QUALITATIVE VALIDITY & LIMITATIONS

3.6.1 Qualitative validity

The traditional concepts of validity and reliability in quantitative research are expressed in different terms when assessing the “rigour” of qualitative studies.

Lincoln (1995, 277) proposed four criteria for evaluating qualitative research namely, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility is achieved through “structural corroboration”, which refers to the process of seeking clarification from the participants in relation to the findings or through data triangulation (Noaks and Wincup 2004, 8; Rudestam and Newton 2001, 98).

Arguably, this study should be relying on data triangulation to confirm the accuracy of information in the court judgments. However, the process of data triangulation is already undertaken by police investigators in gathering evidence before a trial. The evidence presented in a trial and ultimately, recorded in a court judgment, is the culmination of police investigation efforts. Such methods may include records of police interviews with offenders and other related parties, deciphering wire taps or examining field notes from other police investigators. Triangulation is also apparent through the assessment of evidence from the police, via the adversarial court process and finally, to the judge or jury.

Morselli argues that guilty verdicts in court cases are the most accurate sources of information available within the criminal justice system:

“The most accurate information that may be compiled from criminal justice data is that confirmed by a guilty verdict. Such precision decreases as we extend from the

151

final court verdict and move toward data based on accusations, arrests and targeting during an investigation (Morselli 2009, 44).”

Furthermore, von Lampe (2003, 47) argues that the analysis of criminal files has obvious limitations because only certain information will come to the attention of law enforcement agencies. However, von Lampe (2003, 47) also states that “...there is no other source that would provide a similarly broad set of more or less standardised data on market participants, their relationships, their modus operandi and the responses from the criminal justice system.” This research is also based on the premise that court records will provide evidence on the quantity and type of drugs trafficked, the personal and social circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence, the number of individuals directly/indirectly involved in the commission of an offence, the different roles played by certain individuals and their methods of operation; information essential to understanding the organisational structure of a drug trafficking operation.

A number of organised crime and drug trafficking studies have used case law as the primary data source or as a supplementary data source within a multi-disciplinary methodology. A recent Australian study on a criminal group involved in the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine used judges’ sentencing comments as a data source for SNA (Bright, Hughes and Chalmers 2012, 151). In a study of upper level drug trafficking in New York City, Natarajan and Belanger (1998, 1009) sampled 39 drug trafficking cases prosecuted in the Southern and Eastern Federal District Courts of New York City. In a study of the illegal nicotine market, von Lampe (2003, 47) analysed criminal court files to supplement a variety

of other data sources including media reports, interviews and law enforcement documents. Morselli and Petit (2007, 113) used electronic surveillance data which was submitted as evidence during the trial of members involved in a drug trafficking network (Caviar network). Finally, in a study of the Colombian drug trade, information obtained from criminal court testimonies were used to supplement interview data (Kenney 2007a, 236). These studies demonstrate that court data is a highly useful source for examining drug trafficking activity.

Other sources of triangulation have been excluded for a number of reasons.

Press or media sources were excluded as they are inherently unreliable and often biased. Also, given the current media’s focus on OMCGs in Australia, the current study would need to rely on dated journalistic accounts of Southeast Asian drug activity. The use of autobiographies or similar sources may have been useful but there are no such sources available that relate to this study on Southeast Asian drug traffickers in Australia. Currently, there is one biography on the Chinese leader who controlled a heroin trafficking syndicate in the United States but this source was not utilised because Australian data will differ markedly in terms of the drug quantities trafficked and modus operandi. Also, it is likely that US Chinese traffickers will have different international connections to source and distribute drugs. Finally, no interview data was obtained from convicted drug offenders given that such an approach will raise ethical issues, safety risks and difficulties in verifying the accuracy of information obtaining from drug offenders.

Transferability refers to generalisability of the findings and whether the study can be “transferred” to other settings (Trochim 2006, 1; Rudestam and Newton 2001,

153

98). Generalisability is usually achieved via statistical sampling methods (Silverman and Marvasti 2008, 163). As a result, qualitative studies are often scrutinised in terms of sample representativeness and the extent to which their findings can be generalised. Yin (2009, 43) distinguishes between statistical generalisation and analytical generalisation. Statistical generalisation is the type of generalisation associated with quantitative, survey style research. Yin suggests that qualitative researchers aim for analytical generalisation i.e. to generalise findings to some broader theory as opposed to the broader population. This is also the reason for adopting theoretical sampling methods in order to select cases that are relevant to the study’s research questions and theoretical framework. By using a sample limited to Southeast Asian offenders, this study’s findings cannot be generalised on a macro level to drug traffickers or OCGs as a whole. However, this study’s findings may potentially be generalised to other mono-ethnic Asian drug traffickers or drug distribution networks overseas.

