Literature Criminological Research
Inhoud
Literature Criminological Research.........................................................................................................1
Week 1................................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Ferrell, J. (1997). Criminological Verstehen: Inside the immediacy of Crime. Justice Quarterly,
14(1), pp. 3-23, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418829700093201...............3
1.2 Bows, H. (2018). Methodological Approaches to Criminological Research, in: Davies, P. and
Francis, P. (Eds). Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 94-110 (on BB)......................4
Week 2................................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Legard, R., Keegan, J. and Ward, K. (2003). In-depth Interviews, in: Richie, J. and Lewis, J.
(Eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, pp. 139-168 (on BB).......................................5
2.2 Turner, D. (2010). Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators.
The Qualitative Report, 15(3), May 2010, pp. 754-760
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=tqr................................7
2.3 Bott E. (2006). Pole Position: Migrant British Women Producing ‘Selves’ through Lap Dancing
Work. Feminist Review, 83(1): 23-41. doi:10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400279:
https://journalssagepubcom.proxy.library.uu.nl/doi/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400279.....................8
Week 3................................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Hall, S. (2018). Doing Ethnographic Research in Criminology, in: Davies, P. and Francis, P.
(Eds). Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 386-410 (on BB).....................................9
3.2 Sandberg, S. and Copes, H. (2012). Speaking with Ethnographers. The Challenges of
Researching Drug Dealers and Offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 43(2), 176–197 (via UBU
access)..........................................................................................................................................11
3.3 Goffman, A. (2015). On the Run. Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Extract in: https://longreads.com/2015/05/26/theart-of-running-from-the-
police/...........................................................................................................................................13
Week 4..............................................................................................................................................14
4.1 Gill, R. (2000). Discourse Analysis, in: Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (Eds.) Qualitative Researching
Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. London: Sage, pp. 172-190
(https://www.researchgate.net/publicati on/30529296_Discourse_Analysis)............................14
4.2 Petintseva, O. (2022). Language Matters. Doing Systematic (Critical) Discourse Analysis in
Criminology, in: Dodge, M. and Faria, R. (Eds.) Qualitative Research in Criminology. Cutting Edge
Methods. London: Springer (forthcoming) (on BB).......................................................................16
4.3 Zuñiga, N. (2018). Methodologies for the Analysis of Political Party Programmes. London:
Transparency International (on BB)..............................................................................................17
Week 5..............................................................................................................................................19
5.1 Davies, P. (2018). Doing Data Analysis in Criminological Research, in: Davies, P. and Francis,
P. (Eds). Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 271-294 (on BB)...............................19
1
, 5.2 Rubin, H. and Rubin. I. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing (Chapter 12. Data Analysis in the
Responsive Interviewing Model). London: Sage, pp. 189-211 (on BB)..........................................21
Week 6..............................................................................................................................................22
6.1 Yar, M. (2018). Doing Criminological Research Online, in: Davies, P. and Francis, P. (Eds).
Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 413-432 (on BB)............................................22
6.2 James, N. and Busher, H. (2012). Internet Interviewing, in: Gubrium, J., Holstein, J., Marvasti,
A. and McKinney, K. (Eds) Handbook of Interview Research. New York: Sage, pp. 177-191 (on
BB)................................................................................................................................................24
6.3 Urbanik, M., Roks, R., Storrod, M. and Densley, J. (2020). Ethical and methodological issues
in gang ethnography in the digital age: lessons from four studies in an emerging field, in: Melde,
C. and Weerman, F. (Eds.) Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media. Cham: Springer, pp. 21-
41 (via UBU access).......................................................................................................................26
Week 7..............................................................................................................................................28
7.1 Lippens, R. (2018) Using Visual Methods in Criminological Research, in: Davies, P. and
Francis, P. (Eds). Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 433-454 (on BB)..................28
7.2 Krsmanovic, E. (2016). Captured 'Realities' of Human Trafficking: Analysis of photographs
illustrating stories on trafficking into the sex industry in Serbian media. Anti-Trafficking Review,
issue 7, pp. 139-160, www.antitraffickingreview.org (on BB).......................................................30
