ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docx

ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPER/ESSAY in this course
you must follow the APA rules. Use these requirements to attain
full credit regardless if they are all listed out in the directions
within the course.
· Set paper with 1-inch margins all around. Spacing ‘before’ and
‘after’ set at 0. Entire document including reference list and
running is double spaced, Times New Roman, font 12 with all
paragraphs indented on the first line by 1/2 inch.
· One title page with APA running heads and page numbers and
the title, your name, school, professor’s name and credentials,
date. Video for running head directions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u47x2dvQHs
· There is NO ABSTRACT in papers for this course. At the top
of page 2 you will repeat the title of your assignment (not in
bold, but centered) and then write a brief introduction paragraph
of the ENTIRE paper (main sections should be mentioned; THIS
INCLUDES ANY TOPICS FOR CASE STUDY SECTIONS).
· Intro is followed by a Level 1 subheading (bold and centered)
for the first half of the assignment. This week it’s Nursing Past
Related to Current Profession. Any question/point you are
addressing under this heading should be marked clearly with
Level 2 subheading which are bolded and flush left.
· Immediately after the first section above without any
spaces, you will also use another Level 1 subheading (bold and
centered) prior to the second half of the assignment which is the
case study. This week it’s Professional Nursing Organizations.
Again, differentiate which question/point you are answering by
using a Level 2 subheading (bold and at the left margin).
· After both sections are discussed at length – there will be
ONE Conclusion - needed for all papers as the last Level 1
subheading bold and centered that summarizes the entire
paper/knowledge gained
· There will be ONE alphabetized reference page for all sources
set “hanging” with references in APA format. All citations need

a reference!
· All references listed are cited correctly in APA format in the
text! Points are docked for incorrect citations and not meeting
the source requirement!
· Should use 3rd person the majority of the time but it is OK to
use 1st person when describing a personal experience related to
a specific question.
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1)
2009
Quantitative versus Qualitative Methods: Understanding Why
Quantitative Methods are
Predominant in Criminology and Criminal Justice
George E. Higgins
University of Louisville
Abstract
The development of knowledge is important for criminology and
criminal justice. Two
predominant types of methods are available for criminologists’
to use--quantitative and
qualitative methods. A debate is presently taking place in the
literature as to which of these
methods is the proper method to provide knowledge in

criminology and criminal justice. The
present study outlines the key issues for both methods and
suggests that a criminologist’ research
questions and hypotheses should be used to determine the
proper method.
Quantitative versus Qualitative Methods: Understanding the
Methods in Criminology
Research is the discovery of information that is either new or
replicates previous findings.
Research becomes scientific when if follows specific
methodologies that others may be able to
replicate to arrive at similar results. Two types of
methodologies are predominant in
criminology and criminal justice that provide this sense of
science--quantitative and qualitative
methods. However, Tewksbury, DeMichele, and Miller (2005)
have shown that quantitative
methods are used more often than qualitative methods in
criminology and criminal justice.
Importantly, quantitative and qualitative methods differ in
several ways.
The present study contributes to the literature by presenting a
theoretical treatment of
quantitative and qualitative research. The study begins by

presenting quantitative and qualitative
23
2009
24
methods. Then, the importance of sampling to both
methodologies comes. This is followed by
discussions of the primary methodologies that are used in either
approach. The data that are
presented in each approach are presented. Then, the issues
surrounding reliability of both
methods are presented. This is followed by the discussion.
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Quantitative methods are based on the premise of empiricism
and positivism (Rossi,
1994; Smith, 1983). These methods are rooted in the scientific
method that is derived from the
physical and natural sciences. Generally, these methods allow
criminologists to be objective,
formal, and systematic that arrives at a series of numbers to
quantify phenomena (Creswell,

1994). That is, criminologists measure phenomena objectively
affording them the opportunity to
remain distant and be independent of the phenomena that is
being researched.
This is consistent with the role of values in research. Using
quantitative methods,
research is able to be devoid of values. Values are removed
from the research process because
statements in written reports and instruments are removed
(Babbie, 2002). Criminologists argue
the “facts” of the study and not the values of the study.
Criminologists that use quantitative
methods write their reports in very specific ways. First, the
reports are written impersonally.
This allows them to keep their distance and to make sure that
their values are not interwoven into
their research. Second, their reports are written in a formal
tone with an emphasis on the
connections, comparisons, and group differences between the
concepts that are being studied.
For instance, Higgins (2007) presented a report that examined
the psychometrics of a specific
self-control scale. Importantly, this paper was written in a very
formal tone that was removed of

2009
values, but Higgins relied on the numbers to provide evidence
to support or refute the hypotheses
of the study.
The issues of concepts in quantitative research are important.
Criminologists use theory
to define their concepts and the connections between them. A
theory is a set of interrelated or
intercorrelated concepts and propositions that are designed to
explain a behavior. In
criminology, the behavior is typically criminal or deviant.
Agnew (1995) argued that social
learning, self-control, and strain theories were the leading
general crime theories in criminology
and criminal justice. Quantitative methods allow criminologists
to be deductive in stating their
hypotheses and research questions a priori from established
theory, allowing criminologists to
test theories and examine relationships for cause and effects.
For example, Agnew (1992)
argued that three forms of strain generate an emotion that
prepares the individual to cope with

the strain. In this example, three hypotheses are presented. The
first is a direct hypothesis from
the three forms of strain generating an emotion. The second is a
hypothesis that emotion
prepares an individual to cope. The third is implied and
suggests that strain has an indirect
connection with coping through emotion that may be
conditioned by: criminal histories, peer
association, or morality.
Qualitative methods are guided by ideas, hunches, or
perspectives (Creswell, 1994;
Rossi, 1994). Criminologists that use qualitative methods are
usually trying to develop theories
rather than test them. In addition, the intention is to use the
language of the subject to provide
the understanding and not the quantity of the subjects. In other
words, qualitative methods are
subject (i.e., study respondent) driven and not theory driven.
This allows criminologists to
describe phenomena in a more humanistic and
phenomenological view. Using an interview
format, the qualitative researcher would focus on coping
mechanisms and then proceed

