Compare and Contrast the Role of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in the Production of Criminological Understandings.

 Introduction

         Research entails the discovery of new information reproduction of existing knowledge from findings (Creswell, 2008). Since scientific research abides by specific techniques, this enables other researchers to reproduce the findings, thereby arriving at similar findings. Qualitative and quantitative methods are some of the main research techniques that have found wide application in the provision of knowledge in criminology. This essay seeks to examine the role of qualitative and quantitative research methods as applied in generating criminological understandings. The essay starts by presenting qualitative and quantitative techniques. Thereafter, the application of each method in criminology is examined, followed by comparing the similarities and differences between the two techniques. Finally, the essay concludes with an examination of which of these methods is widely applied and best suited in the field of criminology.

         Dantzker, Hunter and Quinn (2016) opine that both quantitative methods and qualitative methods are necessary and suitable for criminological research, but either of these research methods could be preferred based on the desired objective of the research. Criminologists rely on theory while defining various concepts, in addition to drawing connections between such concepts. A theory can be described as a collection of inter-correlated or interrelated propositions and concepts developed to explain behavior (Schneider, 2006). Criminologists describe behavior as deviant or criminal. Although there are many theories applicable in criminology, the main ones include social learning, strain, and self-control theories. The use of quantitative techniques enables criminologists to adopt a deductive approach while stating their research questions and hypotheses. Consequently, criminologists are not only in a position to test theories but can also assess cause-effect relationships.

When criminologists use such quantitative methods of research as surveys, experiments, and quasi-experiments, they are in a position to “gain valuable insights into the criminal justice system and criminals” (Higgins, 2009, p. 28). Quantitative methods hinge on the concepts of positivism and empiricism. Since they are derived from natural and physical sciences, quantitative methods enable criminologists to be formal, systematic, and objective in identifying a set of quantifiable phenomena. What this means is that criminologists are in a position to measure certain phenomena objectively, and this grants them the opportunity or remain independent or distance themselves from the phenomena under research. It also ensures that their values do not influence the research. Moreover, criminologists using quantitative research assume a formal tone that stresses the comparisons, differences, and connections between the various concepts under investigation.

Qualitative and quantitative research relies on various methods of data collection and hence enables the researcher to address the hypotheses emanating from theory. Some of these methods include experiments and surveys. A survey refers to a questionnaire developed to enable the researcher to capture information on respondents’ behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes (Babbie, 2002). In contrast, experiments help researchers to explain causal relationships. 

Creswell (2008) has defined qualitative research as an explanation of one’s assessment and deduction of observations using non-numerical means to identify patterns and meanings of relationships. According to Adler and Clark (2007), qualitative research entails interpreting meanings or actions using the words of a researcher. For instance, criminologists can rely on qualitative research to describe the behavior of someone as confrontational or aggressive through qualitative observation. This type of analysis allows researchers to verbalize insights in a way that cannot be realized using quantitative means of data analysis.  Qualitative research also tends to be quite involving in terms of time and costs so researchers may find it logistically non-feasible to conduct such studies (Bergman, 2008). Qualitative research is also time-consuming and is difficult to analyze statistically (Creswell, 2008).

Qualitative methods are based on perspectives, ideas, or hunches. The use of qualitative methods in criminology is aimed at developing theories, as opposed to testing them (Creswell, 2008). Moreover, the objective of using quantitative methods in criminology is to utilize the language of the subject as a basis for understanding criminology, as opposed to the number of subjects. Qualitative methods are thus subject-driven, as opposed to theory-driven. Consequently, criminologists are in a position to employ more phenomenological and humanistic perspectives in describing phenomena. Berg (2007) has identified various methodologies that qualitative research relies on, including content analyses, interviews, and observation. Qualitative Interviews could be conducted over the phone, or face-to-face. Criminologists conduct interviews to uncover information about the life of an individual or to shed light on a short period of life. Conversely, content analyses enable researchers to infer the significance of a specific type of information. Observation also enables the researcher to notice certain trends of participants being studied and hence comprehend the information so captured.

         Using qualitative methods in criminology helps criminologists to gain valuable insights into the social elements of how crime takes place, along with the operations of the structures of crime, processes of responding to crime, and how agents conduct themselves in culturally grounded settings. In this way, qualitative methods afford criminologists a depth of understanding of these issues that cannot be achieved via the use of statistically-based quantitative methods. However, many scholars of criminal justice and criminology view qualitative research as an inferior research method compared to quantitative methods as it mainly offers non-scientific, anecdotal examples of valuable and marginally interesting insights (Bergman, 2008). Therefore, many criminological researchers regard qualitative research as a pseudo-science that is of no or limited significance when it comes to tackling crime or dealing with societal responses to how crime transpires.

