Search

The article addresses the issue of being a 'double' insider when conducting interviews. Double insider means being an insider both in relation to one's research matter - in the authors' case the making of geographical knowledge - and in relation to one's interviewees - our colleagues. The article is a reflection paper in the sense that we reflect upon experiences drawn from a previous research project carried out in Danish academia. It is important that the project was situated in a Scandinavian workplace culture because this has bearings for the social, cultural, and economic situation in which knowledge was constructed. The authors show that being a double insider affects both the interview situation and how interviews are planned, located, and analysed. Being an insider in relation to one's interviewees gives the advantage of having a shared history and a close knowledge of the context, and these benefits outnumber the disadvantages. Being an insider in relation to one's research matter makes it difficult to contest hegemonic discourses and tacit values and ideas. Recommendations on how to handle the double insider situation are given. The article concludes that for analytical purposes, it is useful to separate the two roles, but in reality they coexist and are intertwined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1957 Sykes and Matza introduced Neutralization Theory as a response to the prevailing criminological wisdom that offenders engage in crime because they adhere to an oppositional subcultural rule set that values law breaking and violence. Sykes and Matza rejected this perspective arguing that, despite their involvement with offending, delinquents maintain a strong bond to conventional society and want to perceive themselves as “good.” To resolve their contemplated law breaking with this desired self-identity, they employ neutralization techniques designed to assuage anticipated guilt. Subsequent research indicates that the original formulation of the theory is limited to explaining the behavior of conventionally attached individuals and fails to address the decision-making processes of nonconventionally oriented individuals such as criminally embedded street offenders. The current paper argues that, for a core group of such offenders, guilt is not an issue at all because their crimes are not only considered acceptable, but attractive and desirable. In-depth, semistructured interviews conducted with 191 active, noninstitutionalized “hardcore” street offenders indicate they discount guilt not through neutralizations but by attaching normative definitions to their crimes (as either mundane, inevitable, or enjoyable) that preclude them from eliciting guilt in the first place. In addition, these interviews detail the manner in which such outlooks develop among hardcore offenders and how they are maintained in a manner that supports further offending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary objective of the study reported in this paper was to look at the use of qualitative methodology in ergonomics research and practice. Qualitative methodology itself was chosen as a compatible approach to explore these aims, with ergonomics being seen as a socially situated practice. Semi-structured interviews were carried out using a prompt sheet which developed iteratively during the study. A four stage sampling procedure was used to gain access to 21 interviewees. These stages were (1) spreading the net (purposive sampling), (2) following up leads (snowball sampling), (3) focussing (intensity sampling), and (4) analysis sampling to seek out extreme/deviant cases. A total of 12 academics and 9 practitioners were interviewed from all areas of ergonomics, including cognitive (psychology), product design, engineering, human and health sciences, organisational management and sociology. The findings are represented by a model showing the interactions between multiple dimensions, including academia/practice, qualitative/quantitative and the internal and external environments of ergonomics. There was considerable interest in expanding the ergonomics toolbox to include qualitative methodology. However concerns were raised about a perceived lack of knowledge with respect to the process, which could be addressed through education and reflective practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper examines some of the major topics that legal psychology began to focus on at the end of the last century.Aim: The purpose is to contend that such topics (the reliability of ear-witness testimony, the conducting of identification parades/line ups, the interviewing of suspects, the interviewing of vulnerable witnesses/victims) are deserving of greater attention in this new century.Conclusions: Legal psychologists should be brave enough to research with methodological rigour complex, real-world topics of importance to society and to advise relevant professional groups on how to improve their performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports the arguments used by members of two convict-descendant societies in embracing their convict ancestry. The data are taken from interviews that I conducted in 1999. In the main, respondents were involved in genealogy prior to discovering their or their spouses' convict ancestry. Respondents effectively countered ancestral stigma by making two kinds of argument. In the first, they recast ancestral convicts as: objects of quasi-professional interest; nation-builders; a minority within a multicultural society; collectibles; and embodying 'interesting stories'. The second type of argument forwarded more particularized treatments of convict ancestors by: minimizing the gravity of their offences; temporally distancing descendants from them; empathizing with them; and claiming their redemption. I offer some concluding thoughts on the sociology of memory and the place of genealogical memory workers within the family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on interviews and participant observation, this paper presents a narrative account of the reactions of people in a small, Arkansas community to the religious claims of prophecy and divine mission made by an individual who temporarily comes to reside in the community. Public interpretation and evaluation of the prophecy is conducted informally through the rumor construction process. Naturalistic interpretations of fraud or delusion are mostly suspended as supernatural interpretations by community members become ascendent. People are eventually forced to rationalize their reactions when events