25
2009
backwards as to understand why the individual coped in a
certain way. This is an example of
subject generated research rather than theory driven research.
The reason why the individual
copes in this manner is induced and a theory is created for
understanding. Qualitative
criminologists will argue that their lack of dominance in
criminology and criminal justice is due
to the belief that the development of theory is secondary or
invaluable. Quantitative
criminologists recognize that falsifying the theories are far
more important. To be clear, a theory
derived from 10 to 15 research subjects needs to be examined
across several thousand
individuals or groups before it may be reified. This has been
the case with the leading crime
theories (i.e., social learning theory, self-control theory, and
General Strain theory) (Agnew,
1995). It should be noted that these theories were not
developed using qualitative methods,

perhaps this is the reason why they have withstood multiple
rigorous quantitative tests that
transcend disciplines, races, ethnicities, and countries.
Qualitative methods allow criminologists to become part of the
study by shortening the
distance between him or herself and the research subject. Thus,
they are typically the instrument
allowing them to interject his or her values into the research
(Babbie, 2002). This may occur in
participant observation research where the researcher infiltrates
a setting and participates in the
activity so that they may gain access and acceptability among
subjects. In this form of research,
the criminologist really is the instrument and they are not able
to take clear and concise notes
during the interaction leaving a substantial amount of the
information to memory. Redmon
(2003) presents an example of this process. He collected
interview data from individuals during
Mardi Gras; however, Redmon is unclear about how the
interview data were recorded. This
leaves one to believe that he relied on his memory. If the
interviews lasted between 10 minutes

and 2 hours to complete the interview how could he possibly
recall of the details from the
26
2009
interviews. While this is not meant to diminish the contribution
that this work has made in our
field, it does illuminate the potential problems with this form of
research. One of the strengths of
quantitative research is the transparency that comes from the
methods that are used to arrive at
the findings.
The intention of qualitative research is not standardized and
may change during the
middle of study. This occurs in content analysis and interview
data. Interview data provides an
example of this issue. Maxwell (1996) argued that when
performing interviews that the
researcher should use “probing” questions to gain additional
information about context. The
problem with the “probing” questions is that they are often
unscripted. This means that different

subjects may get different versions of the “probing” questions
that may provide different
information. This is problematic when one considers that there
is likely to not be an a priori
presentation of the research problem and the categories that are
used to capture them.
Quantitative methods attempt to add to the universal knowledge
of society (Blalock,
1979). The use of experiments, surveys, and quasi-experiments
has allowed criminologists to
gain valuable insights into the criminal justice system and
criminals. In criminology and
criminal justice, these methods have been used to produce “real
answers” from “hard data”.
Hard data in this instance is the use of numbers. Tewksbury et
al. (2005) showed that “hard
data” is the preferred method of criminologists. Qualitative
methods have are generally not as
good at giving direct answers, but are good at developing more
questions. This occurs because
qualitative methods are consistently using “soft data”. Soft data
in this instance is language (i.e.,
body and words) to represent phenomena. Criminologists must
consider sampling regardless of

the method.
27
2009
Sampling
Using either quantitative or qualitative methods does not
absolve criminologists from the
complexity of sampling. Regardless of the methodology being
used, all of the samples have to
be representative. To ensure that this takes place, quantitative
methods require criminologists to
use random sampling. However, when criminologists are
conducting experiments, they are
required to use random assignment (Babbie, 2002). Further,
when criminologists are conducting
quasi-experiments, they are required to use some form of
matching technique.
When using quantitative methods, criminologists are typically
guided by the central
limits theorem to develop their samples. This theorem posits
that when a sampling distribution
begins to grow it will begin to appear like a normal distribution

(Blalock, 1979). This allows
criminologists to use their quantitative methods to generalize
their results from their sample to
the population. Unfortunately, criminologists are not always
able to achieve a random sample,
and this reduces the veracity that they can generalize their
sample to the population. However,
criminologists consistently do generalize their nonrandom
sample results to their populations
when they have large samples that appear large enough to
satisfy the central limits theorem via
the law of large numbers.
Qualitative methods have difficulty in the area of sampling
(Berg, 2007). They may use
the same strategies as quantitative researchers (i.e., random
sampling: simple, systematic,
stratified, or cluster), but qualitative researchers would have to
contend with large samples that
may not be specific to their research “hunch”. Qualitative
researchers generally choose their
samples from individuals or entities that are germane to the
“hunch” that they have that is the
impetus for the research. Generally, qualitative researchers
have to contend with non-random

samples that include the following: convenience samples (i.e.,
available subjects), purposive
28
2009
sampling (i.e., researcher uses their special knowledge and
expertise about the group to select the
subjects), snowball sampling (i.e., the identification of several
people with relevant
characteristics, performing the qualitative assessment, and then
asking them for names of others),
and quota samples (i.e., researcher uses a matrix and then some
non-random characteristic to fill
the matrix).
While some that use quantitative methods use these types of
samples, the issue is that
these sampling techniques in qualitative researcher typically
yield very small samples. This has
some repercussions. First, the small sample places a premium
on the selective nature of the
sample. That is, because the sample is small, criminologists
have to be very selective and direct

in the individuals or entities that they select to study. This
means that the sample needs to have
direct importance for the criminologist’s research questions.
That is, a qualitative researcher that
is interested in the lives of cross-dressing prostitutes, but only
samples prostitutes from Terre
Haute, Indiana. This reduces the veracity that qualitative
researchers may provide with their
theories that they covet.
Second, the small sample creates an opportunity for
criminologists to influence the
results. This means that the intrusion into the environment may
have caused changes that are
being processed in the results (Maxwell, 1996). In addition, the
criminologists own perceptions
may shape the results given the sample is small. That is, the
results from the small sample are
merely a reflection of the perceptions of the criminologist.
Referring to the prostitution example,
there may only be fifteen cross-dressing prostitutes in Terre
Haute. Therefore, a criminologist
that interviews five of these fifteen may not capture the full
impression of what life is like in this

capacity.
29
2009
Third, the results from small qualitative studies are not
generalizable. This means that
the “deep” and “rich” understanding that is coveted by
criminologists that use qualitative
methods only applies to those or the entities that were in the
study. To be clear, because the
criminologist is in the natural environment, the intensity of the
research is increased and reduces
the opportunity to collect a large sample negating an
opportunity to satisfy the central limits
theorem. For instance, the researcher that was interested in
cross-dressing prostitution in Terre
Haute, Indiana that only captured five of the fifteen prostitutes
may not be able to generalize
their results beyond these five prostitutes. That is, the lives of
cross-dressing prostitutes in New
York City may be different from those in Terre Haute, Indiana.
Fourth, criminologists that use qualitative methods have to

realize that their results will
be low in reliability (i.e., consistent over time). This means
that their results will be less likely
be replicable because of the small sample size (Maxwell, 1996).
For instance, if two
criminologists are studying the same phenomena using the same
qualitative methods and
different small samples, a strong likelihood exists that the two
criminologists will arrive at
different results. This may not be a function of the
criminologists, but it may be a function of the
small specialized samples that they are using. Criminologists
may have issues that are consistent
with methodology. In other words, the differences between the
lives of cross-dressing prostitutes
in Terre Haute and New York City illuminate that the issues
with reliability of the results from
qualitative research may not be in the criminologist, but the
issues with reliability may be from
the small sample.
30

2009
Methodology
Quantitative and qualitative research requires different methods
to acquire data. That is,
to address the hypotheses that come from theory, a specialized
set of methods are required. A
few of these methods are: surveys, experiments, and quasi-
experiments. Typically, to address
the relationship, explanatory, and descriptive hypotheses,
surveys are an important quantitative
method.
A survey is a questionnaire that is designed to capture
information about attitudes,
behaviors, and beliefs (Babbie, 2002). Surveys may include
statements or questions to illicit this
information. To that end, the answer choices of a survey may
either be open-ended or close-
ended. However, the questions or items may not be “double-
barreled”. That is, the questions or
items may only address one issue at a time. Surveys allow for
large distribution that makes large
samples feasible. Surveys are flexible in that they allow several
different issues to be captured in

the same document. Surveys allow for standardized information
to capture concepts.
Experiments are generally used for explaining causal
relationships (Campbell & Stanley,
1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Experiments allow researchers
to use well defined concepts and
topics to explain a causal connection between concepts. An
experiment requires a pretest,
experimental stimulus, and a posttest. The pretest allows
researchers to gain baseline
information before an experimental stimulus. The experimental
stimulus is the concept that
allows researchers to determine what causes a reaction or
change from the baseline. The posttest
is used to determine if the experimental stimulus created a
change from the baseline. At a
minimum, experiments require the use of experimental and
control groups. Experimental groups
are those that are subjected to stimulus that may create a
change. Control groups are not given
the stimulus, but when they are given the stimulus they are
given a placebo--a “fake” form of the
31

2009
stimulus. The determination of how individuals are placed into
control and experimental groups
occurs through random assignment. Experiments have the
advantage because they are controlled
and isolated. Experiments are often replicable.
Quasi-experiments offer the same sort of benefits as
experiments (Campbell & Stanley,
1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Quasi-experiments follow the
same form as experiments, but
the chief difference is that quasi-experiments do not require
random assignment. Typically, a
quasi-experiment requires some form of matching. When
controlled properly, quasi-experiments
offer the same type of benefits. That is, they allow researchers
to explain the differences in
groups. The importance of experiments and quasi-experiments
has been recognized by
criminology and criminal justice that a journal--Journal of
Experimental Criminology--has been
dedicated to these types of tests and studies.
Qualitative researchers rely on methods use a plethora of

methodologies (Berg, 2007;
Rubin & Rubin, 1995). These methodologies include:
interviews, content analyses, and
observation. Interviews are generally an interaction that my
take place face-to-face, over the
phone, or through cyberspace. An interview can take place to
uncover information about a short-
period of life or it may take place in order to uncover
information about an individual’s life.
Content analyses are typically analyses that allow researchers to
understand the importance of a
topic given its presence in certain outlets that include the
media. Content analyses may be just
relevant counts of a specific form of information. The
researcher would then infer about the
importance given that it only occurs a reasonable number of
times. Observations may take place
in a few ways. The observer may participate in the activity or
the observer may not participate.
The researcher would then try to make sense of the information
that they captured.
32

2009
Data
The data that criminologists capture and use for analysis are
different depending on the
method--quantitative or qualitative. Criminologists that employ
quantitative methods capture
and use numbers. The use of numbers is important because it
shows that a scientific system has
been followed (Babbie, 2002). The arrival of these numbers is
important because it places this
sort of research akin to the physical and natural sciences. Thus,
the use of numbers attempts to
provide criminologists with a sense of legitimacy among other
scientists.
Qualitative methods rely on “soft data”. Soft data are words,
body movements, or
actions. For criminologists that use qualitative methods, these
are rich data that allow for a
picture to be drawn or painted about the research subject.
Unfortunately, the purpose of
criminologists’ qualitative research studies is not often very
clear. This leaves them in a position
where they are overwhelmed by the data that they collect. To

that end, these criminologists are
often confused by the inability to limit the scope of their study.
For instance, a criminologist
using qualitative interviews of ten people may have several
hours of information from these
individuals. When these tapes are transcribed--transcription is a
process of typing the audio
information for analysis--may be faced with twenty-five to one
hundred pages of information
from one of these ten people. When the criminologist attempts
to analyze the information, they
do not have the guidance from a firm research focus to guide
them in making sense of their data.
Therefore, the criminologist becomes overwhelmed with the
multiple themes and issues that may
be discovered in their data. Even after the criminologist is able
to make sense of the data, they
have to be able to cogently present these data. For example,
Pettiway’s (1996) Honey, Honey,
Miss Thang Being Black, Gay, and on the Streets is informative,
but difficult to consume because
the transcripts are literally interjected into the text.
33

2009
Reliability
Criminologists have to be concerned with issues of reliability.
Reliability is the
consistency of a result over time (Babbie, 2002).
Criminologists that use quantitative methods
are more likely to generate results that are consistent over time-
-reliable. The reliability is a
result of the controlled environment and the standardization that
may arise from standardization
in testing. For example, a survey that is administered to a
random sample of 200 subjects is
likely to yield reliable results when another criminologist
replicates the study.
Criminologists that use qualitative methods have to contend
with this issue. Reliability is
a problem because criminologists are not able to standardize
their methods (i.e., instruments)
across multiple groups. Thus, the instrument in qualitative
research is often the criminologist
that is performing the observations or the interviews (Strauss,
1987). This creates an opportunity

for the assessment to be different for each individual or entity
that is being examined. That is, if
two criminologists are using qualitative methods, specifically
participant observation, they may
arrive at different views of the same situation. Further, two
criminologists reviewing interview
transcripts may arrive at different views of the same transcripts.
Discussion
When criminologists consider quantitative versus qualitative
methods, they need to
consider the strengths and weaknesses of both types of methods.
This dilemma has generated the
debate over the superiority of either approach, or the type of
method that should be adopted by
criminologists. Criminology and criminal justice has a strong
quantitative tradition (Tewksbury
et al., 2005). However, the author resists the opportunity to
promote one methodology over the
34
2009

other because neither methodology has the ability to address all
the questions that are present in
This debate may be advantageous for criminology and criminal
justice. The debate has
the ability to force criminologists to acknowledge and
understand the controversies that surround
each methodology. Understanding the controversies
surrounding the methods will force
criminologists to have an in-depth knowledge of the
methodologies and not to be restricted to the
physical sciences. The preference of any specific methodology
has implications for ideology
that go beyond that of technical strategy. That is, the choice of
a method has specific
implications to the types of information that are needed; the
methods that are used; and the
results that may be presented. Therefore, the choice of the
methodology that is used should be
guided by the research questions and hypotheses that are being
examined or developed. In
criminology, the typical focus is on testing theories. Even when
researchers are evaluating
criminal justice policy, they often use theory as a guide

suggesting a quantitative method.
Overall, the debate allows criminologists to create and develop
better theories that will advance
The debate also has the ability to illuminate quantitative
research as producing more
generalizable findings than qualitative research. The
generalizable findings from qualitative
research allow criminologists to make greater impacts on the
criminological world then if they
relied solely on qualitative methods. That is, one reason why
quantitative methods are dominant
in criminology and criminal justice research is due to the
greater opportunity to generalize the
results.
Another reason that quantitative research is dominant is that
anyone may be able to
perform them. This means that there is a greater opportunity
for others to arrive at similar results
35
2009

that are not stifled by special niches to enter certain settings.
This allows for more science to
dictate the direction of criminology and criminal justice rather
than “hunches” produced from
qualitative research.
References
Agnew, R. (1995). Testing the leading crime theories: An
alternative strategy focusing on the
motivational processes. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 32, 363-398.
Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for social
sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Blalock, H. M. (1979). Social statistics. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for
Research. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research in
teaching. (pp. 1-76). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and
Quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design and analysis issues of
field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
DiCristina, B. (1997). The quantitative emphasis in criminal
justice education. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 8, 181-199.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
36
2009
Pettiway, L. E. (1996). Honey, honey, Miss Thang being black,
gay, and on the streets.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Redmon, D. (2003). Examining low self-control theory at mardi
gras: Critiquing the general
theory of crime within the framework of normative deviance.

Deviant Behavior, 24, 373-
392.
Rossi, P. (1994). The war between the Quals and Quants: Is a
lasting peace possible? New
Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 23-36.
Strauss, A. S. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005).
Methodological orientations of
articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who
publishes what and where.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, 265-279.
37
2009
Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: Understanding Why
Qualitative Methods are
Superior for Criminology and Criminal Justice
Richard Tewksbury, University of Louisville