         Fowler (2009) argues that the definitions of quantitative research tend to be rather consistent. According to Berg (2008), quantitative research enables the researchers to explain and describe a phenomenon via a numerical system and is hence more objective. This means that quantitative studies avoid the potential criticism and bias of qualitative research. Consequently, most criminological research adopts a quantitative approach (Danzkler et al., 2016).  

         Quantitative methods of research differ from qualitative methods in terms of data captured by criminologists. For example, the use of quantitative methods enables criminologists to capture and make use of numbers. This is important as it acts as a sign that the research is based on a scientific system (Babbie, 2002). Since quantitative research is based on natural and physical sciences, the use of numbers thus adds legitimacy to criminological research. On the other hand, qualitative methods are based on actions or words. Such rich data enable criminologists to paint or draw a picture regarding the research subject. However, quantitative methods enable criminologists to collect enormous data, which could end up overwhelming them, thus finding it hard to make sense of the information derived following data analysis. Quantitative research is desirable in criminological studies as it enables researchers to measure past and current events and utilize the resources to predict future events. This is important in that it allows criminologists to forecast the behaviors of criminologists by drawing inferences from past events (Creswell, 2008). This only acts to minimize and marginalize the importance of qualitative research in criminological studies. Qualitative research still offers useful insights and advances knowledge in criminology in a way that complements the knowledge produced by quantitative methods.  

         The reliability of results also differs between quantitative methods and qualitative methods as used in criminology. Babbie (2002) describes reliability as the ability to derive consistent results over time. The use of quantitative methods enables criminologists to generate reliable results. However, reliability is a problem for criminologists who rely on qualitative methods as they find it hard to standardize instruments or methods across various groups. Therefore, the researcher becomes the instrument in qualitative research. As such, two researchers undertaking a criminology study could view a similar situation differently, thus making it hard to reproduce findings.

         In considering whether to use qualitative methods or quantitative methods, criminologists need to take into account the weaknesses and strengths of both of these methods. There seems to be a dilemma regarding which of these methods is best suited for our understanding of criminological studies. Criminal justice and criminology have traditionally had a strong bias for quantitative methods (Tewksbury et al., 2005), quantitative research is also desirable for producing generalized findings which permit criminologists to make a greater impact with their work in criminology than would have been the case if they were to only depend on qualitative methods. Therefore, the use of quantitative methods affords criminologists “greater opportunity to generalize the results” (Higgins, 2009, p. 35). Quantitative methods are also simpler to perform compared to qualitative methods, meaning that anyone could undertake them. Consequently, this enhanced the opportunity for other researchers to replicate the findings of previous studies. In this way, criminological research is guided by science, as opposed to only the “hunches” that qualitative research generates.

Conclusion

In sum, both qualitative and quantitative studies have found widespread use in criminological studies. Whereas qualitative research enables criminologists to gain a deeper understanding of the social aspects of crime, quantitative research allows criminologists to quantify past and current events to predict future events in criminology, such as criminal behavior. Although quantitative research entails the collection of huge data sets, it is more appealing to criminologists in that it allows them to generalize results and is also characterized by a high level of reliable results. Moreover, it is easier to conduct qualitative research and analyze results compared to qualitative research, not to mention that qualitative research is also costly to administer.

References

Adler, E., & Clark, R. (2007). How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research. Stamford,

Mass.: Cengage Learning.

Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Bergman, M 2008, Advances in Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

Creswell JW 2008. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Dantzker, M.L., Hunter, R.D., & Quinn, S.T. (2016). Research Methods for Criminology and

Criminal Justice. Burlington, Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Fowler, F.J. (2009). Survey Research Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Higgins, G.E., 2009. Quantitative versus Qualitative Methods: Understanding Why

Quantitative Methods are Predominant in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Journal

of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1), 23-37.

Schneider, M.A. (2006). The Theory Primer: A Sociological Guide. Lanham, Maryland:

Rowman & Littlefield.

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.

Tewksbury, R., 2009. Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: Understanding Why

Qualitative Methods are Superior for Criminology and Criminal Justice. Journal of

Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 38-58.