Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminology pp 137–164Cite as

Making Sense of the Data

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We wish to thank Ciska Wittouck from Ghent University for pointing us to relevant literature and to the importance of the topic of emotional impact of qualitative research on the researcher. While this topic has been approached mainly for those studying vulnerable populations and sensitive (often health-related) topics, it also offers great venues to debate and reflect upon while conducting research with those who may display power symbols towards the researcher, due to their expert status or elite positioning.

  2. 2.

    For further considerations, see http://imaginingjustice.org/essays/dangerous-liaisons-conflicts-interest-sponsored-research/.

  3. 3.

    See also https://www.fwo.be/en/the-fwo/organisation/research-integrity/.

References

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. S. (2018). Quality of data collection. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 217–230). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (2002). Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Phenomenological methods. In M. Bloor & F. Wood (Eds.), Keywords in qualitative methods. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1972/1992). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchbinder, E. (2011). Beyond checking: Experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work, 10(1), 106–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2007). A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 23, 557–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challenges posed in studying an elite in the field. Area, 36(3), 262–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, R. (2018). Research misconduct as white-collar crime: A criminological approach. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gusterson, H. (1997). Studying up revisited. POLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20(1), 114–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., & Winlow, S. (Eds.). (2012). New directions in criminological theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jupp, V. (1989). Methods of criminological research. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Cavallaro, L. (2018). Researcher self-care in emotionally demanding research: A proposed conceptual framework. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 648–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noaks, L., & Wincup, E. (2004). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oude Breuil, B. (2011). Alles stroomt…? Over ‘cultuur’ in de culturele criminologie. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, 1, 18–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petintseva, O. (2018). Youth justice and migration: Discursive harms. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabot, E. C. (1999). Dr Jekyl, Mr H(i)de: The contrasting face of elites at interview. Geoforum, 30, 329–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1994). Focus on qualitative methods: The use of quotes in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 17(6), 479–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slote Morris, Z. (2009). The truth about interviewing elites. Politics, 29(3), 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Olga Petintseva

  2. Faculty of Law, School of Criminology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Rita Faria

  3. Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands

    Yarin Eski

Authors
  1. Olga Petintseva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita Faria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yarin Eski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Petintseva .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Petintseva, O., Faria, R., Eski, Y. (2020). Making Sense of the Data. In: Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminology. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33000-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33000-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32999-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33000-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation