The method of qualitative research seemed to offer the best way of capturing the detailed, felt experiences and complex perspectives of the sex offenders and
probation officers under scrutiny. McLeod (2001) suggests that quantitative research emphasising numbers, variables, outcomes and prevalence cannot capture the complexity of the therapeutic process, the sort of relational processes involved in the supervision of offenders. Similarly, Silverman (2000) describes how qualitative research focuses on meaning rather than facts. Hence, qualitative rather than quantitative research methods appeared better suited to generating rich sources of information (Willig, 2001) or “thick descriptions”
(Geertz, 1973), about complex social and relational phenomena.
The epistemological approach underlying the use of qualitative research in this study is ‘subtle realism’ (Hammersley, 1992). Hammersley suggests three epistemological positions: ‘naive realism’, ‘relativism’ and ‘subtle realism.’ Naive realism refers to a position similar to Lynch’s (1996) modernistic view, in which social and relational reality can be apprehended through objective research, using the scientific method and the positivistic rational analysis of cause and effect. Much quantitative research is based on such assumptions. The ‘relativist’
research position rejects the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth to be researched, adopting the social constructionist view, whereby reality is socially constructed through language, with language reflecting dominant discourses - taken for granted ideas of the powerful (Foucault, 1980; Halliday, 1978). Hammersley’s ‘subtle realism’ position, whilst acknowledging the impossibility of discovering definitive truth, as truth is seen to be always partially socially constructed, nevertheless assumes that there are unique realities in people’s lives and social systems that can be usefully illuminated. Within this
paradigm the researcher’s own privileged ideas are seen to inevitably influence research findings, highlighting the need for the researcher to be reflective about the research process. Hence, within the ‘subtle realism’ position, a main objective of qualitative research is not to discover definitive truths about a non
existent ‘reality’, but to examine, understand and challenge reigning orthodoxy (O’ Connell, 1998).
Coffey (1999) points out that there is a debate about the potential merits of having prior knowledge of the research area, or whether cultural naivety leads to the researcher viewing the research area from a fresh, possibly more objective viewpoint. Hammersley and Gomm (2005, p.8) suggest how the researcher’s prior knowledge can be adapted to research.
.... the fact that people have background assumptions, preferences, interests etc. does not mean that their accounts are biased or simply expressions of these characteristics. Occasionally, such assumptions, preferences and interests may even encourage accurate representation, and sometimes any negative effect will not be significant for the purpose for which the researcher wants to use the account. Often they will be a source of bias, but it may still be possible to detect and discount this through methodological assessment.
I personally did not come to this research project as a naive outsider. I had specialist knowledge of the field I was researching, and this could have led to bias. However, when talking about the process by which a therapist is trying to accurately discover and interpret the client’s experience, Vanaerschot (1993, p.28) argues that the therapist is not an “empty box” waiting to be filled by the client’s experience. The same can be said of the researcher.
It can be argued that, as an experienced therapist, working with largely involuntary clients to reduce and manage risk, I am practised at pushing my own agenda in interviews, whilst developing rapport and trust with interviewees. This issue of the practitioner’s potential manipulation of offenders is raised by Sex Offender 7 in Chapter 6 (Section 6.4.) and explored further in Chapter 7 (Section 7.5.), in a discussion about therapeutic genuineness. McCracken (1988) discusses this subject of interviewer manipulation, warning of the dangers of the researcher using active listening (empathy, prompts and subtle encouragement) to surreptitiously and selectively elicit information which matches given hypotheses. Both Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) and Coyle (1997) also advise caution about the dangers of researchers allowing their own values and interests to significantly distort the research.
As | discuss below, I employed a semi-structured interview schedule, and the use of any such interview schedule clearly directs the interview along lines the researcher wants the interview to go. Nevertheless, as Wetherell and Potter (1988) point out, all social interactions are co-constructed. Within these inevitable constraints, I sought throughout the interviews to reflect upon my practice and to avoid, as far as possible, subtly encouraging respondents to say the things which matched any pre-conceived ideas. Atkinson and Shakespeare (1993) and Coyle (19g7) note how experienced professionals, such as counsellors, can usefully employ the use of self in the research process, as they do in the clinical setting.
An important aspect of this use of self in my professional role is the capacity to be relatively self-aware and reflective when working with clients. I sought to use these reflective skills in the research interviews to avoid obvious bias, and a separate section at the end of the chapter is devoted to reflective practice.
Given that this research adopts the ‘subtle realism’ position, there has been no attempt to establish definitive truth about how probation officers supervise sex offenders. The intention was to add to the theoretical knowledge base on a qualitatively under-researched area of social life. Likewise, the aim was not to attempt to crudely generalise findings, but to illuminate the dominant discourses about the supervisory relationship between probation officers and sex offenders.
It will be up to the research audience - practitioners, academics, and interested others - to judge whether the dominant discourses discovered usefully resonate with wider practice and more general issues concerning the supervision of sex offenders, and the topic of sex offending.