Abstract
The development of knowledge is important for criminology and
criminal justice. Two
predominant types of methods are available for criminologists’
to use--quantitative and
qualitative methods. The value, appropriateness and necessity
of using qualitative methods is
discussed. Because of the unique contributions – depth of
understandings being primary -- that
qualitative methods can provide it is argued that such
approaches should be used more
frequently, be more frequently and strongly valued and seen as
unique, often superior approaches
to the creation of criminological and criminal justice
knowledge.
Qualitative research, one of the two primary approaches to the
conduct of social science
research, is a superior means for conducting meaningful
research in criminology and criminal
justice. The numerous advantages of qualitative methods
provide a depth of understanding of
crime, criminals and justice system operations and processing
that far exceeds that offered by
detached, statistical analyses. Because of the differences in the
data, how data is collected and
analyzed, and what the data and analyses are able to tell us
about our subjects of study, the
knowledge gained through qualitative investigations is more

informative, richer and offers
enhanced understandings compared to that which can be
obtained via quantitative research.
The superiority of qualitative research arises from the core
differences in what qualitative
and quantitative research are, and what they are able to
contribute to bodies of knowledge. At
the core, qualitative research focuses on the meanings, traits
and defining characteristics of
38
2009
events, people, interactions, settings/cultures and experience.
As one leading proponent of
qualitative methods has explained, “Quality refers to the what,
how, when, and where of a thing
– its essence and ambience. Qualitative research thus refers to
the meanings, concepts,
definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and
descriptions of things.” (Berg, 2007, p. 3).
Notice that what is missing from this definition is the “amount”
or quantity of whatever it is that

is being studied. The number, or numerical descriptions of
things and their relationships is not
the focus of qualitative research, that is the focus of the “other”
form of social science research:
quantitative methods.
Quantitative research is typically considered to be the more
“scientific” approach to
doing social science. The focus is on using specific definitions
and carefully operationalizing
what particular concepts and variables mean. Qualitative
research methods provide more
emphasis on interpretation and providing consumers with
complete views, looking at contexts,
environmental immersions and a depth of understanding of
concepts
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.
Qualitative methods provide a depth of understanding of issues

that is not possible through the
use of quantitative, statistically-based investigations.
Qualitative methods are the approach that
centralizes and places primary value on complete
understandings, and how people (the social
aspect of our discipline) understand, experience and operate
within milieus that are dynamic, and
social in their foundation and structure.
39
2009
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. For many
scholars of criminology and criminal justice qualitative research
is inferior to what can be gained
from quantitative methods, and provides only anecdotal, non-
scientific examples of marginally
interesting and valuable insights. For many criminological and

criminal justice researchers,
qualitative research is the realm of pseudo-science, and
provides little or no value for addressing
how crime and societal responses to crime transpire.
Qualitative research is not only the “weak” stepchild of the
scientific community in the
eyes of many criminology and criminal justice scholars, but is is
also numerically the rare
method behind published scholarship in the field. As reviews of
published research articles in
criminology and criminal justice show, les s than 11% of
articles in top tier journals in the
discipline employ qualitative methods (Buckler, in press;
Tewksbury, DeMichele and Miller,
2005), and less than 15% of articles in non-top-tier criminal
justice journals utilize and report
results from qualitative studies (Buckler, in press; Tewksbury,
DeMichele and 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 (in press), editors of
criminology and criminal justice journals wish they had the
opportunity to publish more
qualitative research. However, the fact that only 5 - 10% of
submitted manuscripts employ
40
2009
qualitative methods not only leads to what many editors believe
is a “quantitative bias” among
reviewers, but there simply are not that many researchers doing
the time intense work of
qualitative data collection, analysis and reporting.
As Worrall (2000: 354) contends, one reason that quantitative
research enjoys wide-
spread 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.” Of course, to
make such a claim Worrall (and
other like-minded scholars) have to work from the assumption
that prediction is necessarily a
quantitative task. While one certainly can 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. After all, we all predict what our days and
futures will be like, based on our
own qualitative understanding of the settings and interactional
networks we find ourselves
enmeshed in on a daily basis. But, for our predictions to carry
“weight”, it would be the
contention of Worrall and others that we need to specify
strengths of relationships so as to know
“how likely” things are to be predicted accurately. Clearly, this
is but one way of achieving such
a goal, and not necessarily a superior means for achieving such
a goal.
However, while the ability to predict what is to come is
suggested as central to the
(supposedly superior) 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. Prediction is based on theoretical grounds,
and the testing of theoretical
concepts, propositions and relationships. Such theories are the
product of qualitative research;
qualitative research creates the concepts and proposes the
theories that are used to launch tests
41
2009
and predictive models. However, this fact, that qualitative
research provides the foundation for
theoretical understandings is turned back on qualitative research
as a weakness, demonstrating
it’s inherent inferiority. Consequently, qualitative research is
also marginalized and minimized
in importance, at least in the minds of staunch quantitative
adherents, for the role it plays in
developing theory. Simply stated, because of the significance
of qualitative research for
theoretical development, it is therefore secondary in

importance. In the words of Worrall (2000:
359), “qualitative research will remain secondary inasmuch as it
excels, whether intentionally or
not, at setting the theoretical stage for quantitative analysis.”
Apparently providing the
foundational knowledge and direction that quantitative research
could and should pursue is not
as important or valuable as actually being able to measure
things. And, just to be sure that it is
not possible to look to the poor predictive abilities
demonstrated by much quantitative research,
it is also contended that such failures are the result of the
methods that produce the prediction.
Rather, “where prediction errs – and where the connection
between quantitative research and
policy is tenuous -- it is because of flawed theory, not method.”
(Worrall, 2000: 360). So, not
only is the tree more important than the seed from which it
grows, but so too should the seed be
blamed when the tree fails to thrive and provide fruit, shade and
other benefits. At least this is
what is proposed by the defenders of quantitative analysis.
However, as those who have been trained in qualitative methods
know when done well,

qualitative research does provide valuable insights and advances
to knowledge. The
contributions of qualitative research differ from those of
quantitative research; however, just
because the contributions of each approach differ, this does not
mean that one is not (equally)
valuable. Qualitative methods produce knowledge that mutually
complements that produced by
quantitative research.
42
2009
What are the methods of qualitative research?
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 regular 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.
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
actions/interactions, immersion in settings so as to understand
the what, how, when and where
and how of social structure and action/interaction, the analysis
of media (written, spoken, drawn,
etc.) content and guided conversations with groups of
individuals (focus groups). Each of these
approaches to data collection differ in the source(s) of
information and what actual tasks the
researcher does to collect information, yet all also include the

