The article considers methodological problems of working with register data and shows how deficiencies in a quantitative dataset may constitute a tool for discovery if data shortcomings are used as input in a qualitative investigation of data genealogy.
Data
Based on a specific research case example the article demonstrates how qualitative moments are intrinsically embedded both in quantitative datasets and in the statistical processing.
Conclusions
It is argued that statistical analyses of datasets cannot be made without considerations of institutional organisation and perceptions of persons implied in the production of data. Lastly it is suggested that prison-based drug misuse treatment research currently needs to face the paradoxical challenge of excessive statistical programmatic power, which has encouraged formulations of ‘causalist’ research questions. It is further suggested that a reorientation towards theoretical explanation as an addition to the statistical demonstration of factor associations is important if quantitative studies are to further open the black box of treatment.
AbbottA. (1998): The causal devolution.Sociological Methods & Research27(2): 148–181
2.
AbbottA. (2005): The Idea of Outcome. In: SteinmetzG. (ed.). The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences.Durham NC: Duke University Press
3.
AliseM.A., & TeddlieC. (2010): A Continuation of the Paradigm Wars? Prevalence Rates of Methodological Approaches Across the Social/Behavioral Sciences.Journal of Mixed Methods Research4(2): 103–126
4.
AsmussenV., & KolindT., & NielsenB. (2006): Selvevaluering af stofmisbrugsbehandling i fængsler og arresthuse (Selfevaluation of drug abuse treatment in prison settings).Århus: Center for Rusmiddel forskning, Aarhus Universitet
5.
BarelsonB.R., & LazarsfeldP.F., & McPheeW.N. (1954): Voting. A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign.Chicago: University of Chicago Press
6.
BenjaminsenL., & AndersenD., & SørensenM. (2009): Den sociale stofmisbrugsbehandling i Danmark; hovedrapporten (The social drug abuse treatment in Denmark; main report).Copenhagen: SFI
7.
BergmanM.M. (2010): On Concepts and Paradigms in Mixed Methods Research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research4(3): 171–195
8.
BjergO. (2003): Methodenstreit Revisited – Om de sociologiske metoders epistemology (Metadonstreit Revisited – On the epistemology of sociological methods). Sociologisk Rapportserie nr. 3.Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet
9.
BjergeB. (2009): Mellem vision og praksis: Strukturreformen, rusmiddelbureaukrati og New Public Management (Between visions and praxis: The structural reform, substance abuse bureaucracy and New Public Management).Dissertation, Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet
BrymanA. (2007): Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.Journal of Mixed Methods1(1): 8–22
12.
CampbellA., & ConverseP., & MillerW.E., & StokesD.E. (1960): The American Voter.Chicago: University of Chicago Press
13.
ChambersR. (1997): Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last.London: Intermediate Technology Publications
14.
CookT., & CampbellD.T. (1979): Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings.Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin
15.
CreswellJ.W. (2003): Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.California: SAGE Publications
16.
CreswellJ., & Plano ClarkV.L. (2006): Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications
17.
DahlH., & PedersenM.U. (2006): Kvinder i motivations- og stofmisbrugsbehandling i Vestre Fængsel og Horserød Statsfængsel (Women in motivation and substance abuse treatment in Vestre prison and Horserød State prison).Århus: Center for Rusmiddelforskning, Aarhus Universitet
18.
DenzinN.K., & LincolnY.S. (2005): Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In: DenzinN.K., & LincolnY.S. (eds.): The Sage Handbook on Qualitative Research, third edition.New York: SAGE Publications
19.
DouglasM. (2001 (1966)): Purity and Danger. An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge & Kegan Paul. E-published New York: Taylor & Francis
20.
FeilzerM.Y. (2010): Doing Mixed Methods Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism as Research Paradigm.Journal of Mixed Methods Research4(1): 6–16
FridellM., & HesseM. (2006): Psykosociala interventionsmetoder vid kriminalitet och drogmissbruk. Metaanalyser och randomiserade kontrollerade studier (Psychosocial interventional methods for criminality and drug abuse. Meta-analyses and RCT-studies).Sverige: Kriminalvårdens forskningskommitté Rapport
23.
