Abstract
The fourth chapter aims to highlight the methodological issues that were encountered during the fieldwork that have informed the findings of this book. The research fieldwork lasted for two years, during which the British enforcement institution attempted to discourage the author from interviewing occupational health and safety (OHS) enforcement officers. Empirical investigations concentrating on social elites are challenging because academics often deal with people and organisations located in a higher social hierarchy than themselves. Researching up, thus, is challenging because it is extremely difficult to get access, and these studies are usually affected by complicated ethical and legal issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Gatekeeper, in this instance, is not defined as a person controlling access to a vulnerable population, but as someone who had—simply—control over the access of the researchers to the field. That is because the health and safety enforcement officers are not considered vulnerable participants and because it is their responsibility to seek consent from their line manager for participating to research studies.
References
Almond, P. (2008, June). Investigating health and safety regulation: Finding room for small-scale projects. Journal of Law and Society, Special Issue: Law’s Reality: Case Studies in Empirical Research on Law, 35(Issue Supplement 1), 108–125.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Political interviews and the politics of interviewing. In G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education. London: UCL Press.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Bernard, R. H. (2013). Social research method: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Broadfoot, P. (2000). Interviewing in a crosscultural context: Some issues for comparative research. In S. Hillyard (Series ed.). Studies in qualitative methodology (Vol. 6, pp. 53–65). London: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Broadfoot, E. M., Osborn, M. J., Gilly, M., & Blucher, A. (1993). Perception’s of teaching: Teachers’ lives in England and France. London: Cassells.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research method (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, G. F., Frankowski, S., & Gertz, M. G. (1987). Major criminal justice systems: A comparative survey. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2011). Comparative criminal justice. Belmont: Thomson.
Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. (2012). Research methods for criminology and criminal justice (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Fields, C. B., & Moore, R. H. (Eds.). (2005). Comparative criminal justice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Fitz, J., & Halpin, D. (1994). Ministers and mandarins: Educational research in elite settings. In G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education. London: UCL Press.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Gewirtz, S., & Ozga, J. (1994). Interviewing the education policy elite. In G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education. London: UCL Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kogan, M. (1994). Researching the powerful in education and elsewhere. In G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education. London: UCL Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Neal, S. (1995). Researching powerful people from a feminist and anti-racist perspective: A note on gender, collusion and marginality. British Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192950210406.
Nelken, D. (2010). Comparative criminal justice: Making sense of difference. London (UK), Thousand Oaks (CA), New Delhi (IND) and Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pearce, F. (1976). Crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crimes and deviance. London: Pluto Press.
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundation of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.
Walford, G. (2011). Researching the powerful. British Educational Research Association [Online]. Available from: http://www.bera.ac.uk/resources/resource-list?page=4&tid=All. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.
Westmarland, L. (2011). Researching crime and justice: Tales from the field. New York: Routledge.
Whyte, D. (2000). Researching the powerful: Towards a political economy of method. In R. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research in crime and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Canciani, D. (2019). Scrutinising Public Institutions. In: The Politics and Practice of Occupational Health and Safety Law Enforcement. Critical Criminological Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98509-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98509-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98508-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98509-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)