The qualitative approach in this study

There are many labels to qualitative research. Ely et al (2003) note that Tesch (1990) compiled a list of 46 terms that social scientists have used to name their versions of qualitative research concluding that ‘the sheer number is mind-boggling’ (2003:3).

However, in defining the process, Kirk and Miller (1986: 9) suggest that qualitative research ‘fundamentally depends on watching people in their own territory and

interacting with them in their own language, on their own terms’ and is ‘seen to be “naturalistic,” “ethnographic,” and participatory”.’ As such ‘qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000: 3). Therefore, unlike quantitative research, qualitative research is ‘research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of

quantification’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 11).

Thus, qualitative research emphasises the human, interpretative aspects of understanding the social world and the interconnectivity of different aspects of people’s lives. The psychological, political, social, historical and cultural factors that interplay in this process are all recognised as playing an important part in shaping people’s understanding and experience of their world. In this regard,qualitative

125 research is seen to reject the positivistic natural science model and to concentrate on understanding, rich description, deep reading and emergent concepts and theories.

As suggested in the preceding Chapter, Geertz interprets this role as an

‘interpretative one in search of meaning’ (Geertz, 1973:5). The basis for this is to challenge the conventional quantitative research ‘which wantonly imposes survey category and Lickert Scale upon its subjects’ (Hayward and Young, 2004). Hayward and Young further suggest that the rational choice theory and positivistic approaches to crime that dominate contemporary sociological theory ‘have very simple

rational/instrumental narratives’ (Hayward and Young, 2004). Thus, interpretivism seeks to overcome some of the perceived limitations associated with positivism.

It bears repeating that this study will represent an analysis of the norms that underpin the child in conflict with the law and in this context, will attempt to ‘bridge the gap between researcher and researched subject and capture the lived experiences and realities’ of the Malaysian context of youth justice. As noted above, this is drawn from Max Weber’s verstehen embodied in many aspects of qualitative research. This is described as ‘the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects’ (Henderson and Talcott as cited in Tucker, 1965:88).

However, the notion of verstehen is not without criticism. As early as 1948 Theodore Abel argued, ‘[t]he most obvious limitation of the operation is its

dependence upon knowledge derived from personal experience. The ability to define behaviour will vary with the amount and quality of the personal experience and the introspective capacity of the interpreter’ (Abel, 1948: 216). Thus, the researcher’s perspective and values make it impossible to conduct an objective, value free research.

In the intervening years since, the significance of the investigator’s own

interpretations and understanding of the phenomenon being studied has gained a much wider theoretical and philosophical support and acceptance. Researchers bring

experiences of various kinds into play and these include ‘technical knowledge and experience derived from research, but also their personal experiences’ which Anselm Strauss refers to as ‘experiential data’ imploring researchers to ‘ “mine your

126 experience, there is potential gold there!” ’ (Strauss, 1987:11). Berg and Smith

(1988:22) suggest that ‘it can be maintained that virtually no information about a person, group or social system exists without a relationship with that person or social system.’ In this regard, the researcher seeks to record accurately their own

observations while also seeking to uncover the meanings their subjects bring to their life experiences.

In response to the criticism levelled by poststructuralists and postmodernists that any snapshot of the life experience of a subject is inevitably viewed through lenses tainted by ‘language, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity’, qualitative researchers have adopted ‘a wide-range of interconnected interpretive methods, always seeking better ways to make more understandable the worlds of experience that have been studied’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000:12).

One approach is to avoid the descriptors “subjectivity” or “objectivity” in describing the process. Michael Patton (2001: 50) suggests adding ‘empathic neutrality to the emerging lexicon that attempts to supersede the hot button term objective and the epithet subjective.’ This approach suggests that there exists a middle ground between becoming ‘too involved, which can cloud judgment, and remaining too distant, which can reduce understanding’ (Patton, 2001:51).

As noted by (Jansen and Peshkin, 1992) subjectivity in qualitative research is unavoidable but this can provide insights, hypotheses, and validity checks that

enhance the richness of the discussion. The key perhaps is not to impose assumptions and values that are uncritical in relation to the research. Reason describes this as ‘critical subjectivity’which is ‘a quality of awareness in which we do not suppress our primary experience; nor do we allow ourselves to be swept away and overwhelmed by it; rather we raise it to consciousness and use it as part of the inquiry process’

(Reason, 1988:12).

In this sense ‘both qualitative and quantitative researchers think they know something about society worth telling others, and they use a variety of forms, media, and means to communicate their ideas and findings’ (Becker, 1986:122). The

127 other varying research approaches in order to preclude the ‘rigidity of polarized, dualistic thinking that sets qualitative and quantitative research as black and white knights engaged in an endless ideological battle…’ (Darbyshire, 1997:1) but at the same time being prepared to ‘watch out for methodological watchdogs!’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992:227).