Research Proposal
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1) 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
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1) 2009
events, people,
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
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1) 2009
events, people,
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 Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1) 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