idea of pulling together examples
of the content of regularly encountered situations and things.
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
43
2009
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, not in whatever form of
understanding the person being interviewed
holds and can explain to the researcher doing the interview. In
this way, interview data is
“richer” than quantitative data in that not only does the
researcher learn how the interviewee sees
and knows something, but so too does the qualitative researcher
get an explanation of that
observation or knowledge. In short, interview data provides the
answers that quantitative
surveys questions produces, but qualitative interview based data
also provides the answer in an
unlimited range of possibilities and with an accompanying
context.
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 (afterall, we
all do this as we go through our daily lives), 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: 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 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 (which will necessitate
different things to be observed, some
of which may not be accessible to an “outsider” who appears
and proclaims that they want to see
44
2009
what is going on). The challenge of observational data
collection methods is to be able to
simultaneously see both the obvious (e.g. large and surface
level) 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. 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. Especially for
researchers observing things
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. 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
needs to take notes on what he experiences, sees, hears and his
own actions and conversations
45
2009
with others that serve to inform him of what is happening, and
why it is happening as it is. 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.

Content analysis is the examination of some form of media or
communications for
purposes of identifying how such messages reflect construct and
are a part of culture. Scholars
who engage in content analysis take as their data a collection of
similar types of media
(magazine articles, television sitcoms, suicide notes, criminal
confessions, etc.) and work within
a structured, systematic process to identify patterns and trends
in what is included, what
meanings are being communicated, the type of
vocabulary/images used to convey particular
types of messages or how various types of messages are
contextualized within their particular
form of media.
Content analysis is fairly unique among the qualitative methods
in that it is often done
utilizing quantitative analysis (see Larsen and Monarchi, 2004).
While the data that are utilized
in content analysis remain text, and the focus is to identify how
meaning is constructed,
replicated and communicated, there are ways to use counts and
statistical relationships to identify

common patterns and recurrences of text. In this regard,
content analysis can provide data that
can be analyzed using both qualitative (interpretive) and
statistical approaches. However, in
almost all instances, and especially when the product of such
analysis is qualitative in focus, the
emphasis remains on the meaning of text.
46
2009
Focus groups, sometimes referred to as group interviews, are
guided conversations in
which a researcher (or research team) meets with a collection of
similarly situated persons for
purposes of uncovering information about a topic. The
advantage of a focus group over a series
of one on one interviews is that in the group setting the
comments and statements of each
participant are available to all other participants and can serve
to stimulate memories, alternative
interpretations and more depth of information that is likely to
come from participants interacting

and engaging with one another. In this regard the focus group
provides not only the data that
likely would be generated in a series of individual interviews,
but when focus groups work well,
they yield yet more in-depth information from the participants
interacting among themselves,
building on and replying to the comments of one another and
having their experiences and
interpretations of events and actions questioned (and thereby
pushing them to greater clarity and
thoroughness).
Unique Issues in Collecting Qualitative Data
Collecting qualitative data differs significant from collecting
quantitative data (or simply
downloading a data set) in that the process requires a high level
of interpersonal skills, creativity
and the opportunities for accessing data may come with
psychological/emotional stresses,
dangers and limitations on particular researcher’s opportunities.
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
47
2009
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.
Relationships between researchers and those being studied can
be a challenge to
establish, maintain, and sometimes end. Initiating a
relationship with people being studied
requires that the researcher be able to relate with people in the
field, and can interact on a
recurring basis in ways that people in the field find pleasant and
rewarding. One of the issues
that few qualitative researchers address or think about at the
outset of a project, however, is how
to end relationships with those in the field. If the researcher is

successful in initiating and
maintaining positive and productive interpersonal relations with
those being studied, it can be
stressful (for both the researcher and those they study (see
Tewksbury, 2006). These are issues
that are non-issues for quantitative scholars; it take little or no
personality or skill to distribute a
survey or download a dataset to one’s computer. The
qualitative researcher, then, must master
the additional challenges of making “friends”, managing
relationships and gracefully exiting
from researcher sites order to be successful.
It is also important to recognize that while any person can do
quantitative research on any
topic, the personal statuses and traits of qualitative researchers
can provide powerful barriers to
successful completion of projects. 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. For example, studies of
white supremacists would be

extremely difficult to do for minority researchers. Women, the
disabled and persons of either
advanced or very young age may find some research sites
difficult or impossible to access.
48
2009
These are not issues that confront and confound quantitative
researchers; only scholars who
actually interact with their study’s subjects need to manage
these types of relationships and
challenges.
Some research sites may also introduce physical dangers for
researchers. Studies of
active criminal offenders, drug-using subcultures and some
political groups, for example, may be
dangerous to the physical welfare and well-being of researchers.
In other situations, dangers
may arise while in research sites for researchers who are
members of particular groups, based on
issues such as gender, race, age, ethnicity, cultural background,
political affiliation and other

issues (see Sharp and Kremer, 2006). While this does not
necessarily mean that such studies are
impossible to do, the threats and dangers inherent in the
research sites may lead some researchers
to elect to not do some studies. Dangers can be managed (see
Williams, Dunlap, Johnson and
Hamid, 1992), although the efforts at managing danger so as to
maximize protection can be so
restrictive as to make project completion nearly impossible.
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 the researcher, stay for the
duration of time required, and to
participate in ways that are productive. When those being
studied do not come through on these
issues the data being collected may be limited or contaminated,
meaning that a project is likely to

be delayed in completion, or not completed.
49
2009
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/expressions for
such things about which patterns are the focus supply the actual
data for qualitative analyses.
Quantitative research requires that one either simply study 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 scholar is unable to
manipulate data and identify patterns.
For the quantitative scholar “meaning” is interchangeable with a
mathematical value; for the
qualitative researcher what the data truly mean is the
centerpiece of investigations and analyses.

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, p. xvii). However, what such a suggestion
means is that qualitative research
can (and in the eyes of some “should”) be subjected to the
statistical analyses that define
quantitative research products. This approach is essentially the
attempt of quantitative scholars
to co-opt qualitative data, transform it to impersonal statistics,
and yet gain (some) of the insights
and contributions that are unique to qualitative research.
Types of questions to be addressed by qualitative research
Qualitative research seeks to provide in-depth, detailed
information which, although not
necessarily widely generalizable, explores issues and their
context, clarifying what, how, when,
where and by and among whom behaviors and processes operate
while describing in explicit
detail the contours and dynamics of people, places, actions and
interactions. At the core,
qualitative research seeks to identify and explain patterns and
themes in events and persons, and

50
2009
across variously grounded events and persons. Similar to
Weber’s concept of verstehen,
qualitative researchers seek to provide a fully rounded
empathetic understanding of issues,
concepts, processes and experiences.
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.
Taxonomies, sometimes also called typologies, are presentations
of types of a particular
thing, person, event, etc. A taxonomy identifies a set number of
categories that reflect the
variety of forms that a particular event, etc. may take.
Qualitative research identifies the various
forms/categories and explains the characteristics that define that
particular variation.
Additionally, the categories will be explained so as to not only
show what defines that particular
form, but also how the various forms are differentiated from one
another.
When qualitative research seeks to explain cultural settings the
research is most often
presented in the form of an ethnographic report. An
ethnography is an explanation of how a
setting or group of people operate, focusing on what is actually
done and the contextual details of
the actions. For many readers of ethnography the value is in
having things explained in ways
that reflect how we all perceive, experience, and make sense of
the worlds we live in and know.

51
2009
Just as an intelligent person can explain his or her own
situation, giving a listener/reader a sense
of what is going on and how aspects of one’s world function in
support of and in opposition to
other aspects of our world, so too does the skilled qualitative
research explain the worlds they
study. To be able to provide readers with a mental picture and
feel for the basic operations, flow
and “feel” of a setting or group is the goal of one who writes
ethnography.
Qualitative research is often critiqued by quantitative
researchers as the form of research
which provides initial theoretical constructs and tools for
developing measurements (variables)
that are used in statistical research to produce specifics about
unique relationships among
specified pieces (variables) of settings, groups and
actions/interactions. Qualitative research is
sometimes referred to as “exploratory” in the sense that it
entails venturing into aspects of social

structure and interaction that have not been previously
adequately explored, and identifying the
core elements of structure and interactions. The identification
of these concepts and constructs,
together with interpretation on the part of the researcher is the
process of theoretical
development. The qualitative researcher cannot “prove” that
something exists in a particular
way or that constructs and concepts relate in particular manners,
but the qualitative researcher
can (and does) propose and argue in support of particular
manners of relations. These theorized
concepts and relationships, then, are the core of theories for
explaining the phenomena under
study.
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 – theoretical,
conceptual, or applied – as you develop interpretations of what
is happening in your setting (or

52
2009
interviews or documents or images) and what their words or
images mean to the participants”
(Warren and Karner, 2005, p. 190) As such, the analytic process
in qualitative research is
centered on researchers looking at their data, finding patterns
and similarities across cases, times
and instances and interpreting what these issues mean.
Quantitative research, on the other hand, is focused on testing
the strength and
persistence of relationships between distinct measures.
Specifying exactly how two (or more)
very narrow, limited concepts/variables is of value, but often of
value only for very exact
measurements of narrowly defined issues, concepts and
variables. As such, quantitative research
relies on the ways that researchers choose to have variables
defined, and what they elect to
include within the scope of the definition of variables. This is
not dissimilar to what qualitative

research does. However, the important difference here is that
the quantitative researcher needs to
know the parameters of the variables being used before
embarking on the study. Qualitative
researchers explore the span and reach of concepts (e.g.
variables) through the process of
collecting and interpreting data. It is through the process of
qualitative research that the
definitions of concepts are identified and specified.
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. The
qualitative researcher works from the assumption that concepts
are contextually dependent; the
quantitative researcher works from the assumption that s/he
knows best what a concept means,
and can pinpoint ways to measure such concepts.
It should additionally be acknowledged that it can be the case
that quantitative research
may complement qualitative research and benefit the production
of knowledge. Pearce (2002)
53

2009
argues that a research process which uses survey methods along
with interviews and observation
can be especially beneficial in developing theoretical concepts.
When the researcher moves back
and forth between each type of data, and draws on each to
inform the process, specific questions
and focus of the other, there can be significant advances made,
providing for a much more well
rounded understanding of a research topic or question.
What qualitative research can tell us?
The information learned from qualitative methods focuses on
depth, rather than breadth.
Qualitative data, whether collected from one on one interviews,
observations, focus groups or
immersion in a setting provides understandings of very specific
individuals and settings, which
while applicable beyond those specific settings and individuals,
is limited in how widely
generalizable such findings may be. But, overcoming this
limitation is the value of learning

about something deeply, and in a complete context.
Quantitatively oriented researchers may
utilize random samples and claim that their findings can be
applied far and wide, but the degree
to which their findings can be understood in complete context
(e.g. taking in all aspects of their
settings and locations) is limited by the variables which the
researchers think to include (and for
which they can get data). Qualitative research, instead, is
collected in a naturalistic setting, and
therefore brings with it the environment in which it is housed.
As such, by definition and
necessity qualitative research provides a more thorough (albeit
less generalizable) understanding
of how the collected data is impacted by, and reciprocally
impacts upon, its context. In this way
qualitative data allows, and in fact facilitates, understandings of
experiences, perceptions and
processes, in context and from the perspective of those being
studied. As stated at the outset,
qualitative research is about the essence and the ambience of
things and experiences.
54

