Making Sense of the Data

  • Olga PetintsevaEmail author
  • Rita Faria
  • Yarin Eski


Specificities regarding interviewing the powerful do not end once the recorder is switched off. They persist when making sense of qualitative data, reflecting on potential drawbacks of strategies used, and when presenting research results. Therefore, this chapter provides an overview of specific attention points while analyzing EEI. We discuss topics such as: coding and transcribing; the relevance of considering the researcher as a situated actor, encouraging self-reflexivity and being explicit about self-positioning toward powerful actors; quality control, especially regarding authenticity, transparency, consistency and data and researcher triangulation; ethical concerns; and the issue of getting back to the participants after data collection.


Transcribing Coding Reflexivity Quality control Participant feedback 


  1. Arsovska, J. (2012). Researching difficult populations: Interviewing techniques and methodological issues in face-to-face interviews in the study of organized crime. In L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 397–415). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, R. S. (2018). Quality of data collection. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 217–230). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J., & Verfaillie, K. (2009). Discoursanalyse. In T. Decorte & D. Zaitch (Eds.), Kwalitatieve methoden en technieken in de criminologie (pp. 311–337). Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  5. Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Phenomenological methods. In M. Bloor & F. Wood (Eds.), Keywords in qualitative methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottoms, A. (2008). The relationship between theory and empirical observations in criminology. In R. D. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research in crime and justice (2nd ed., pp. 75–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1972/1992). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brusten, M. (1981). Vers une criminologie sous tutelle étatique? Problématiques en perspective et stratégie des solutions sous l’angle de la recherche universitaire. Déviance et Société, 5(2), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchbinder, E. (2011). Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work, 10(1), 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chantraine, G., & Salle, G. (2013). Pourquoi un dossier sur la «délinquance en col blanc»? Contribution à un regain d’intérêt sociologique collectif. Champ pénal/Penal field, 10, 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Claxton, L. D. (2007). A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 23, 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challenges posed in studying an elite in the field. Area, 36(3), 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7(3), 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duke, K. (2002). Getting beyond the ‘official line’: Reflections on dilemmas of access, knowledge and power in researching policy networks. Journal of Social Policy, 31(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faria, R. (2018). Research misconduct as white-collar crime: A criminological approach. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  17. Faria, R., & Eski, Y. (2018). Een wolf onder de wolven. Ethiek en ethische commissies in criminologisch onderzoek naar ‘the powerful’. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, 8(3), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geis, G., & Goff, C. H. (1983). Introduction. In E. Sutherland (Ed.), White collar crime: The uncut version (p. 291). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology—The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12(1), 27–49.Google Scholar
  21. Gusterson, H. (1997). Studying up revisited. POLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20(1), 114–119.Google Scholar
  22. Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (Eds.). (2012). New directions in criminological theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An introduction. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4), 2009–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Israel, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2017). Ethics in criminological research: A powerful force, or a force for the powerful? In M. Cowburn, L. Gelsthorpe, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Research ethics in criminology: Dilemmas, issues and solutions (pp. 185–203). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jupp, V. (1989). Methods of criminological research. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kumar, S., & Cavallaro, L. (2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noaks, L., & Wincup, E. (2004). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver, D. G., Serovich, J. M., & Mason, T. L. (2005). Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oude Breuil, B. (2011). Alles stroomt…? Over ‘cultuur’ in de culturele criminologie. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, 1, 18–34.Google Scholar
  33. Petintseva, O. (2018). Youth justice and migration: Discursive harms. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Presdee, M., & Walters, R. (1998). The perils and politics of criminological research and the threat to academic freedom. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(2), 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ritchie, J. (2003). The applications of qualitative methods to social research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice—A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 24–46). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Sabot, E. C. (1999). Dr Jekyl, Mr H(i)de: The contrasting face of elites at interview. Geoforum, 30, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Sandberg, S. (2014). What can “lies” tell us about life? Notes towards a framework of narrative criminology. In H. Copes (Ed.), Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 68–86). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Sandelowski, M. (1994). Focus on qualitative methods: The use of quotes in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 17(6), 479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Slote Morris, Z. (2009). The truth about interviewing elites. Politics, 29(3), 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tromp, H. (2010). Strengthening awareness about researchers who are bringing unwelcome news. In R. J. Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy: Consequences for science, politics and media (pp. 215–225). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, R., Penttinen, H., & Tahvanainen, M. (2002). Corporate elites as informants in qualitative international business research. International Business Review, 11(5), 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yeager, P. C. (2008). Science, values and politics: An insider’s reflections on corporate crime research. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social LawGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Law, School of CriminologyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and Public AdministrationVU University AmsterdamAmsterdam, North HollandThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations