JAVIER LLOSA GARCÍA DE LA CIUDAD DE AREQUIPA.

Building on the scaffolding of the research questions in this study, interviews helped flesh out the form and shape of the study. Interviews provided the data that contributed to discovering the actual or perceived experiences of those involved. Qualitative interviewing is not construed as merely a means or method to obtain

answers to questions. (Emphasis added). It is a technique in which the interaction between the researcher and the participant elucidates knowledge about the social world (Gubrium &Holstein, 1997). Thus, the process of active interviewing involves a broader function in which there is an evaluation of the manner in which information is created as well as how interviewees respond, rather than just merely assessing, what was said (Byrne, 2004).

The purpose of the research interview in this context was to explore the views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of specific stakeholders on the issues raised in this study.In this regard, interviews provided a ‘deeper’ understanding of social phenomena than would ordinarily be obtained from purely quantitative methods, such as questionnaires (Silverman, 2005). I was therefore able to ‘understand the world from the subject’s points of view, to unfold the meaning of people’s experiences’ (Kvale, 2007: xvii).

Individual interviews are used extensively by qualitative researchers in examining legal phenomena, and perceptions of law. For example, as Cownie (2004) did in understanding the lived experience of academics or as Sommerland (2007) did to investigate contemporary changes to the legal profession.

The choice of using interviews was based upon the desire to find the approach that would best provide the richness and context that I sought to explore. This allowed an opportunity to find issues that are often missed through other approaches. These included exploring subtleties and complexities, and evaluating possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic processes involved in the context of the study. The analysis of the data was descriptive and narrative in style, which I hope will bring value to practitioners and policy makers.

134 In the context of this study, a series of semi-structured interviews were executed with principal stakeholders. This allowed an opportunity to ask a series of open-ended questions, with accompanying questions that sought to probe for more detailed and contextual data. This approach facilitated acquiring richin-depth information with opportunities to seek nuances that a purely textual research might miss. This in turn provided the opportunity tounderstand the unique experience of each individualas well as an appreciation of sharedcircumstances in which they encounter with children in conflict with the law, and meanings they attribute to their own lived experiences.

Thus, I developed ‘an understanding of the context of the project to facilitate alertness to significant themes’ (Noaks and Wincup, 2004:79). A further advantage of semi-structured interviews was ‘that it is open to the reception of unanticipated information to be discussed, which may not have been highlighted in a structured interview’ (Barbour and Schostak 2005:42). This flexibility is advantageous as I could probe a line of questioning in response to the participants’ answers, while keeping to the main topic of the interview (Byrne, 2004).

In interviewing the principal stakeholders, I drew heavily on the ‘responsive interviewing’ model proposed by Rubin and Rubin (2012). This in-depth interviewing model is within the realm of the interpretive constructionist philosophy and allowed me to interview purposefully selected individuals ‘who are knowledgeable, listening to what they have to say, and asking new questions based on the answers they provide’ (2012:5) and to treat both the interviewer and interviewee as ‘people, with feelings, opinions and experiences’ (2012:10). However, this framework served as a guide and not a rule and as Rubin and Rubin suggest that, a philosophy should not be a ‘list of commands or instructions to always do this or never that’ (2012:39).

As this study is qualitative in nature, it therefore produced findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or quantification methods (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This point notwithstanding, a recurring challenge often posed to the nature of qualitative research is how many subjects. Kvale (1994) suggests that this is ultimately

135 As far as this study is concerned, the number of subjects chosen reflect the

epistemological and methodological questions about the nature and purpose of the research. This approach is in keeping with the view that ‘the quest for universal generalizations is being replaced by an emphasis upon the contextuality of knowledge’ (Kvale, 1994:166).

Given that the purpose was to seek the views of knowledgeable participants with insights into the specific area of research, a range of principal participants were considered. The selection of participants followed Patton’s (2001) concept of

purposeful sampling and covered the range of stakeholders. Access was also gained to interview boys from the Henry Gurney School Puncak Borneo, Sarawak and this will be considered below. Thus, ‘the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling’ (Patton, 1990:169).