7.3 Rafter, N. (2017). Crime films and visual criminology, in: Brown, M. and Carrabine, E. (Eds.)
Routledge International Handbook of Visual Criminology. London: Routledge, pp. 53- 61. (via
UBU access)..................................................................................................................................31
Week 8..............................................................................................................................................32
8.1 Heap, V. & Waters, J. (2018). Using Mixed Methods in Criminological Research, in: Davies, P.
and Francis, P. (Eds). Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage, pp. 113-135 (on BB)...........32
8.2 Koenraadt, R. (2020). Trust, risk and deceit in the illicit medicines market: An analysis of the
on- and offline trust relations between sellers and buyers of illicit medicines, in: Van de Ven, K.,
Mulrooney, K. and McVeigh, J. (Eds.) Human Enhancement Drugs. London: Routledge, pp. 204-
217. (on BB)..................................................................................................................................36
2
,Week 1
1.1 Ferrell, J. (1997). Criminological Verstehen: Inside the immediacy of
Crime. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 3-23,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418829700093201
I propose that experiential immersion by field researchers can begin to unravel the lived meanings of
both crime and criminal justice. Some people surely could argue that this incident exposes the
thoroughly unprofessional nature of my criminological research and the dangers, to use an
unfortunate phrase, of "going native." Others might argue that it transforms my status irrevocably
from criminologist to criminal. Criminological field researchers regularly have crossed the lines of
legality in developing important and influential accounts of crime and criminality. These perspectives
emphasize the necessity of interpretive, ethnographic methods-methods that can help us
"understand crime at close range" and thus "reveal parts of the social world that remain hidden by
more traditional techniques". Criminological field research unavoidably entangles those who practice
it in complex and ambiguous relations to the subjects and situations of study, to issues of personal
and social responsibility, and to law and legality. This approach to research methodology thus serves
as both a report and a manifesto, as evidence and as argument that conventional canons of
objectivity and validity are not and cannot be followed in the everyday practice of criminological field
research.
Negative consequences:
- A researcher who engages in illegal fieldwork may face jail time, court costs, betrayal of or by
subcultural accomplices, and censure by colleagues.
- Negative public perceptions of the individual researcher, negative media coverage and public
imagery.
- They must weigh their responsibilities to the criminals, crime control agents, and crime
victims affected by their research.
Criminological verstehen= a researcher's subjective understanding of crime's situational meanings
and emotions-its moments of pleasure and pain, its emergent logic and excitement-within the larger
process of research. It further implies that a researcher, through attentiveness and participation, at
least can begin to apprehend and appreciate the specific roles and experiences of criminals, crime
victims, crime control agents, and others caught up in the day-to-day reality of crime.
It is often the search for excitement or thrill that drives people to do these crimes (such as graffiti)
and also the same holds for the researcher. We must develop a criminological verstehen that can
take us inside the many specific moments of illegality. This methodological position in turn implies
not only that criminologists must be present in criminal (and criminalized) subcultures and situations,
but also that they must be present affectively; that is, they must share to whatever extent possible in
the dangers, pleasures, emotions, and experiences that constitute criminal activity as part of their
understanding of that activity. It implies a certain emotional empathy, a notion that pleasure,
excitement, and fear can teas us as much about criminality as can abstract analysis. Another issue is
the question on which side the researcher is. Neutrality is seldom an option. They must live out a
decision as to whose side they are on.
Thus the combination of two contemporary trends-the growth of marginalized, low-status work,
especially among the young, and the increasing push toward punitive crime control policies-suggests
3
, that the appeal of criminal pleasure and excitement can only increase. If the experiences of criminals,
crime victims, crime control agents, and others are shaped by terror, pleasure, and excitement-and
shaped differently according to their location in networks of crime and criminal justice, and in larger
structures of social class, gender, age, and ethnicity-researchers must work toward particular forms
of criminological verstehen attuned to these differences. As part of a larger methodology of
attentiveness and engagement, criminological verstehen at its best can take criminologists at least
partially inside the tangle of lived situations that constitute crime and crime control.
1.2 Bows, H. (2018). Methodological Approaches to Criminological
Research, in: Davies, P. and Francis, P. (Eds). Doing Criminological
Research. London: Sage, pp. 94-110 (on BB).
Methodology= the process of examining methods and
comparing the kinds of knowledge they produce.
Method= The end product which is/are adopted to conduct
the research.
The methodology can therefore be thought of as the
system and methods as the tools.
There are three broad research strategies:
- Descriptive research: describes people, situations or phenomena. This research is useful to
provide contextual data which can then be developed into a hypothesis.
- Explanatory research: intends to explain why a phenomenon occurs and is usually developed
to test a particular hypothesis. It is concerned with producing conclusive answers.
- Exploratory research: is often used when little is known about a phenomenon. This type of
research seeks to create hypotheses rather than test one. It is not intended to produce final
and conclusive answers, but instead focuses on developing some initial knowledge about an
issue or phenomenon.
There are two broad approaches to research:
- Qualitative: is concerned with exploring the behavior, opinions or perspectives, feelings and
experiences of people as individuals or groups. Is a constructivist epistemology.
- Quantitative: seeks to test out preconceived ideas or theories (hypotheses) and generally
assumes that reality exists independently of human construction and experience. Is a
positivistic and is concerned with scientific fact, which can be observed by rigorous,
independent testing.
Primary or secondary data:
- Primary data: collecting data that does not currently exists
o Surveys
Attributes, behavior and opinions.
Open or closed questions
Benefits: gather a lot of information from a large sample, is often
generalizable.
Criticism: does not reflect the experiences or feelings of those interviewed,
fails to address how respondents’ meanings are related to circumstances
o Interviews
4
