In chapter 2, we identified the five key paradigms relevant to criminologists and outlined the connection that exists between these overarching paradigms and the theories that fall within each of them. Just like theory, the research question(s), approach and method(s) flow from the paradigm under which we operate. For instance, while positivists typically set out to explain things in terms of cause and effect, and they approach research deductively and quantitatively, social constructionists typically try to understand some deeper meaning and the lived experience of participants themselves; consequently, they tend to approach their research inductively and qualitatively.

In this chapter, the various purposes of social science research and the different approaches and methods for conducting this research are reviewed. Case studies with Indigenous research principles and participants are used to illustrate these fundamental aspects of the social science research process.

Research Purposes

One of the first things researchers think about when designing a research project is what they want to accomplish by conducting the research. What do they hope to be able to say about their topic? Do they hope to gain a deep and personal understanding of whatever phenomenon they’re studying from the perspective of the research participants, or would they rather have a broad, objective understanding? Do they want policymakers or others to use their research findings to shape social life, or is the project more about exploring curiosities? The answers to these questions help researchers decide which of the four purposes of social science research best suit their project: exploration, description, explanation, or application.

Note that, as shown in Figure 3.1, these purposes are not mutually exclusive. A study can simultaneously explore a topic while also setting out to describe various facets of the topic. It also often makes good sense to describe the phenomenon of interest before setting out to explain whether and how one variable impacts another. What is important to bear in mind is that the purpose(s) of the research study is linked to the paradigmatic stance of the researcher, and it also has implications for how they approach their research and other aspects of research design (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018).

Exploration

The research purpose exploration involves embarking on new areas of inquiry (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Hesse-Biber, 2017; Rennison & Hart, 2019). The goals of exploratory research include:

1. scoping out the magnitude or extent of a particular phenomenon, problem, or behaviour,
2. generating some initial ideas or hunches about that phenomenon, or
3. testing the feasibility of undertaking a more extensive study regarding that phenomenon.

Let’s examine a concrete example to illustrate this research purpose. In my master’s thesis, I set out to learn about the various impacts of a provincial policy that banned the retail sale of rice alcohol in British Columbia, Canada (see Hassan, 2003).

The consumption of rice alcohol as a beverage — rather than as a cooking ingredient, as was intended — increased in popularity in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver in the 1990s. There had been no research done on this topic at all at this point, and, to be honest, I had zero previous knowledge about what rice alcohol even was! As such, the initial purpose of the project was to explore the various facets of the topic of rice alcohol consumption in an effort to understand whether it was even a problem worthy of my continued efforts. The questions I asked at the outset were: What was it? Why were people drinking it? Where was it sold? What was the impact of drinking it? And who was affected by the sale and consumption of rice alcohol? I read news reports and the transcripts from town hall meetings, and I informally spoke to stakeholders from various agencies, including police and non-profit organizations. These research activities helped me understand the problem and generate some initial ideas about what data existed to examine this issue more closely and understand where I might find this data.

Description

In studies where the research purpose is description, the researcher aims to describe or define a particular phenomenon through the systematic observation of a phenomenon of interest (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Hesse-Biber, 2017; Rennison & Hart, 2019). These observations are typically based on the scientific method so that they are more reliable than casual observations made by untrained people. Counting or documenting observations is the typical scope of descriptive research (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018). It often focuses on “what, where, and when” questions. Findings are presented in a summary without any follow-up about the underlying causes related to these findings.

Let’s take the rice alcohol study again as an example to illustrate this research purpose. After doing some initial groundwork to establish that rice alcohol was indeed a problem plaguing the community in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, the focus shifted to describing the problem in more detail. When was this an issue? Where were the exact police beats in the Downtown Eastside most impacted by its consumption? How many deaths were linked to alcohol consumption? Notice that the questions posed here pertain to alcohol more generally; data on rice alcohol specifically were not actually collected and were not available for analysis, so I had to get a little creative.

To answer these questions, data from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and the Coroners Service of B.C. were accessed. The purpose was to find out what days and months calls-for-service related to alcohol intoxication were highest and where these calls-for-service were specifically coming from. Data revealing when and where deaths linked to alcohol consumption occurred were also analyzed. I presented the results to the Vancouver Police Board by showing charts and graphs to visually present the descriptive findings related to these “what, where, and when” questions on the topic of rice alcohol consumption.

Explanation

While descriptive research examines the what, where, and when of a phenomenon, if the purpose of our research is explanation, it seeks to answer “why” and “how” types of questions. In other words, explanatory research tries to identify the causes and effects of the phenomenon being studied (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Hesse-Biber, 2017, Rennison & Hart, 2019). This type of research attempts to “connect the dots” in research by identifying causal factors and outcomes of the target phenomenon.

As you have probably guessed, the rice alcohol study set out to explain something, too! Once it was determined that rice alcohol consumption was indeed a problem worthy of inquiry (exploration) and the initial results from the analysis of VPD and Coroners Service data were revealed (description), I was left to try to answer the question of why this was happening. How did rice alcohol come to be the intoxicant of choice in the first place? Was the policy of banning the sale of rice alcohol itself the cause of the observed decrease in deaths and calls to police in the months following its passing or was it something else entirely that led to these post-policy decreases? Were there any other impacts (effects) of this policy (the cause)?

As I mentioned, data pertaining specifically to rice alcohol consumption were not available, so I had to ask people directly working in the community at the time to offer their expert knowledge in an effort to answer these “why” and “how” questions. These stakeholders from a variety of different agencies, all with different mandates, participated in in-depth interviews to reveal pertinent qualitative data. They assisted me in interpreting the initial graphs and charts I created with the descriptive data collected in the first half of the research project. In these interviews, I learned the diverse ways that stakeholders defined the problem of rice alcohol. I also learned what products were consumed by chronic alcoholics in the community before rice alcohol gained popularity and which products replaced it once it was banned. I heard what the various influences were on these shifts in popularity. Perhaps most interestingly, I had the opportunity to hear personal accounts from those who had used and became addicted to rice alcohol themselves. The lived experience of users and stakeholders in the community at the time rice alcohol was the “drug of choice” was crucial to explaining what the policy had actually accomplished.

Application

Last, but definitely not least, we have the research purpose of application (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018). Applied research seeks to find solutions to real-life issues. This research purpose highlights the fact that we, as criminologists, have an obligation to conduct studies that can assist frontline workers in the field as well as policymakers. Our findings can have an impact on how the system functions and what solutions should be explored to address the types of social problems we study.

Application research involves either problem analysis or evaluation (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019). Problem analysis refers to the use of social science research methods to determine what the potential outcomes are of policies or programs that have not yet been implemented. It entails a review of other similar policies/programs, perhaps at different points in time or in different jurisdictions. It is very future-oriented, as it attempts to answer “what if” questions to determine the utility of some solution that has not yet been implemented. Evaluation, on the other hand, involves looking at a program or policy that has already been implemented and conducting social science research to reveal what the various outcomes and impacts of that program or policy have been. It comes after that solution has already been implemented (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019).

You guessed it—the rice alcohol study was also applied research! It set out to evaluate the policy by determining what the impacts of the rice alcohol ban were — both intended and unintended — and it relied on social science methods in the process. As revealed with the use of this study as an example, it becomes apparent that these research purposes are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, sometimes shouldn’t be. While it is not common that a study includes all four research purposes, it is clear in this example that they can complement one another, and they can come in handy for researchers at different stages of a research project.

Research Approaches

At the outset of the chapter, the connection between paradigms and theory and also between paradigms and research purposes was highlighted. In this discussion, I mentioned that, generally speaking, positivists set out to explain phenomena, and they rely on deductive and quantitative research approaches to do this, while social constructionists search for deeper meaning from the perspective of participants themselves and tend to rely on inductive and qualitative research approaches. These two ways of thinking about research approaches—deductive and inductive, qualitative and quantitative—are discussed next.

Inductive and Deductive Approaches

There are different ways of thinking about approaches to conducting social science research. A discussion about the difference between inductive and deductive research approaches is a good starting point. In an inductive approach to research, the goal is to infer theoretical concepts and patterns from observed data (Hesse-Biber, 2017; Rennison & Hart, 2019). Figure 3.2 (below) illustrates the process of research using an inductive approach. As illustrated in the figure (note the direction of the arrow), a researcher begins by collecting data relevant to their topic of interest. After collecting a substantial amount of data, the researcher then takes a break from data collection and begins looking for patterns in the data to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus, an inductive approach to research involves starting with a set of systematically collected observations (the data) and then moving from those observations to a more general set of theoretical propositions about the experiences being studied. In other words, this kind of approach moves from data to theory or from the specific to the general (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019). Because of their focus on developing theory, inductive approaches are also called theory-building approaches to research.

People typically associate the deductive approach to research with scientific investigation. In a deductive approach, the goal is to use empirical data to test concepts and patterns inferred in theories. The researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying, and then tests those theories by collecting and analyzing data. Essentially, researchers move from a general level of focus (theories) to a specific level of focus (testing the theory with specific data) (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019). Figure 3.3 (below) illustrates a deductive approach to research (again, note the direction of the arrow). As illustrated in the figure, a researcher starts with theory, then the researcher collects data and analyzes the data to test that theory (the technicalities of this process are reviewed later in this text). Thus, deductive approaches can also be called theory-testing approaches to research. Note here that the goal of theory testing is not only to test a theory but possibly to refine, improve, and extend it.

Inductive and deductive approaches to research may seem quite different, but both theory building (inductive research) and theory testing (deductive research) are critical for the advancement of scientific knowledge. In fact, the two approaches can be complementary. For example, researchers may plan for their research to include both inductive and deductive components, or they might begin a study with only an inductive or deductive approach but then discover along the way that they need the other approach to further explain their findings.

Rather than opposing strategies for conducting research, it might help to think about inductive and deductive research as two halves of a research cycle that constantly moves between theory and observations. Elegant theories aren’t helpful if they don’t match reality. Likewise, mountains of data are useless until they can contribute to the construction of meaningful theories. Rather than viewing these two approaches to research as wholly separate, imagine each iteration between theory and data contributing to stronger theories and explanations of the phenomenon of interest.

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

Another way of thinking about approaches to conducting social science research is to make a distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative and quantitative methods refer to the type of data being collected, the strategies for the collection of data and also the strategies for analysis. Qualitative methods involve data collection strategies that yield results such as words or pictures (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019; Hesse-Biber, 2017). The goal is typically to gain some in-depth understanding about a social phenomenon (Kleinknecht et al., 2018). An understanding of perceptions, meanings and emotions is typically sought after in qualitative research (Silverman, 2005). Some of the most common qualitative methods in social science include field research, intensive interviews, and focus groups, all of which are discussed in chapters later on in this text. After data collection, these methods require analysis strategies such as thematic coding or discourse analysis. The inductive approach to research typically employs a qualitative method. Studies following this inductive, qualitative approach often fall into any one of the paradigms discussed in chapter 2, except for positivism.

Quantitative methods, on the other hand, result in data that can be represented by and condensed into numbers (Maxfield & Babbie, 2018; Rennison & Hart, 2019). Survey research and experiments are probably the most common quantitative methods in social science, both of which are discussed later in this text. After data collection, quantitative methods require statistical analysis. The deductive approach to research typically employs a quantitative method, and, more often than not, the paradigmatic stance at the foundation of these research studies is positivism.

Qualitative and quantitative methods are sometimes presented or discussed in a way that suggests they are somehow in opposition to one another. In fact, this was a message I heard throughout my entire undergraduate degree in criminology. Researchers may prefer one method over another, either because their own approaches to research or their research questions are better suited to one particular approach or because they happened to have been trained in one specific method. While qualitative methods aim to gain an in-depth understanding of a relatively small number of cases, quantitative methods offer less depth but more breadth because they typically focus on a much larger number of cases.

Sometimes, though, the joint use of qualitative and quantitative data may help generate unique insights into a complex social phenomenon; hence, a mixed-method approach that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches is often highly desirable (Hesse-Biber, 2017). This was in fact the design I adopted in my master’s research examining the problem of rice alcohol addiction: VPD  and coroner data were quantitative, and the interview data with stakeholders were qualitative.

This textbook operates from the perspective of qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary rather than competing. These methods should be seen as tools in our toolkit that we can draw from depending on the situation at hand (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). While these methodological approaches certainly differ, they simply have different goals, strengths, and weaknesses. We’ll explore the goals, strengths, and weaknesses of specific social science methods that fall under each of these approaches in more depth in later chapters.

Choosing a Research Method

As outlined above, some data collection methods are qualitative and others are quantitative. The former are typically employed by researchers approaching their work inductively, while the latter are typically employed by researchers approaching their work deductively, though, as stated, they can be used to complement one another. Regardless of the approach, at some point, researchers need to decide how they will collect their data. They tend to choose the research method they are most comfortable with because of their skills, training, and disciplinary norms. However, ideally, the choice should depend on the nature of the research phenomenon being studied and the research question, approach, and purposes or goals (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003).

In the preliminary phases of research, when the research problem is unclear, the researcher wants to scope out the nature and extent of a certain research problem, and/or no theories appear to explain the phenomenon of interest, a focus group, field research, or interviews may be ideal because of their usefulness for inductive approaches and exploratory and descriptive goals. But if the researcher finds existing, competing theories and wants to test these theories or integrate them into a larger theory, methods such as surveys or experiments would be more appropriate because they fit well with deductive approaches and explanatory goals.