fail to materialize in the manner originally prophesied. The unfolding of events is viewed from a sociology of knowledge perspective and treated as a case study of the social construction of reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent attempts to develop symbolic interactionist methodologies have sought to treat the interview as an object of sociological enquiry as well as a research instrument. But their accounts in terms of interactional rules and presentation of selves are primarily concerned with reactions to interviews, and the display of the interview setting in talk is treated as a resource rather than as a topic for investigation. Since such a reliance on the availability of phenomena is also a feature of the `natural attitude', lay and sociological usages of the interview share striking similarities. More specifically, both employ the documentary method of interpretation and, in order to claim a correspondence between theft accounts and some external reality, use remedies to counter misunderstandings. On the basis of tapes of selection interviews, the paper examines the competences and policies routinely adopted to provide for the contexting of talk as interview talk. Given that talk serves to display its setting (this is its reflexive character), talk becomes interview talk as members' managed accomplishment of a knowable context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the Hollingshead Index of Social Position (I.S.P.) is correlated with class awareness and class identification, two principal components of class consciousness. Comparative data are introduced from the Hollingshead and Redlich (1958) community study of New Haven, Connecticut, and an investigation by this writer (1963) of an urban Pennsylvania community, hereafter referred to as Twin City. Both studies use an objective index (I.S.P.) to estimate positions individuals occupy in the status structure of the community, and both correlate class awareness and class identification with class placement by this index. The interviews for the present study were conducted in a middle-sized Pennsylvania city, with a population of approximately 75,000, in the summer of 1961. The number of completed interview schedules, from which data analyses were derived, was set at 1,811. The social position which individuals and families occupy in the Twin City status structure was determined according to the modification of Hollingshead's three-factor I.S.P. All of the sample households enumerated in the interview schedule were stratified by class through use of this index. The collected data used to determine the I.S.P. for each household consisted of the education and occupation of the head of the household plus the ecological location of the dwelling unit in which the respondent resided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No research results are any better than the quality of the data. As scientists, survey researchers must share the problems of measuring, understanding, and controlling bias in their data. The potential sources of bias in survey research are many and varied. They may appear at any one or all of the several stages of the data gathering process. For example, they may occur in the selection of the sample, in the development of measuring instruments, in securing the responses of the persons in the sample, in the respondents replies, in the recording of the responses, and in processing the recorded responses. Even beyond the data collection process, bias may occur, as in the misapplication of statistics and in the interpretation of data. Progress has been made toward identifying and controlling sources of bias in some of these stages of the research process. Perhaps most progress has been made in the sampling stage and in the statistical application stage. Much advance has been made also in the reduction of error at the instrumentation stage. However, considerable work remains to be done on the problems of error control, especially biasing error, at all stages of the research between instrumentation and statistical analysis. This includes getting full response from the sample, accurate answers to the questions asked, and accurate recording and processing of responses. The accumulation of bias from these and other possible sources may be referred to as total or aggregate bias. The total bias may then be divided for analytical purposes into the following types: (1) sampling bias, (2) instrumentation bias, (3) non-response bias, (4) respondent bias, (5) interviewer bias, and (6) processing bias. This paper is an effort to deal with the problem of respondent bias in survey research. That respondent bias is a potent force in diminishing the validity and reliability of results from survey research is well recognized. The recognition of this condition has led to an enormous amount of activity aimed at isolating factors which determine this weakness of research results. These studies, by and large, have dealt with the problem of determining the direction of respondent bias, its magnitude, the speearle variables which produce respondent bias, and the effect of such bias on research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The papers in this issue of Sociological Review derive from a Workshop sponsored by the Sociology and Social Administration Committee of SSRC, exploring current practice and problems in the handling of qualitative data. It was felt that the time was opportune for some attempt to gather together ideas about the analysis of qualitative or interpretative material, and a reappraisal of the relationship between theory and methodology in the use of this type of data. Because it was thought that these issues could be best explored in the context of specific research projects, rather than simply discussed in the abstract, the core papers of the Workshop consisted of ten project presentations. These, all projects funded by SSRC, were selected as having representative or specially interesting methodological features. The grantholders were asked to prepare a paper to a common pattern, discussing the aim and design of the project, the relationship of concepts and data, and methods of analysis. The intention was to avoid, as far as possible, detailed descriptions of findings, and also discussions of the practical problems of methods such as interview or observation which were thought to be well covered in the existing literature. It was hoped that the focus could thus be placed on the intellectual, rather than the practical, problems of qualitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]