Dependability is achieved through replication of a study under similar circumstances (Rudestam and Newton 2001, 98). This study can be replicated using different Asian drug populations or ethnic groups in other countries or simply all court cases of another organised crime activity e.g. extortion. However, the major issue pertaining to dependability is the various interpretations of what is defined as

“Southeast Asian” offenders and this will be further addressed in the limitations of the study.

Confirmability refers to the extent in which findings can be “confirmed or corroborated” by other researchers (Trochim 2006, 1). The researcher should aim for

consistency in coding data to ensure themes and concepts are easily interpreted (Trochim 2006, 1). In the current study, confirmability is achieved through the three stage process of grounded theory analysis, content analysis and the overall synthesis of these two stages. By utilising latent coding in the content analysis of the data, this confines the analysis to the specific codes developed in the methodology. However, grounded theory analysis allows the categories to emerge from the data which means the data is not distorted in any way to fit a particular set of codes.

3.6.2 Limitations

All research has limitations and in particular, research into clandestine activity is often hindered by issues with access to data. Several limitations were identified in the current study namely, issues with the data source, data collection method, the impact of police and court perspectives and generalisability of the findings.

A key limitation in this study is the use of conviction data only i.e. the study did not incorporate any data from “active” drug offenders. Therefore, it is possible that there are unknown characteristics which distinguish captured offenders and active or “successful” offenders. Benson and Decker (2010, 137) addressed this issue in their interview study of international drug smugglers in federal prisons. Benson and Decker (2010, 137) compared their findings on the organisation of international drug smugglers to qualitative studies on “active” criminal offenders engaged in armed robberies, carjacking and gang activity (e.g. Decker, Katz and Webb 2008, 160; Jacobs, Topali and Wright 2003, 675). Similar to Benson and Decker (2010, 137), these studies concluded that gangs were rarely well organised and in the case of

155

carjacking, dense street networks often facilitated crime commission (Decker, Katz and Webb 2008, 160; Jacobs, Topali and Wright 2003, 679). Therefore, Benson and Decker’s finding (2010, 138) that international drug smugglers operated in less formal or organised structures cannot be attributed to the fact that only offenders who were arrested and convicted were interviewed. However, to achieve greater veracity in the findings, attempts should be made to gather data on “active” drug offenders.

This study did not pursue “active” drug offenders in data collection due to issues relating to ethics approval, time constraints, risks to personal safety and difficulties with accessing “active” drug offenders for research purposes.

Second, the information in court data has been gathered to satisfy one primary objective – to obtain a conviction. Therefore, the evidence will focus solely on aspects of the crime that are necessary to convict an offender. Given this focus, it is likely that the information contained in court data is incomplete to some degree. The issue of missing or incomplete data is also apparent in the methods used by police to gather evidence. Police investigators must rely on data collection methods such as observations, archival information, informants or witnesses that may produce incomplete information (Berlusconi 2012, 3). Therefore, data obtained from transcripts of court proceedings, police files or interviews with offenders or law enforcement personnel present some limitations with regards to data completeness and accuracy (Berlusconi 2012, 3). The issue of incomplete data means that clusters of networks, sub-networks or smaller components of larger criminal networks or groups may be observed in the data, rather than full networks.

The third limitation relates to the characterization of groups and offenders as

“organised crime members”, “syndicates” or “Mr Big” by law enforcement and the judiciary. The process of obtaining a conviction naturally focuses on the individual, co-offenders and criminal groups (if any). Therefore, police and other law enforcement agencies will characterize and categorise individuals based on their own perception of the individual’s involvement in specific types of crime and the methods used to commit the crime. It is possible that police may be tracking one individual or a subset of a group but characterize these individuals as operating in a “criminal network” or “hierarchy” which could be a misleading representation for researchers seeking to rely on those characterizations. Similarly, groups that are characterised as a “drug trafficking syndicate” might indicate that such groups are well established, organised and involved in large scale drug trafficking operations. However, a group perceived as a “syndicate” could potentially be a subset of criminal network.