2009
The focus of qualitative research is primarily on micro level
issues. Quantitative research
methods in the social sciences are broader, and often address
issues at the macro societal level,
where qualitative methods are impractical to use. However,
with a focus on micro level issues
(individuals, small groups, programs or organizations, single or
a small number of similar
cultural settings) qualitative research provides information that
draws on a wide range of aspects
of the person(s), group(s) or setting(s) to paint a picture of
wholeness. Quantitative research,
even when also focusing on micro-levels questions may draw on
multiple aspects of what the
researcher believes is important about the person(s), group(s) or
setting(s), but does not paint a
picture of how all facets of the focused upon entity come
together. Rather, quantitative
endeavors may point out and illuminate some connections and
parts of the picture, but lacks the
ability to know what colors, shapes and textures are necessary

for painting a meaningful picture.
Qualitative research, focusing on micro-level issues and
concepts, because of how researchers
look at issues and concepts does pull all of the necessary colors,
shapes and textures – including
shadings and uses of alternative brush strokes – into the
painting. The results are starkly
contrasting. The quantitatively informed painting may allow
the viewer to know what the
subject of the painting is, but areas of the canvas will be left
blank, colors are unlikely to be
correct (and maybe even misleading) and textures will be
uniform and flat. The qualitatively
informed painting, however, will be complete, have colors,
shapes and textures blended and
varied, and the painting will be nuanced and show depth.
Quantitative research fails to account for the full set of
potentially influential factors that
may be important for understanding how experiences are
constructed, varieties of cases are
similar and/or different or perceptions and views are
constrained and facilitated. With
quantitative research it is necessary for the researcher to
identify the full range of potential

55
2009
influences prior to conducting a study; if a variable is not
included in the data from the very
beginning stages of a project, it can never be known whether
that issue in fact is important for
experiences, processes or cultures. However, as a scientific
method that allows, and relies on the
emergence of a wide range of unanticipated influences, the risk
of missing out on identifying
what is important is minimized in qualitative research.
Via analogy, we can see that quantitative methods is the line
dancing approach to science.
Everyone and anyone can do it, and all that seems to matter is
that you get the steps right. If you
do the steps correctly, and in the right order, you will get a
product. It might not be smooth, have
good connections between the steps or look well executed, but
so long as the steps are done
mechanically correctly, it is presumed to be well executed.
Qualitative research on the other

hand is the ballet-like, interpretative dance approach to science.
While there are steps to be
done, it is more important to produce a smooth, well-connected,
emotionally-infused product.
Qualitative research does not rely on the mechanical precision
of steps being performed, but
instead focuses on how the overall product communicates a
message and moves people both
emotionally and intellectually. Qualitative research advances
understandings, which means that
qualitative research advances thinking, and theory. Quantitative
research may be valuable for
evaluating theory and testing whether theory holds up under a
variety of circumstances and
instances. But, it is qualitative research and understandings
that provide scholars with the
insights to conceptualize issues and problems differently,
thereby providing the foundation and
building blocks for theoretical advancements, refinements and
even initiations. This point is
even acknowledged and conceded by defenders of quantitative
methods’ superior status in
criminology and criminal justice. As Worrall (2000: 358-359)
admits, “In reality, theory

construction is a largely qualitative endeavor. . . . Qualitative
researchers primarily build and
56
2009
advance theories.” In short, while quantitative methods
certainly do offer some information and
understandings about criminology and criminal justice,
qualitative methods provide more, more
in-depth and more meaningful understandings.
References
Berg, Bruce. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social
Sciences (6th ed). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Buckler, Kevin. In press. The quantitative/qualitative divide
revisited: A study of published
research, doctoral program curricula, and journal editor
perceptions. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education.
Larsen, Kai R. and David E. Monarchi. 2004. A mathematical
approach to categorization and
labeling of qualitative data: The latent categorization

method. Sociological Methodology,
34 (1), 349 – 392.
Pearce, Lisa D. 2002. Integrating survey and ethnographic
methods for systematic anomalous
case analysis. Sociological Methodology, 32 (1), 103-132.
Tewksbury, Richard. 2006. Graduating from the field. In J.
Mitchell Miller and Richard
Tewksbury (pp. 129-143) Research Methods: A Qualitative
Reader. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tewksbury, Richard, Matthew DeMichele, and J. Mitchell
Miller. 2005. Methodological
orientations of articles appearing in criminal justices’ top
journals: Who publishes what and
where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16 (2), 265-
279.
Sharp, Gwen and Emily Kremer. 2006. The safety dance:
Confronting harassment,
intimidation, and violence in the field. Sociological
Methodology, 36 (1), 317-327.
57

2009
Stolzenberg, Ross M. 2002. Foreward: Pity the author…
Sociological Methodology, 32 (1),
xv – xvii.
Warren, Carol A. B. and Tracy X. Karner. 2005. Discovering
Qualitative Methods: Field
Research, Interviews, and Analysis. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Williams, Terry, Eloise Dunlap, Bruce D. Hohnson, and Ansley
Hamid. 1992. Personal safety
in dangerous places. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 21 (3), 343-374.
Worrall, John L. 2000. In defense of the “quantoids”: More on
the reasons for the quantitative
emphasis in criminal justice education and research.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education,
11 (2), 353-360.
58

ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docx

Similar to ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docx (20)

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docx