As this study entails interviewing a pre-defined and visible set of actors, I was able to identify the particular set of respondents of interest that were able to assist in discovering the issue of child rights in relation to diversion. I utilised personal networks for opportunities to contact relevant officials. These contacts were individuals that I had encountered in the course of my involvement in the

Constitutional Law Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council and in my role as a state executive committee member of the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation.

As Kidder et al (1986) suggest, with good judgement and an appropriate strategy, researchers applying purposive sampling can select the cases to be included and thus develop samples that best suit the needs of the research study. Given that the range of participants (sample) is stratified and included legislators, the judiciary, the police and others involved directly in policy decision-making in specific aspects of children in conflict with the law, it was necessary to consider principles of elite interviewing. Elite interviewing is defined as ‘the use of interviews to study those at the ‘top’ of any stratification system’ (Moyser, 2006:85).

136 The term ‘elite’ has often been adapted according to the specific nature of the research enquiry. Hence, ‘elite’ has been defined as ‘a group of individuals, who hold, or have held, a privileged position in a society’ (Richards, 1996:199). In Linda

McDowell’s study of employees working at different levels for merchant and

investment banks in the City of London the term ‘elite’ was adapted to mean ‘highly skilled, professionally competent, and class-specific’ (McDowell, 1998: 2135).

In the context of this study, the term ‘elite’ was taken to mean an interviewee who is given non-standardised special treatment because of the specialist knowledge they possess and are thus able to ‘teach’ the researcher (Dexter, 2006:18-19). This was certainly the case in this study, as I had interviewed individuals who were directly involved in policymaking decisions or in the administration of justice. These included for example, a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, a Deputy Superintendent of Police formerly from the specialist child unit (D11) of the police force, a Magistrate from the Court for Children, Prison officers, a Member of Parliament and the various specific skilled and class specific individuals interviewed from various child rights organisations.

Owing to my interaction with some of these individuals in the committees

mentioned above, access to these elites was established and I was able to build rapport with them. I felt that this in turn led to good intellectual dialogue and honest

reflections on the issues. Perhaps at some level, they treated me as an ‘elite’ although I did not consciously see myself as one. Yet this led to greater candour in the manner of responses given and facilitated open discussions.

This interviewing process facilitated discovering their perspectives and/or

discovering the underlying motivations for policy decisions or approaches. The elite interview data collected is to confirm (or otherwise) information had been collected through documents and other participants in the study. The interview process

involving elites required specific strategies and approaches unique to the relationship (Harvey, 2011).

I provided comprehensive information about the study prior to the interview

137 This involved developing an understanding of the specific role of the person that I was going to interview. This provided an opportunity to explain to the interviewees why they were chosen and why they were specifically able to provide considerable value to the study. Harvey suggests that interviewers need to be prepared ‘because often elites might consciously or sub-consciously challenge them on their subject and its

relevance’ (2011:434).

In keeping with Harvey’s advice ‘to avoid asking elites closed questions because they do not like to be confined to a restricted set of answers’ (2011:434) the semi- structured interview approach worked best. Additional questions were framed in response to the answers given and this yielded conversations that were open textured and in some cases extended beyond 45 minutes.

I was conscious of the fact that in the actual execution of the interviews, it did not proceed in what is commonly understood as interviewing. I found that the actual process was more akin to having conversations with the individuals. Questions were asked but it was framed within the context of having a conversation. This I found created a greater connection with the persons I spoke to especially with the various stakeholders concerned.

In keeping with the traditions associated with qualitative research the selection of participants and situations were not intended to be statistically representative

generalizable to an entire population. Instead, the focused, in-depth study was designed to go beyond description to find meaning, even if that meaning or the perceptions involved a small number. From this, I was able to explore how the participants understand the world and interact with each other. The purpose is not to measure frequency but seek depth and insight in understanding the phenomena.

138 Table 4: Purposeful sampling of participants

Conversations with principal stakeholders and the boys, sought to explore whether there is a recognition of the rights of the child to diversion and to seek an

understanding of the broader context of these rights. This process aimed to capture the lived experiences and realities of the people involved in the phenomena in question (Creswell, 2013). An understanding of the multiple participant meanings that are set in the context of the political, social and cultural environment in Malaysia would assist in drawing out a deeper appreciation of the specific research questions. This facilitates the text, subtext and context of child rights in relation to diversion to be explored.