Fourth, the study’s research objective limited the data set to focusing only on the operational structure of Southeast Asian drug trafficking groups. This creates issues with generalizability and sample representativeness as the study examined only one ethnic population of offenders involved in drug trafficking and excluded other groups, such as Lebanese or Middle Eastern drug traffickers. Whilst Southeast Asian offenders have long been associated with drug-related crime, a key factor in choosing this population was the researcher’s cultural knowledge and familiarity with Southeast Asian names in a case database. As discussed earlier in the chapter, case law databases provide no search mechanisms for locating cases based on ethnic or racial grounds. Therefore, cases needed to be quickly identified from its initial appearance on the search results page, which provided only a case citation that

157

included the offender’s surname. On a macro level, this study does not permit generalisations to be made about the organisational structure of all drug traffickers.

However, the findings can be generalised across other Asian drug trafficking groups.

Fifth, the characterisation of drug market levels in the study may impact on the nature of conclusions drawn from the data. For example, the current study defined supply as dealing at the wholesale and retail levels. Drug market levels are not clearly established in the literature. Importation can be described as a form of supply but the current study categorised importation as a market level separate from supply.

This type of categorisation may impact on the conclusions drawn about the interactions between offenders involved in importation and/or supply and whether the roles adopted by offenders vary or are interchangeable within those two market levels.

Finally, in the process of locating cases there was a reliance on personal and cultural knowledge of conventional Southeast Asian names; however, such knowledge will vary between researchers. Furthermore, surnames may not be the best initial indicator of ethnicity and, therefore, if this study was replicated perhaps alternative methods of identifying Southeast Asian or other Asian populations would require consideration. As previously discussed, one method of confirming ethnicity was corroborating ethnicity through sentencing remarks on the offender’s personal background. Also, another issue with using surnames is that it could not identify cases involving Southeast Asian offenders that were not the primary offender. For example, if the primary offender was Lebanese but operated in partnership with a Southeast Asian offender, the method of identifying ethnicity by surname would be

ineffective because the case citation would refer to the Lebanese offender only.

Therefore, this method of case identification could not be used to isolate cases that involved a non-Asian primary offender who was connected to a Southeast Asian offender.

3.7 CONCLUSION

The study’s focus on examining the organisational nature of groups engaged in clandestine activity places some limitations on the methodological approaches that could be adopted for the study. Research into organised crime activities and groups are hindered by issues relating to access, ethics, personal safety and the unreliability of sources, especially in media and government agencies. The study adopted a qualitative, case study approach and theoretical sampling techniques to identify 159 criminal court cases involving importation, supply or cultivation offences across three jurisdictions. The cases were identified using keyword searches on NSW Lawlink, Supreme Court of Queensland Library website and Austlii. After identifying the cases, transcript applications were submitted to the State Reporting Bureau in Queensland and the Victorian Government Reporting Service. No transcript applications were submitted for New South Wales cases because it was highly unlikely that the courts in Sydney would approve transcript access for researchers and the cost was prohibitive.

Data analysis is conducted in three stages. The first stage is the grounded approach involving an examination of the data without the application of any pre-conceived theoretical frameworks. Analysis conducted in this manner ensures that the findings are intimately linked with the data and not distorted by the application of

159

theoretical concepts. The second stage involves content analysis of the cases by identifying salient characteristics from each typology and determining whether these characteristics are present in the cases. This stage also involves the identification of characteristics that are unique to the data. The third stage of analysis synthesises the first two stages and provides the foundation for comparing and contrasting both stages of analysis. The findings will be presented using key variables identified as crucial to understanding the organisational structure of a drug trafficking group.

Chapter 4: Results

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings from keyword searches conducted across three court databases for New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. The initial searches produced over 5000 court cases and these results were individually assessed using the selection criteria, as outlined in the research design. The final sample is comprised of 159 cases – 89 cases from New South Wales, 25 cases from Queensland and 45 cases from Victoria. Appendices C, D and E outline the cases in chronological order with Appendix C listing cases from New South Wales, Appendix D for Queensland and Appendix E for Victoria. All information for cases from New South Wales was extracted from online appeal judgments. For Queensland and Victoria, data was extracted from both online appeal judgments and court transcripts.

The cases were then categorised as an importation, supply or cultivation case.

Section 4.2 provides the descriptive statistics per jurisdiction and type of offence. The descriptive statistics provide an overview of the offenders’ personal characteristics, ethnic composition, related actors, drug quantity, drug type and methods used for importation, supply and cultivation. Section 4.3 provides graphical representations of key variables in the data across all three jurisdictions. In the final section, section 4.4 examines common and unique “scenes” in the importation cases by adopting a crime script analysis approach.