Advertisement

Discovering Realities: A Naturalistic Qualitative Inquiry

  • Xiaoyu Yuan
Chapter
  • 189 Downloads
Part of the Springer Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research book series (SSACCJR)

Abstract

Engaging in fieldwork requires both deliberation and decision. Researchers must be able to justify why the methodology qualifies and to make clear how it is carried out. In the first place, we must explain to readers why this approach is adopted, instead of another one. In this chapter, we start by giving readers an overview of the status quo of criminological fieldwork in China. Then, we explain why we adhere to a naturalistic qualitative approach; more importantly, we describe how the issues of access and the researcher’s identity in the field enterprise were handled. Furthermore, we discuss the issues of sampling, data collection, research ethics, as well as data analysis.

References

  1. Becker, H. S. (1963). The outsiders. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, H. S. (Ed.). (1970). Sociological work. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  3. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broadhurst, R., & Liu, J. (2004). Introduction: Crime, law and criminology in China. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(1 suppl), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/00048658040370s101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burgess, R. G. (2000). In the field: An introduction to field research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cao, L., & Wu, Z. (2005). A third view on Chinese criminology. Journal of Fujian Public Safety College, 2005(1), 27–30.Google Scholar
  9. Charmaz, K., & Mitchell, R. G. (2010). Grounded theory in ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (pp. 160–174). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Dai, M. Y. (2008). Policing in the People's Republic of China: A review of recent literature. Crime Law and Social Change, 50(3), 211–227. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9131-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennis, B. (2009). What does it mean when an ethnographer intervenes? Ethnography and Education, 4(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China. The case of sociology and anthropology in 20th-century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–40). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emmel, N. (2013). Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ergun, A., & Erdemir, A. (2010). Negotiating insider and outsider identities in the field: “insider” in a foreign land; “outsider” in One’s own land. Field Methods, 22(1), 16–38. doi: 10.1177/1525822x09349919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Etherington, K. (2007). Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 599–616. doi: 10.1177/1077800407301175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferdinand, J., Pearson, G., Rowe, M., & Worthington, F. (2007). A different kind of ethics. Ethnography, 8(4), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher, M. (2008). Foucault, power and participation. The International Journal of Children's Rights, 16(3), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: a positive critique of interpretative sociologies (2nd ed. With a new introduction). Cambridge: Polity press.Google Scholar
  23. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1974). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  24. Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91. doi: 10.1007/BF02766777.Google Scholar
  25. Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in social research: Essays on partisanship and bias. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hsieh, M. L., & Boateng, F. D. (2015). Perceptions of Democracy and Trust in the Criminal Justice System: A Comparison Between Mainland China and Taiwan. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(2), 153–173, doi: 10.1177/1057567715570050.
  27. Hughes, E. C. (1971). The sociological eye. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  28. Hugman, R., Bartolomei, L., & Pittaway, E. (2011). Human agency and the meaning of informed consent: Reflections on research with refugees. Journal of Refugee Studies , 24(4), 655–671.Google Scholar
  29. Kang, S. (2002). The status quo and development of Chinese criminological studies. Journal of Fujian Public Safety College (Pulic Security Edition), 16(4), 3–10.Google Scholar
  30. Kang, S. (2008). Background, development stages, features and main task of criminology in new China. Academic Forum of Nandu (Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences), 28(3), 72–77.Google Scholar
  31. Kanuha, V. K. (2000). “being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439–447. doi: 10.1093/sw/45.5.439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kipnis, A. B. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lai, Y. L., Cao, L., & Zhao, J. S. (2010). The impact of political entity on confidence in legal authorities: A comparison between China and Taiwan. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 934–941.Google Scholar