GendreauP., & RossR. (1987): Revivication of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s.Justice Quarterly4: 349–407
24.
GendreauP. (1996): The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In: HartmanF.X. (ed.): Choosing correction options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply.Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications
25.
GreeneJ.C., & CaracelliV.J., & GrahamW.F. (1989): Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis11: 255–274
26.
GubaE. G., & LincolnY.S. (2005): Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In: DenzinN. K., & LincolnY.S. (eds.): The Sage Handbook on Qualitative Research, third edition, SAGE Publications
27.
HedströmP. (2005): Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytical Sociology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
28.
HedströmP. (2008): Studying mechanisms to strengthen causal inferences in quantitative research. In: Box-SteffensmeierJ.M., & BradyH.E., & CollierD. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology.Oxford: Oxford University Press (http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/General/Members/hedstrom.aspx)
29.
HedstrømP., & BearmanP. (2009): What is analytical sociology all about? An introductory essay. In: HedströmP., & BearmanP. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology.Oxford: Oxford University Press
30.
HedströmP., & SwedbergR. (eds.) (1998): Social Mechanisms: An An alytical Approach to Social Theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
31.
HellevikO. (1988): Introduction to Causal Analysis. Exploring Survey Data by Cross-tabulation.Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
32.
HellevikO. (1995): Sosiologisk metode (Sociological methods).Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
33.
HellevikO. (2002): Forskningsmetode i sosiologi og statsvitenskap (Research methods in sociology and political science).Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
34.
HeltbergT., & Lill MadsenT. (2011): Residential Drug Abuse Treatment in Danish Prisons. Submitted for review
35.
HillerM.L., & KnightK., & SimpsonD.D. (1999a): Risk Factors That Predict Dropout From Corrections-Based Treatment for Drug Abuse.The Prison Journal79(4): 411–430
HollowayK.R., & BennettT.H., & FarringtonD.P. (2006): The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing criminal behavior: a meta-analysis.Psicothema18(3): 620–629
38.
HoodC. (1991): A Public Management for All Seasons?Public Administration69: 3–19
39.
InciardiJ.A. (2008): The War on Drugs IV: The Continuing Saga of the Mysteries and Miseries of Intoxication, Addiction, Crime, and Public Policy.Boston: Allyn & Bacon
40.
InciardiJ.A., & MartinS.S., & ButzinC.A., & HooperR.M., & HarrisonL.D. (1997). An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders.Journal of Drug Issues27 (2): 261–278
41.
InciardiJ.A., & HarrisonL.D. (2000): Introduction: The Concept of Harm Reduction. In: InciardiJ.A., & HarrisonL.D. (eds.): Harm Reduction: National and International Perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
42.
InciardiJ.A., & MartinS.S., & ButzinC.A. (2004): Five-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment of Drug-Involved Offenders after Release from Prison.Crime & Delinquency50(1): 88–107
JM (2006): Justitsministeriets skrivelse nr. 147 af 27. December (Announcement from the Department of Justice)
45.
JohnsonR. B., & OnwuegbuzieA.J. (2004): Mixed Methods Research; A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.Educational Researcher33(7): 14–26
46.
JöhnckeS. (2008): Treatment Trouble. On the Politics of Methadone and Anthropology. PhD thesis.Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen
47.
KreinerS. (1999): Statistisk problemløsning. Præmisser, teknik og analyse (Problem solving in statistics. Preconditions, techniques and analyses).Copenhagen: Juristog Økonomforbundets Forlag
48.
KyvsgaardB. (ed.) (2006): Hvad virker – hvad virker ikke? Kundskapsbasert kriminal-politik og praksis (What works – what does not? Knowledge based criminal policy and praxis).Copenhagen: Jurist og Økonomforbundets forlag
49.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1979): Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts.Los Angeles: SAGE Publications
50.
LatourB. (1991): Technology is Society Made Durable. In: LawJ. (ed.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.London: Routledge
51.
LatourB. (1998): From the World of Science to the World of Research?Science280(5361): 208–209
52.
LawJ. (1991 a): Introduction: monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. In: LawJ. (ed.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.London: Routledge
53.
LawJ. (1991 b): Power, discretion and strategy. In: LawJ. (ed.): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.London: Routledge
54.
LawJ. (2004): After Method: Mess in Social Science Research.London: London: Routledge
LipskyM. (1980): Street-level Bureaucracy; Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.New York: Russell Sage Foundation
57.
LodahlL., & PedersenM.U. (2007): Evaluering af indsatsen på fem kontraktafdelinger (Evaluation of five wards for contract treatment).Århus: Center for Rusmiddelforskning, Aarhus Universitet
58.
MaxcyS.J. (2003): Pragmatic Threads in Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences: The Search for Multiple Modes of Inquiry and the End of the Philosophy of Formalism. In: TashakkoriT. C. (eds.): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.California: SAGE Publications
59.
MitchellO., & WilsonD., & MacKenzieD. (2006): The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment on criminal behaviour.Campbell Systematic Reviews11, The Campbell Collaboration
60.
MitchellO., & WilsonD.B., & MacKenzieD.L. (2007): Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research.Journal of Experimental Criminology3(4): 353–375
61.
MorganD.L. (2007): Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(1): 48–76
62.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1992): Reinventing Government. How The Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming The Public Sector.NY: Penguin Books
63.
PearsonF.S., & LiptonD.S. (1999): A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Corrections-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse.The Prison Journal79(4): 384–410
64.
PedersenM.U. (2005): Drug-Free Treatment of Substance Misusers: Where are We Now, Where are We Heading. In: PedersenM.U., & SegreusV., & HellmanM. (eds.): Evidence Based Treatment.Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research
65.
PedersenM.U. (2009): Stoffri døgnbehandling 1997 til 2007 (Drug free institutional treatment 1997–2007).Århus: Center for Rusmiddelforskning, Aarhus Universitet.
66.
PelissierB., & WallaceS., & O'NeilJ.A., & GaesG.G., & CampS., & RhodesW., & SaylorW. (2001): Federal Prison Residential Drug Treatment Reduces Substance Use and Arrests After Release.American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse27(2): 315–337
67.
PocockDavid (1975): Understanding Social Anthropology.London: Hodder and Stoughton
68.
PollittC. (1993): Managerialism and the Public Services, 2nd edition.Oxford, UK: Blackwell
69.
RoseNikolas (1999): Powers of Freedom. Refraiming Political Thought.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
70.
SchutzA. (1962): Collected Papers. In: NatansonM. (ed.): The Problem of Social Reality.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
StorgaardA. (1999): Straf og misbrugsbehandling under samme tag (Combining punishment and drug abuse treatment).Århus: Center for Rusmiddelforskning, Aarhus Universitet
73.
TalalA. (1986): The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology. In: CliffordJ.M., & GeorgeE. (eds). Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.Berkeley: SAGE Publications
74.
TashakkoriA., & CreswellJ. (2007): Editorial: The New Era of Mixed Methods.Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(1): 3–7
75.
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (1998): Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods, No. 46).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
76.
TashakkoriA., & TeddlieC. (eds.) (2003): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research.California: SAGE Publications
77.
TimsF.M., & InciardiJ.A., & FletcherB.W., & MacNeillH.Jr. (eds.) (1997): The Effectiveness of Innovative Approaches in the Treatment of Drug Abuse.Westport: Greenwood Press
78.
VerdierY. (1979): Facons de dire, facons de faire. La laveuse, la couturière, la cuisinière (Ways of saying, ways of doing. Laundress, tailor, cook).Paris: Editions Gallimard
79.
WeinsteinJ.A. (2010): Applying Social Statistics: An Introduction to Quantitative Reasoning in Sociology.London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
80.
WelshW.N. (2010): Inmate responses to prison-based drug treatment: A repeated measures analysis.Drug and Alcohol Dependence109(1-3): 37–44
81.
WexlerH.K., & FletcherB.W. (2007): National Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) Overview.The Prison Journal87(1): 9–24
82.
ÖbergJ., & HolmbergS. (2008): Behandling av narkotikamissbrukare i fängelse. En effektstudie (Treatment of drug abusers in prison. A study of outcome).Stockholm: Brå.
