This paper considers two approaches to utilising Pawson's theory-driven interview model as an attempt to overcome the traditional schism between quantitative and qualitative interview techniques. Both pieces of research are criminologically based though methodologically different. The first employs Pawson's model in the development of mid-range theoretical propositions relating to the embedding' of distinct policy initiative (phase II, Safer Cities). The second seeks to test a theory about the reasons behind contextual variations in acts of abuse and violence against business premises. Through these examples, the paper attempts to develop a critical account of the operationalisation of this model in social science research. Interviewing. Epistemology, Theory-Driven Interviewing Pawson.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blagg, H., Pearson, G.Sampson, A., Smith, D., and Stubbs, P (1988) ‘Inter-agency Co-operation: Rhetoric and Reality’, in T. Hope, and M. Shaw, (eds.), Communities and Crime Reduction, London: HMSO.
2.
Bottoms, A. (1991). “What Works in Multi-Agency Partnerships: Lessons from the Five Towns Evaluation', Speech given at Crime Concern Annual Meeting, Oct 17.
3.
Bryman, A (1989), Research Methods and Organization Studies, London: Unwin Hyman.
4.
Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979), ‘Social Change & Crime Rate Trends. A Routine Activity Approach’, American Sociological Review. Vol. 44.
5.
Cohen, S. & Taylor, L. (1977), ‘Talking about Prison Blues’ in C. Bell & H. NewbyDoing Sociological Research, London: George Allen and Unwin.
6.
Crawford, A. (1993) Crime Prevention and the Multi-Agency Approach: A Survey of Police and Probation Officers' Attitudes and Experiences. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
7.
Crawford A. & Jones, M. (1995), ‘Inter-Agency Co-Operation and Community Based Crime Prevention: Some Reflections on the Work of Pearson and Colleagues’British Journal of Criminology35 (1):1733.
8.
Eiser, J. R. & Van der Pligt, J. (1988), Attitudes and Decisions. London: Routledge.
9.
Ekblom, P. (1992), ‘The Safer Cities Programme Impact Evaluation’, Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 1: 3551.
10.
Elster, J (1983), Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
11.
Felson, M. (1986). ‘Routine Activities, Social Controls, Rational Decisions and Criminal Outcomes,’ In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (eds.), The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspective on Offending, New York: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
Gilllng, D. J. (1994), ‘Multi-Agency Crime Prevention: Some Barriers to Collaboration’, The Howard Journal33 (3):246257.
14.
Hage, J. & Meeker, B. F. (1988). Social Causality, Boston: Unwin Hyman.
15.
Hindess, B. (1989), Political Choice and Social Structure: An Analysis of Actors, Interests and Rationality, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
16.
Hindelang, M. J.Gottfredson, M. R. & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization, Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
17.
King, M. (1989), ‘Social Crime Prevention à la Thatcher’, The Howard Journal28 (4):291312.
18.
Liddle, A. M. & Bottoms, A. E. (1991), Implementing Circular 8/84: A Retrospective Assessment of the Five Towns Crime Prevention Initiative, (unpublished research report), Cambridge: Institute of Criminology.
19.
Liddle, A. M. & Gelsthorpe, L. R. (1994a), Inter-Agency Crime Prevention: Further Issues, Police Research Group, Supplementary Paper to CPU series paper 52 and 53, London: Home Office.
20.
Liddle, A. M. & Gelsthorpe, L. R. (1994b) Inter-Agency Crime Prevention: Organising Local Delivery, CPU Paper 52, London: Home Office.
21.
Majchrzak, A. (1984) Methods for Policy ResearchLondon: Sage.
22.
Mishler E.G. (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
23.
Pawson, R. (1989) A Measure for Measures: A Manifesto for Empirical Sociology, London: Routlege.
24.
Pawson, R. (1995), ‘Quality and Quantity, Agency and Structure? Mechanism and Context, Dons and Cons’, Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique. Vol. 47: 5–48.
25.
Pawson. R. (1996), ‘Theorizing the Interview’, British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 47, (2): 295–314.
26.
Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1994), ‘What Works in Evaluation Research?’, British Journal of Criminology, 43: 291306.
27.
Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1996), ‘What's Crucial in Evaluation Research?’, British Journal of Criminology.36: 574578.
28.
Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.
29.
Sampson, A. (1991). Lessons from a Victim Support Crime Prevention Project, Crime Prevention Unit paper No. 25, London: Home Office.
30.
Schutz, A. (1972), The Phenomenology of the Social World, London: Heinemann.
31.
Spradley, J. P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Orlandon: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
Tilley, N. (1993), ‘Crime Prevention and the Safer Cities story’. The Howard Journal, 32: 4057.
33.
Tilley, N. (1996), Demonstration, Exemplification, Duplication and Replication in Evaluation Research', Evaluation, 2: 3550.
34.
Wood, J., Wheelwright, G. & Burrows, J. (1997), Crime Against Business: Facing the Challenge, Swindon: Crime Concern.
