El Código de Francia de 1804 y el proceso de codificación europea

6.3 Behavioural Economics or Behavioural Science? 6.4 Research Design; 6.5 Farmer Survey: 6.5.1 Reliability; 6.5.2 Validity; 6.6 Police Interviews: 6.6.1 Reliability; 6.6.2 Validity; 6.7 Case Studies: 6.7.1 Reliability; 6.7.2 Validity;

6.8 Farmer Survey Methodology; 6.9 Police Interviews Methodology; 6.10 Case Studies Methodology:

6.10.1 Overview; 6.10.2 Data Collection:

6.10.2a Focus Groups;

6.10.2b Focus Groups Procedures; 6.10.2c Interviews;

6.10.2d Coding and Analysis of Interviews and Focus Groups; 6.10.2e Likert Attitudinal Scale Statements;

74

6.1 Research Ethics Statement

Research ethics for this project were considered in line with the guidance for ESRC funded projects provided via the Research Ethics Guidebook: A Resource for Social Scientists (Boddy et al., 2010). The following statement is provided to address the project ethical considerations.

The research undertaken in this project was conducted in accordance with standard research ethics norms, in particular the codes and practices promoted by the Market Research Society Code of Conduct (MRS, 2014) and the research ethics policy of Harper Adams University. This research was conducted using human participants in the entire data gathering process, and approval of the ‘Harper Adams University Research Ethics Committee’ was obtained for each stage of the data gathering prior to commencement. The first aspect of this research involved an online survey with farmers across E&W. This survey was carried out anonymously, with information gathered restricted to county level location, along with non-identifying demographic information. The survey contained a protocol advising the participant of the reason for the survey, information and contact details of the researcher, and confirmation of anonymity and how the data would be used. The primary data of the survey were collated in password protected computer files, accessible only by the researcher. All primary data that were exported into a spreadsheet for coding were completely unidentifiable, but were also stored in password protected computer files, again only accessible by the researcher.

The second tranche of data gathering took the form of interviews with Crime Prevention Advisors (CPAs) and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) of four police forces across England. These interviews were either carried out in person or via telephone, and were audio recorded for later analysis. All police forces across E&W were approached to request their involvement in the research, with the requirements of an interview with both the PCC, and also a CPA. Out of the 41 forces (excluding London Metropolitan and Greater Manchester) of E&W that were approached, only four forces provided access to both parties, and thus were included in this research. Each participant was then sent a leaflet about the research, including the contact details of the researcher, and a consent form that was to be completed and returned prior to the interview. These forms were then stored in locked cabinets within the office of the researcher. Prior to the start of the interview, the participants were reminded of the reason for the interview, the wider research, and what would happen to the recording of the interview. The voluntary status of the participant was also made clear, and that withdrawal could take place at any time, without reason. It was confirmed that the audio recordings would be retained on an encrypted, password protected

75

computer, and that all data gathered as part of the interview would be retained for a period of three years beyond the end of the research, and then destroyed securely.

The third part of the research were the embedded multiple-case studies. For this part of the research, the main data gathering took the form of semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with farmers that were audio recorded for later transcription, Likert attitudinal statements for each interviewee, and focus groups with farmers, which were video recorded for later transcription. In addition, media report content analyses were compared to content of farmer interviews and focus groups using Wordles, for which no additional approval was required. For both the interviews and the focus groups, information about the research and what the researcher was looking to do was sent out widely using social media and key contacts. This information included the contact details of the researcher so that those who wanted to be involved could make contact directly. In addition, the researcher made use of key contacts in the police and local councils across the target areas to identify potential participants. This was done by their use of their own network, and the researcher was not privy to participant details until the focus groups and interviews took place.

Each participant was sent an information leaflet ahead of the arranged meeting so that they were clear on what the research was about, what it involved, and what would be expected from the participant in each case. Prior to the start of each interview and focus group, the researcher ensured that each participant provided their informed consent to taking part in the research by completing the form seen in Appendix 1. As with the police interviews, these forms were then stored in locked cabinets within the office of the researcher. In addition, before the focus group and interviews began, the researcher verbally reviewed the aim of the research, what the participant could expect, and what would happen with the information obtained in each case. The participants were also advised that their participation was entirely voluntary, and they could leave or stop the interview at any time without reason if they wished. Confirmation of what would happen to the recordings, both audio and video, to advance the research was detailed. In addition, the researcher confirmed that the recordings of the interviews and focus groups would be stored on a password protected encrypted computer accessible only by the researcher. It was confirmed that the information gathered from the participants, both recorded and physical, would be retained for a period of three years after the end of the research. At the end of this period, all electronic files and physical documents relating to the participants would be securely destroyed. At all times, the researcher ensured that all participants understood, and they were happy to continue.

This research was necessary to establish the underlying behavioural culture of farmers across E&W towards crime, crime prevention, the police and their insurers. Policy and

76

strategy does not seem to have made an improvement in the situation faced by these farmers, therefore an alternative approach should be considered to address this constant problem. By conducting this research, an understanding of farmer attitudes, thoughts and feelings towards these issues have been explored, as well as the potential factors that influence FCP decision-making. This would therefore aim to enable steps to be taken towards a bottom-up approach to FCP policy driven by the farmers as the victims of these impactful crimes, rather than the extant top-down policy driven by the government and police strategists. This research advocates the implementation of a crime prevention choice architecture for farmers that would encompass key concepts of BS to address the factors that currently influence their decisions. This research is required, and is particularly timely, as little liaison with farmers seems to have been undertaken to establish an understanding of farmer thoughts and feelings to mitigate poor or ineffective decision-making by farmers in relation to crime prevention.

The research methodology was established to firstly obtain an understanding of the current situation regarding the police strategic approach to rural/farm crime, and how this compares to crime as reported by the farmers themselves. Moreover, to establish farmers’ attitudes towards crime, crime prevention, crime prevention decision-making, the police and their insurers. Once this information was established, key aspects were then further explored using the various qualitative methods encompassed within the case studies. Further in- depth discussions relating directly to crime prevention and decision-making were undertaken to address the research questions posed.