Crime and Deviance Presentation

Research title:

Venkatesh example of kinds of thigns you might write…

Validity

Consider depth as well as just whether the participants were ‘lying’ or not

Have his aim in mind the whole time

Have his findings in mind so you can consider which might have been compromised by these issues

+ length of time – 7/8 years – more likely to get to the truth
+observational research has the potential to generate new ideas – things can be found that had not been predicted by the researcher – e.g.
+ relationship with JT allows him to gain really deep insights

-People being observed (if observation is overt) may have ‘acted up’ to the observer – ‘observer effect’
-JT was probably unusual for a gang leader – had a degree – so we cannot assume that his leadership is similar to other gang leaders
-his findings relating to the lives of residents and their concerns etc.. may not be high in validity because they saw him hanging out with the gang (Venkatesh admits this himself)

Reliability

Consider sampling technique

Consider whether the gender/age/ethnicity etc… of the researcher might influence results

· Length of time – hard to repeat
· Access through JT – hard to guarantee for another researcher
· Researcher = a man, ethnic group, – may affect what happens and what is revealed to him…
· a biased sample will affect reliability too so consider sample and sampling technique
·

Objectivity and bias

· Did he become too close to JT and would this have affected any of his findings/conclusions?
· ‘going native’ – relevant or not here?
· Qualitative research in general is often criticised for lacking objectivity because the researcher is arguably more likely to be biased when dealing directly with participants. Things like having to select what to put in field diary (observational research) and how descriptive data from interviews or observations is interpreted can be subject to bias. However…
+ no evidence in Venkatesh’s research that he allowed bias to systematically influence his research.

Representative-
ness/
generalisability

consider in relation to who they claimed to be finding out about – the target population/pop under study

· Is the Robert Taylor homes representative of housing projects in general??
· Study done in one city – cannot assume results would be the same in other cities in U.S.
+ observed and interviewed a large number of people and activities because of length of time 7=8years
+ he tried to see slices of life from residents as well as gang’s point of view so it was more representative

Also, exploratory research does not claim to be generalisable but it can uncover things that can be tested by other researchers elsewhere, for example.

Ethics / morality

· Put himself in danger
· Witnesses illegal acts
· Witness to violence and did not report or intervene in
· He misled his supervisor about what he was doing
· Reporting on the lives of poor communities – danger of playing into existing negative stereotypes.

Overall value/ usefulness / significance of the research

+ gives a good understanding of lives on the projects which:

helps to illuminate the ways in which the government has neglected the poor in the projects. E.g. lack of financial support means they are reliant on the gangs and the underground economy.

Is valuable because it documents the lives of these people

+helps to give an alternative to the media view of gangs

· It is not a particularly influential piece of research (unlike Cohen’s work which has influenced so many other pieces of research and has give the term ‘moral panic’ to sociology)
·