These conversations involved interviews with 14 stakeholders in the juvenile justice system, 2 correctional officers and 10 boys from the Henry Gurney School (Figure 4 below).

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION METHOD TOTAL

Government Agencies/ Policy Stakeholders/Legislators/Academics

i. The Ministry of Women Family and Community Development ii. Constitutional Law

Committee Bar Council Malaysia

iii. Child Rights Committee Bar Council Malaysia

iv. UNICEF Malaysia

v. National Child Rights/ Non- Governmental

Organizations/Academics vi. Member of Parliament

Semi- Structured Interviews 1 1 2 1 6 1 Stakeholders in the Criminal Justice

System

i. Magistrates/Court for children

ii. Royal Malaysian Police iii. Prisons Correctional Officer

Semi- Structured Interviews 1 1 2

Boys Boys in the Henry Gurney

School

Semi- Structured Interviews

139 Figure 4: Matrix of interviewees

140 The following table (Table 5) summarises the stakeholders interviewed in this study:

No Participant Affiliation/Organisation

1. Jones Child Rights activist

2. Vivian Court for Children adviser and Child Rights NGO

3. Farida Lawyer, Constitutional Law Committee, Bar Council, Malaysia and human rights advocate

4. Sylvia Child protection officer, UNICEF

5. Terry Retired prison officer and presently a counsellor

6. Adiba Co-ordinator, Community Outreach Programme established in a public university

7. Noemi Member National Advisory and Consultative Council for Children and an academic

8. Gus Court for Children adviser and Child Rights NGO

9. Irene Magistrate, Court for Children

10. Ona Police Officer formerly with the Sexual, Women and Child Investigation Division (D11), Criminal Investigation Department

11. Charles Senior civil servant, Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development

12. Tabitha Member of Parliament

13. Lawrence Lawyer, member of the Child Rights Committee, Bar Council Malaysia

14. Arianne Lawyer, member of the Child Rights Committee, Bar Council Malaysia

15. George Correctional Officer, Henry Gurney, Puncak Borneo, Sarawak, Malaysia

16. Luke Correctional Officer, Henry Gurney, Puncak Borneo, Sarawak, Malaysia

141 The table below (Table 6) represents the boys interviewed at the Henry Gurney School, Puncak Borneo, Sarawak, Malaysia:

No Name Age upon entry Age as at 2017 Period of detention Offence/s

1. Wilson 18 20 2015-2017 Theft: s378 Penal Code

2. Nicholas 17 19 2016-2019 Possession of stolen goods: s411Penal Code _{Methamphetamine: s15 Dangerous Drugs} Act 1952

3. Lony 18 20 2015-2018 Statutory rape: s375 Penal Code

4. William 18 19 2016-2018 Housebreaking and possession of stolen goods: s457& s411 Penal Code

5. Everest 18 20 2017- 201864

Possession of stolen goods: s411 Penal Code Criminal intimidation: s506 Penal Code Attempted murder: s307 Penal Code

6. Angah 17 20 2014-2017 Rape: s375 Penal Code _{Theft: s378 Penal Code}

Ganja: s15 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

7. Aman 16 18 2015-2018 Criminal intimidation: s506 Penal Code

8. Udin 16 17 2016-2019 Statutory rape: s375 Penal Code

9. Dom 18 20 2015-2018 Methamphetamine: s15 Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

10.Odeng 19 21 2015-2017 Statutory rape: s375 Penal Code Table 6: Boys interviewed at the Henry Gurney School, Puncak Borneo, Sarawak, Malaysia.

64 _{Everest was placed in a different Henry Gurney School prior to arriving to the one in Puncak}

142 I recorded the interviews and then transcribed the interviews in detail which itself required many hours of effort. Agar (1996) found that it can take six hours for every recorded hour and indeed I found it to be a lonely endeavour with tiredness and fatigue setting in often through the process (Roulston et al, 2003). However, such detailed transcription facilitated familiarity with the content and thus through this process and I could observe the subtitles in the way people interacted (Rapley, 2007) even if in this instance, such interaction occurred without the participants physically interacting with each other. Admittedly, the method of converting verbal

communication to text can (and does) result in the loss of inflection and context, but as this research does not have as its central focus, conversational discourse analysis, this was considered as an acceptable compromise.