Criminological research
Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Open interview • A ‘conversation with a purpose’ - Difficult to generalize (N=1)
• Mostly related to qualitative, exploratory research. - Answers are subject to the interviewer’s
• Seeks to investigate the respondents’ reality interpretation
• Something to consider: talking to prisoners means talking to ‘failed’ - Questions are subject to the
criminals, so there is no feasible information on the current landscape of interviewee’s interpretation
successfully and discreetly committing crime. For talking to active - Possible power dynamics / interpersonal
criminals, trust is required. tension
• Clear, concise answers are preferred: leaving as little room for ambiguity as
- Might either lie about, downplay or
glorify what happened.
possible. Therefore avoid asking leading or double questions.
- illegal content is often prone to
• Mirror their way of speaking to increase familiarity misrepresentations because it is heavily
coded and classified.
+ Allows for discovery of new topics due to semi-structure - N=1
+ Makes the interviewee feel more comfortable because of the informal - Incarcerated individuals: no insights on
conversation style, allows them to open up current criminal landscape (as they
+ Allows for nuance, personal anecdotes and further insights into a topic ‘failed’)
+ Not as static / insensitive as quantative research - Non-incarcerated: often reached through
snowball sampling, so not generalizable.
Focus group • An organized discussion on a topic in which several participants ask each - Some people are more vocal than
other questions, and knowledge is gained through this interaction. others
- Some people might not feel comfortable
+ Through interaction, participants stimulate each other to nd results. talking.
+ The researcher can obtain a large amount of data in a shorter amount of
time.
fi
, Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Participant observation • Observing certain groups within their natural context, either actively - Di cult getting people to open up
participating or only observing (semi/quasi ethnography) - Participants might be under the
in uence
+ Seeing the subject interact with their natural environment, peers and - Being around illegal activity: risk to
objects oneself (robbery, rape, SA, etc)
+ Verstehen - Also doing it yourself: Breaking the law
+ immersing in their logic could mean closer to the
methodological goal
- Risk of being an accomplice
- Time consuming
- Labor intensive
- Closeness to one side limits access to
the other
- Hard to do comparative analysis: often
1 researcher.
- Ethical issue when covert
Large-scale survey • Often measures on 3 domains: attributes (demographic), behavior and - No nuance in data, insensitive handling
research attitude/belief. of sensitive topics
- A static image of social experience,
+ Large sample, easily reaching a wide range of people personal experience closed out
+ Large dataset: can present ndings relevant for a wide range of people - Closed questions present an obstacle to
open discussion” no room for
+ Cost e ective
spontaneity
+ Quick
- The influence of the possible presence
of an interviewer
- interest fades over time
- the time gap decreases spontaneity
- Coding takes away context
Online interview + No interviewer present, might take off pressure and allow for more - Closed questions: no room for new
information to be told additions or spontaneity
+ Traveling is not an issue - Non-response, especially when via
+ Anonymity and distance: might be easier for them to open up about certain email
topics - The digital divide
+ Time effective - saying and doing can be di erent, they
+ Quick results can lie.
flffi ff fffi
, Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Digital ethnography • Ethnography online, for example studying certain groups on social media - Vulnerability and con dentiality of many
platform or viewing interpersonal digital communication. topics
• crime is continuously moving online, so no longer a need for physical - Unable to generalize or use on a larger
ethnography. scale
- The digital divide
+ being able to cross far relative distances - People who are illiterate also not
+ When also sourced online: cost and time effective reachable
+ Great heterogeneity - Ethical issue when covert
+ Some people self-nominate seeing the ad, wanting to talk. - Might cause the group, often already
+ Might feel less intrusive marginalized, to feel under surveillance.
+ Quick results
Secondary data analysis • Already existing data, either judicial or not judicial, as a tool in own data 1. The dark number: a large number of
analysis. crime is not registered.