Researchers must consider the specific research question, their approach to the research process, and the purposes or goals of the research before choosing the method that fits best with their project. The illustrations below should help bring these research decisions to life for you. While these examples make mention of specific research methods and sampling decisions as well as analysis techniques, do not worry, these details are discussed more in future chapters. For now, focus on the connection between the research purpose, approach and method in each example. Also, take note of how the researcher in each example approaches their respective study with respect for Indigenous culture and knowledge and with deep concern for the well-being and autonomy of Indigenous elders.

Qualitative, Inductive Research Illustration – The Spiritual Abuse of Indigenous Elders

Let’s say we are interested in conducting research on the topic of the spiritual abuse of Indigenous elders. Although nothing may appear in the typical literature, we know that Indigenous cultures, and by extension Indigenous research, recognize spirituality as an important contribution to ways of knowing. So, we set out to explore this concept in informal talks with elders. We learn in these preliminary exploratory meetings—in what Indigenous researchers call talking circles (see this video for more on Talking Circles: Talking Circles) and Western researchers refer to as focus groups—that the last group of researchers who studied the tribal people concluded that Indigenous peoples were lazy and not concerned about their health because they did not use the gym that was built for them. What those previous researchers did not realize was that the facility was built on sacred ground and the local people chose not to use it unless it was moved to a non-sacred space.

The information learned in the talking circle allows us as researchers to discover that elders are concerned about losing their sacred cultural items through theft or items being left behind if they are moved from their home. They also discussed not being transported to, or allowed to participate in, community spiritual ceremonies. These concepts are not typically addressed in most existing theories, policies, or programs, so it fits then that this project will use an inductive approach, which by definition is open to new and unanticipated concepts and findings emerging, such as fear of the loss of cultural items and spiritual connection.

Based on the informal but very important initial input from elders at the outset, we decide that what we should do is ask broad, open-ended questions in in-depth interviews about spirituality. We should ask whether elders are assisted in practising their spirituality or if anything is keeping them from practising their spirituality. These interviews could take hours, scheduling interviews could prove to be challenging, and the analysis of pages and pages of interview notes could take weeks or longer.

To select interviewees, we would be more interested in choosing participants who we know possess the key characteristics of interest. As such, we would not rely on random sampling techniques; rather, we would strategically select a much smaller number of participants who we would interview using open-ended questions. This is what Western researchers call purposive sampling. While we will not be able to generalize in quite the same way as in a quantitative study, our data will be rich and detailed and will likely reveal information we did not anticipate (more on sampling methods in chapter 7b).

Even the open-ended questions in the spiritual abuse example, where participants answered questions in a lengthy face-to-face interview, will need to be processed in some way. Our spiritual abuse data are predominantly qualitative, based on in-depth interviews with open-ended questions about spirituality, spiritual practices, spiritual objects and any issues they have encountered in practising their spirituality. The responses will be typed into a document or a discourse analysis program like NVivo so specific words and phrases can be grouped into categories for qualitative analysis and comparison (more on qualitative analysis in chapter 13).

---

Adapted from Methods and Counting Crime by Wendelin Hume, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we introduced you to the four purposes of social science research and the different ways we can approach our research: inductively or deductively and qualitatively or quantitatively. We also highlighted that these purposes and approaches are not mutually exclusive, and combining them can often be advantageous. The decision about which purpose(s) and approach(es) to adopt depends largely on the research question(s) we want to answer and the data available to answer it.

We concluded the chapter by illustrating the connection between the purpose, approach and method in our research through two examples involving Indigenous participants. The first is a qualitative study where the spiritual abuse of Indigenous elders is examined inductively, while the second is a quantitative study where the financial abuse of Indigenous elders is examined deductively. In both studies, respect for Indigenous culture and knowledge as well as concern for the well-being and autonomy of Indigenous elders are exemplified, highlighting the central role of ethics in all the work we do, particularly when we conduct research within Indigenous communities.

References

Hagan, F. E. (2014). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (9th ed.). Pearson. 

Hassan, S. (2003). Rice alcohol: A policy impact analysis [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Simon Fraser University.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2017). The practice of qualitative research: Engaging students in the research process (3rd ed.). Sage.

Kleinknecht, S. W., van Den Scott, L. K., & Sanders, C. B. (Eds.). (2018). The craft of qualitative research: A handbook. Canadian Scholars.

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2018). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Rennison, C. M., & Hart, T. C. (2019). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology. Sage.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. Sage.