitative researchers. Only those who actually interact with their study’s subjects need to manage these types of relationships and challenges (White, 2009). Because interaction is at the heart of the qualitative data collection effort, researchers need to rely on those they are studying to agree to give their time and interactions to the researcher. Another problem that is relevant for qualitative but not quantitative researchers is that when doing interviews and observations the researcher needs to rely on those being studied to show up, agree to talk with him or her, stay for the duration of time required, and to participate in ways that are productive. When those being studied fail to come, the data being collected may be limited or contaminated, meaning that delay may be experienced (Adler & Peter, 1987). The data that are produced in qualitative endeavors are almost always texts, narratives or visual images. Whereas both quantitative and qualitative methods seek to identify, explain and discuss patterns within and across data, the actual things and meaningful labels for such things about which patterns are the focus supply the actual data for qualitative analyses.
Quantitative research requires that one either simply studies the counts of events, people, things or that numeric labels be created for meaningful events, experiences and actions. Without numeric labels on variables, the quantitative researcher will be unable to manipulate data and identify patterns. Some scholars call for applying technological advances to qualitative data sets, in large part for the purpose of improving the reliability, validity and efficiency of field research (Stolzenberg, 2002).
Questions Addressed by the Research Methods
Typically, the products of qualitative research are presentations of taxonomies, explanations of cultural settings, and the development of theoretical constructs and arguments. The specifics that are presented in qualitative research reports differ from the types of specifics that are found in reports of quantitative research. Whereas exact measurements and values indicating strengths of relationships are the centerpieces of statistical research, the focuses in qualitative reports are on making of arguments. These arguments are supported with examples, and explanations of how patterns and trends in the data are seen and experienced, not necessarily how they are measured (Blastland, 2007).
Qualitative research is often critiqued by quantitative researchers as the form of research which provides initial theoretical constructs and tools for developing measurements that are used in statistical research to produce specifics about unique relationships among specified pieces of settings, groups and interactions. Qualitative research relies on the process of analytic descriptions for identification of recurrent patterns or themes and attempting to construct a cohesive representation of the data. These recurrent themes are then linked to concerns or issues in the literature which may be theoretical, conceptual, or applied (Warren & Karner, 2005).
Quantitative research, on the other hand, is focused on testing the strength and persistence of relationships between distinct measures. It relies on the ways that the researchers choose to have variables defined, and what they elect to include within the scope of the definition of variables. The important difference between the two is that quantitative researcher needs to know the parameters of the variables being used before embarking on the study.
Quantitative research assumes the researcher can and does define each and every variable in accurate and meaningful ways, outside of the context of the culture and setting of the behaviors, individuals and groups being studied (Silverman, 2010). Pearce (2002) argues that a research process which uses survey methods along with interviews and observation can be especially beneficial in developing theoretical concepts.
Conclusion
The application of qualitative and quantitative techniques in the shoplifting research provided an opportunity to gather much more data than would have been possible using any other technique. Generally, the two methods complement each other. However, the use of well designed questionnaires and less intimidating questions would give better results.
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.