• Important to combine reasearch methods, due to limitations: 2. Lots of non-response in this eld due
• Beware of the context: relativity and political context, ethnic pro ling, dark to its topic.
number 3. Beware of how the data was
• For example: the decline in interpersonal violence in Western Europe to be conducted.
caused by Protestantism (internalized shame) and modern individualism
(autonomy)
fi fi fi
Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Open interview • A ‘conversation with a purpose’ - Difficult to generalize (N=1)
• Mostly related to qualitative, exploratory research. - Answers are subject to the interviewer’s
• Seeks to investigate the respondents’ reality interpretation
• Something to consider: talking to prisoners means talking to ‘failed’ - Questions are subject to the
criminals, so there is no feasible information on the current landscape of interviewee’s interpretation
successfully and discreetly committing crime. For talking to active - Possible power dynamics / interpersonal
criminals, trust is required. tension
• Clear, concise answers are preferred: leaving as little room for ambiguity as
- Might either lie about, downplay or
glorify what happened.
possible. Therefore avoid asking leading or double questions.
- illegal content is often prone to
• Mirror their way of speaking to increase familiarity misrepresentations because it is heavily
coded and classified.
+ Allows for discovery of new topics due to semi-structure - N=1
+ Makes the interviewee feel more comfortable because of the informal - Incarcerated individuals: no insights on
conversation style, allows them to open up current criminal landscape (as they
+ Allows for nuance, personal anecdotes and further insights into a topic ‘failed’)
+ Not as static / insensitive as quantative research - Non-incarcerated: often reached through
snowball sampling, so not generalizable.
Focus group • An organized discussion on a topic in which several participants ask each - Some people are more vocal than
other questions, and knowledge is gained through this interaction. others
- Some people might not feel comfortable
+ Through interaction, participants stimulate each other to nd results. talking.
+ The researcher can obtain a large amount of data in a shorter amount of
time.
fi
, Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Participant observation • Observing certain groups within their natural context, either actively - Di cult getting people to open up
participating or only observing (semi/quasi ethnography) - Participants might be under the
in uence
+ Seeing the subject interact with their natural environment, peers and - Being around illegal activity: risk to
objects oneself (robbery, rape, SA, etc)
+ Verstehen - Also doing it yourself: Breaking the law
+ immersing in their logic could mean closer to the
methodological goal
- Risk of being an accomplice
- Time consuming
- Labor intensive
- Closeness to one side limits access to
the other
- Hard to do comparative analysis: often
1 researcher.
- Ethical issue when covert
Large-scale survey • Often measures on 3 domains: attributes (demographic), behavior and - No nuance in data, insensitive handling
research attitude/belief. of sensitive topics
- A static image of social experience,
+ Large sample, easily reaching a wide range of people personal experience closed out
+ Large dataset: can present ndings relevant for a wide range of people - Closed questions present an obstacle to
open discussion” no room for
+ Cost e ective
spontaneity
+ Quick
- The influence of the possible presence
of an interviewer
- interest fades over time
- the time gap decreases spontaneity
- Coding takes away context
Online interview + No interviewer present, might take off pressure and allow for more - Closed questions: no room for new
information to be told additions or spontaneity
+ Traveling is not an issue - Non-response, especially when via
+ Anonymity and distance: might be easier for them to open up about certain email
topics - The digital divide
+ Time effective - saying and doing can be di erent, they
+ Quick results can lie.
flffi ff fffi
, Research Method Description + advantages Limitations
Digital ethnography • Ethnography online, for example studying certain groups on social media - Vulnerability and con dentiality of many
platform or viewing interpersonal digital communication. topics
• crime is continuously moving online, so no longer a need for physical - Unable to generalize or use on a larger
ethnography. scale
- The digital divide
+ being able to cross far relative distances - People who are illiterate also not
+ When also sourced online: cost and time effective reachable
+ Great heterogeneity - Ethical issue when covert
+ Some people self-nominate seeing the ad, wanting to talk. - Might cause the group, often already
+ Might feel less intrusive marginalized, to feel under surveillance.
+ Quick results
Secondary data analysis • Already existing data, either judicial or not judicial, as a tool in own data 1. The dark number: a large number of
analysis. crime is not registered.
• Important to combine reasearch methods, due to limitations: 2. Lots of non-response in this eld due
• Beware of the context: relativity and political context, ethnic pro ling, dark to its topic.
number 3. Beware of how the data was
• For example: the decline in interpersonal violence in Western Europe to be conducted.
caused by Protestantism (internalized shame) and modern individualism
(autonomy)
fi fi fi
