This article explores the application of prospective and retrospective elements of enquiry at different time points in longitudinal mixed methods research. It discusses how the method facilitates shifts in the dominance of quantitative and qualitative approaches and focuses attention on change and on interpretation. The article presents exploratory research designed to untangle different meanings of justice from the perspective of men and women who have been victims of violence and who then became involved in a criminal justice process. Both individual- and group-level analyses are used to show justice as a multidimensional phenomenon that unfolds and opens in context as well as over time. However, how best to report complex findings from longitudinal mixed methods research remains a challenge.
EdmondsonR. (2007). Rhetorics of social science: Sociality in writing and inquiry. In OuthwaiteW.TurnerS. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social science methodology (pp. 479-498). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
EwickP.SilbeyS. (1998). The common place of law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
9.
GrometD.DarleyJ. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law & Society Review, 43, 1-38. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00365.x
10.
HallM. (2009). Victims of crime: Policy and practice in criminal justice. Cullompton, England: Willan.
11.
HolderR. (2013). Just interests: victims, citizens and the potential for justice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/11464
12.
HolderR. (2015). Satisfied? Exploring victims’ justice judgments. In WilsonD.RossS. (Eds.), Crime, victims and policy: International contexts, local experiences (pp. 184-213). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
13.
HollandJ.ThomsonR. (2009). Gaining a perspective on choice and fate: Revisiting critical moments. European Societies, 11, 451-469. doi:10.1080/14616690902764799
14.
HoweK. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61. doi:10.1177/1077800403259491
15.
JohnsonR.OnwuegbuzieA. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
16.
JohnsonR.OnwuegbuzieA.TurnerL. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-135. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
17.
LangfordD. (2000). Developing a safety protocol in qualitative research involving battered women. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 133-142. doi:10.1177/104973200129118192
18.
LaxminarayanM.BosmansM.PorterR.SosaL. (2013). Victim satisfaction with criminal justice: A systematic review. Victims and Offenders, 8, 119-147. doi:10.1080/15564886.2012.763198
19.
LetschertR.StaigerI.PembertonA. (Eds.). (2010). Assisting victims of terrorism: Towards a European standard of justice. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3025-2_1
20.
MaguireM.BennettT. (1982). Burglary in a dwelling: The offence, the offender, and the victim. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21.
McGregorK.RenshawL.AndrevskiH. (2013). ACT victims of crime referral project: Final report (Technical and Background Paper 55). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.
22.
MorganJ.ZednerL. (1992). Child victims: Crime, impact and criminal justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23.
OrthU. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 173-186.
24.
Plano ClarkV.AndersonN.WertzJ.ZhouY.SchumacherK.MiaskowskiC. (2015). Conceptualizing longitudinal mixed methods designs: A methodological review of health sciences research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(4), 297-319. doi:10.1177/1558689814543563
25.
RoachK. (1999). Due process and victims’ rights: The new law and politics of criminal justice. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
26.
RuspiniE. (1999). Longitudinal research and the analysis of social change. Quality & Quantity, 33, 219-227.
27.
SebbaL. (1996). Third parties: Victims and the criminal justice system. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
28.
ShaplandJ.WillmoreJ.DuffP. (1985). Victims in the criminal justice system. Aldershot, England: Gower.
29.
SkitkaL.AramovichN.LytleB.SargisE. (2010). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In BobocelD.KayA.ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
30.
StrangH. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
31.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
ThomsonR.BellR.HollandJ.HendersonS.McGrellisS.SharpeS. (2002). Critical moments: Choice, chance and opportunity. Young People’s Narratives of Transition Sociology, May (36), 335-354.
34.
TrivellatoU. (1999). Issues in the design and analysis of panel studies: A cursory review. Quality & Quantity, 33, 339-351.
35.
TylerT.HuoY. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
Van DijkJ.van KesterenJ.SmitP. (2007). Criminal victimisation in international perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Den Haag, Netherlands: WODOC.
37.
Van Der ZouwenJ.Van TilburgT. (2001). Reactivity in panel studies and its consequences for testing causal hypotheses. Sociological Methods Research, 30, 35-56. doi:10.1177/0049124101030001003
38.
Van NessP.FriedT.GillT. (2011). Mixed methods for the interpretation of longitudinal gerontologic data: Insights from philosophical hermeneutics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 293-308. doi:10.1177/1558689811412973
39.
WemmersJ. (1996). Victims in the criminal justice system. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kugler.
40.
WenzelM. (2000). Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justice motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 157-176.