  34. Liang, B., & Lu, H. (2006). Conducting fieldwork in China: Observations on collecting primary data regarding crime, law, and the criminal justice system. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(2), 157–172. doi: 10.1177/1043986206286918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liang, B., & Wilson, C. (2008). A critical review of past studies on China's corrections and recidivism. Crime Law and Social Change, 50(3), 245–262. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9130-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Liu, J. (2007). Developing comparative criminology and the case of China: An introduction. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(1), 3–8. doi: 10.1177/0306624x06295774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Low, S. M., & Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Current Anthropology, 51(S2), S203–S226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lu, H., & Kelly, B. (2008). Courts and sentencing research on contemporary China. Crime Law and Social Change, 50(3), 229–243. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9132-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lu, H., Zhang, L., & Miethe, T. D. (2002). Interdependency, communitarianism and Reintegrative shaming in China. The Social Science Journal, 2002(39), 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCall, G. J. (2006). The fieldwork tradition. In D. Hobbs & R. Wright (Eds.), The Sage handbook of fieldwork (pp. 3–21). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. McConville, M. (2011). Criminal justice in China: An empirical enquiry. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015). Edge ethnography and naturalistic inquiry in criminology. In H. Copes & J.M.Miller (eds.), The Routledge handbook of qualitative criminology (pp.88–102). Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Noaks, L., & Wincup, E. (2004). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. O’Brien, K. J. (2006). Discovery, research (re)design and theory Buidling. In M. Heimer & S. ThØgersen (Eds.), Doing fieldwork in China (pp. 27–41). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pasternak, B. (1983). Sociology and anthropology in China: Revitalization and its constraints. In A. F. Thurston & B. Pasternak (Eds.), The social sciences and fieldwork in China: Views from the field (pp. 37–62). United States of America: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pieke, F. (2000). Serendipity: Reflections on fieldwork in China. In P. Dresch, W. James, & D. Parkin (Eds.), Anthropologists in a wider world: Essays on field research (pp. 129–150). New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  48. Rodwell, M. K. (1998). Social work constructivist research. New York & London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Sæther, E. (2006). Fieldwork as coping and learning. In M. Heimer & S. ThØgersen (Eds.), Doing fieldwork in China (pp. 42–57). Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  50. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thurston, A. F. (1983). The social sciences and fieldwork in China: An overview. In A. F. Thurston & B. Pasternak (Eds.), The social sciences and fieldwork in China: Views from the field (pp. 3–36). Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  53. Thurston, A. F., & Pasternak, B. (Eds.). (1983). The social sciences and fieldwork in China: Views from the field (AAAS selected symposia series). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wang, M., & Zhao, B. (2008). Building harmonious society: New developments of Chinese criminological studies [goujian hexie shehui: zhongguo fanzui xue yanjiu de xin fazhan]. China Legal Science, 2, 181–191.Google Scholar
  55. Whyte, M. K. (1983). On studying China at a distance. In A. F. Thurston & B. Pasternak (Eds.), The social sciences and fieldwork in China: Views from the field (pp. 63–80). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  56. Xu, J., Laidler, K. J., & Lee, M. (2013). Doing criminological ethnography in China: Opportunities and challenges. Theoretical Criminology, 17(2), 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang, M. M. H. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Yu, O. (2008). Corruption in China's economic reform: A review of recent observations and explanations. Crime Law and Social Change, 50(3), 161–176. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9133-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, L., Messner, S., & Liu, J. (2008). A critical review of recent literature on crime and criminal justice in China: Research findings, challenges, and prospects (introduction). Crime, Law and Social Change, 50(3), 125–130. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9134-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhou, L., & Cong, M. (2001). Criminology in China: Perspectives and development. In J. Liu, L. Zhang, & S. F. Messner (Eds.), Crime and social control in a changing China (pp. 57–63). Westport & London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zhuo, Y., Messner, S. F., & Zhang, L. N. (2008). Criminal victimization in contemporary China: A review of the evidence and challenges for future research. Crime Law and Social Change, 50(3), 197–209. doi: 10.1007/s10611-008-9138-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoyu Yuan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeShanghai University of Political Science and LawShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations