Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminology

By Olga Petintseva, Rita Faria and Yarin Eski

This book offers practical advice on designing, conducting and analyzing interviews with ‘elite’ and ‘expert’ persons (or ‘socially prominent actors’), with a focus on criminology and criminal justice. It offers dilemmas and examples of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices in order to encourage readers to critically asses their own work. It also addresses methodological issues which include: access, power imbalances, getting past ‘corporate answers’, considerations of whether or not it is at times acceptable to ask leading questions and whether to enter a discussion with a respondent at all. This book will be valuable to students and scholars conducting qualitative research.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Release date: Nov 7, 2019
• ISBN: 9783030330002

Book preview

© The Author(s) 2020

O. Petintseva et al.Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33000-2_1

1. Introduction

Olga Petintseva¹  , Rita Faria² and Yarin Eski³

(1)

Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

(2)

Faculty of Law, School of Criminology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

(3)

Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands

Olga Petintseva

Email: [e-mail]

Abstract

This section introduces readers to the goals of the book and its main working premises. Drawing on the body of literature on the so-called elite and expert interviews (EEI), the book addresses methodological challenges and offers ‘tips & tricks’ in interviewing a wide range of actors relevant to criminology and related social sciences. We particularly discuss interviewing the powerful on sensitive topics and why qualitative research with such actors requires specific methodological sensitivity. The introduction states the authors’ epistemological positioning toward the production of knowledge; it presents the book’s general structure and specific features, such as the use of text boxes drawn from recent empirical research as lively illustrations. Moreover, it highlights some of the ethical, methodological, topical and positional particularities, which will be addressed in the remaining chapters of the book.

Keywords

Qualitative methodsInterviewsPowerfulCrimeCrime control

1.1 Introduction

By means of interviewing, we enter meaningful interactions with people whose insights, practices, opinions and feelings we wish to study in order to (co-)produce knowledge. Collecting data via interviews enables us to get a glimpse behind the veil of their world and to acquire human understanding of the social realities and values and meanings that underpin them (Beyens, Kennes, & Tournel, 2010; Noaks & Wincup, 2004). Criminologists, especially, have been studying harmful, deviant or criminal behavior, as well as the criminal justice system and the practices of social control, which reside within the obtrusive, the hidden, if you like. Interviewing people who have acquired a certain position within these spheres—whether it is by means of expertise, professional and/or social status requires particular methodological sensitivity. To put it somewhat bluntly, interviewing the powerful presents opportunities and challenges that extend to issues such as access, talking about sensitive topics, negotiating control over the course of the interview and publishing about delicate topics criminologists usually look at.

Although social scientists increasingly conduct interviews with ‘experts’ and ‘elites’, there is very little methodological work discussing their particularities (but see, e.g., Bogner, Littig, & Menz, 2009; Desmond, 2004; Herzog & Ali, 2015; Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019), much less so in criminologically relevant domains. By writing this book, we encourage researchers to engage in ‘researching up’, specifically, by means of interviewing powerful criminals, as well as powerful decision makers in the institutions of social control. Drawing on the body of literature on the so-called elite and expert interviews (hereafter: EEI) (used in geography, communication, political and business studies), the book addresses methodological challenges in interviewing a wide range of actors who may prove to be key informants for criminology and related social sciences: policy makers, politicians, judges/the judiciary, high-level police officers, lawyers, scientists and academics, senior managers, officials from European and international institutions, as well as white-collar criminals or upper world deviants (for instance, people who have committed occupational, corporate, financial, transnational and organized crimes) whose first-hand accounts are rather exceptionally included in criminological research (see, e.g., Barak, 2015; Bittle, Snider, Tombs, & Whyte, 2018; Levi, 2015; Tombs & Whyte, 2007).

Translating methodological insights from the literature on EEI to the domain of criminology and accounting for who counts as ‘powerful’ in this specific area, we highlight the added value of such type of interviews. Moreover, the book guides researchers in designing, carrying out and analyzing EEI, specifically in the areas of crime and crime control. We offer examples, dilemmas, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices in order to encourage critical assessment of reader’s own work. Even though EEI do not necessarily differ in all possible respects from other qualitative interviews, particular issues arise concerning access, power imbalances, getting past ‘corporate answers’, considerations of whether or not it is acceptable to ask leading questions or to enter a discussion with the respondent and so on. Our readers will recognize some basic principles from qualitative research interview, but we mainly cross-reference to the existing literature and rather zoom in on the peculiarities of interviewing when it comes to researching the powerful.

In the first place, this book is intended for researchers engaging in qualitative interviews, who self-identify with critical paradigms. Epistemologically, we are much inspired by the principles outlined by Rubin and Rubin (2011) in their Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. We neither see researchers as ‘miners’, i.e., taking positivist stance that knowledge is simply out there and just needs to be uncovered, nor as ‘travelers’, i.e., a postmodernist premise that knowledge is merely created in the course of (research) interactions (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003; Yeo, Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2014). We take that knowledge is socially constructed, yet it is valuable outside of the direct research encounters. Still, the researcher guides this process and co-constructs knowledge, which entails that we need to be aware of power relations, interaction contexts, research techniques, self-positioning and the importance of conversation dynamics. While empirically researching the powerful with respect to the issues of crime and crime control, oftentimes researchers cannot participate in the participants’ worlds in real time. Numerous invaluable ethnographic studies aside, scholars regularly have to rely on post-factum reconstructions (or constitutions [Presser, 2009]) of people’s accounts to acquire the necessary information and knowledge. This, again, underscores the importance of careful handling of the interview context and its structured, unstructured and unexpected aspects (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).

Researching the powerful is ‘tricky’ not only when it comes to interview interactions. Arguably, in recent years, contemporary universities—the most privileged loci of scientific research—have been changing their practices and mechanisms in order to better comply with corporate-driven models. This tendency may have a series of consequences for research, namely the need for external funding provided by (politically, economical and socially) powerful entities—precisely the ones that we may want to centralize in our research (Alvesalo-Kuusi & Whyte, 2017; Tombs & Whyte, 2007). Such connections may hinder researchers’ critical perspectives on the most powerful institutions and actors. This context may also, and it has done so in the past, give way to censorship by the powerful and the elites exerted over research results and outputs (Geis & Goff, 1983; Haggerty, 2004; Levi, 2015) or to more subtle ways of defining and steering research agenda.

Moreover, interviewing the powerful presents specific ethical challenges (Haggerty, 2004; Israel & Gelsthorpe, 2017). The actuarial and liability-anticipating logic of university ethics committees (see Faria & Eski, 2018) may make it so that critical research on the powerful becomes hindered or at least subjected to extra scrutiny, potentially limiting its creative and critical aspects.

Add to that the fact that research using qualitative methods, among which open-ended interviews, in criminology has been systematically underappreciated in the contemporary ‘publish or perish’ research culture (for more detailed arguments in this regard, see Copes, Tewksbury, & Sandberg, 2016; Poupart & Couvrette, 2018). Prioritizing survey-like methodologies, in turn, contributes to the fact that the powerful usually escape research endeavors (Aguiar & Schneider, 2012). There you have the perfect recipe for researchers to feel, in all good faith, deflated to pursue qualitative research involving the powerful.

Nonetheless, criminology and related social sciences cannot ignore the fact that much of the social problems faced by the ‘powerless’ (e.g., poverty, precariousness, crime, violence, drug use, migration) are, in many respects, closely intertwined with actions and omissions of the powerful. Either those who are in charge of defining, preventing and controlling crime, harm and deviance, or those who, in companies, banks, government offices, rating agencies and so on, further deepen inequalities. Understanding the practices, decision-making systems, organizational contexts, ideologies or expertise of the powerful is crucial for a balanced research agenda and potential—albeit difficult—transformations (Kezar, 2003).

The structure of this book is as follows. Chapter 2 provides clarification on who we consider to be the powerful, elites and experts. Although we sometimes interchangeably refer to these concepts, the aim is to highlight the complexities of power dynamics, without presuming that, for instance, people with certain material possessions automatically count as the powerful, let alone as experts. Our lens is focused specifically on powerful actors in crime and crime control who have access to resources unavailable to the general audience (articulation power, legitimacy, for instance). The chapter then proceeds to argue for the need to consider the methodological particularities when interviewing such actors. Chapter 3 addresses models and strategies for interviewing the powerful, suggesting some adaptations to the ‘orthodox’ models of interviewing (e.g., doxastic interviews), while offering innovative models that can be used when interviewing the powerful (e.g., epistemic interviews). Such models and strategies will always need to be attuned to the type of knowledge scholars are looking for, including researcher’s positionality with respect to the powerful actor(s) (e.g., particularly discussed in the ‘looking glass’ interviewing model). The chapters that follow go on to offer practical ‘tips and tricks’, examples and dilemmas that researchers can encounter during data collection and analysis. We reflect on particular issues that might arise while researching the powerful. Specifically, the topics addressed concern: sampling and gaining and maintaining access (Chapter 4), preparing the interview and constructing topic lists (Chapter 5), features related to the interview context, such as introducing the research, establishing rapport, language use and probing into sensitive topics while talking to the powerful (Chapter 6). Chapter 7 deals with specific issues that may arise during analysis, reporting and assessing the quality of data. It also discusses what happens once the researcher leaves the field and what reactions to expect from the powerful to the research results.

Each chapter provides guidelines and examples based on our own empirical work (interviewing judges, academics and managers in the security business) and on the input from other researchers (inserted as illustrations in text boxes throughout). The issues of ethics, i.e., standards that need to be adopted toward others in carrying out research in order to safeguard the interests of those affected by such projects (Noaks & Wincup, 2004) are important during the entire research process. For this reason, we decided to not include a separate chapter on ethics but to address the matters of ethics and research integrity as such throughout the entire book.

Overall, we argue that, to an extent, ‘conventional’ qualitative interviewing methods need to be adjusted in order to interview powerful actors, namely due to power imbalances between the interviewer and the interviewee, or the interviewee and the general public. This is even more pressing when interviewing the powerful about sensitive topics, such as harms, deviant and criminal behavior or topics related to crime control. Additionally, conversation topics of EEI do not necessarily concern deeply personal experiences and rather relate to the issues of public interest, which, at times, justifies active or critical self-positioning on the part of the researcher. Furthermore, researchers need to be able to keep up with highly knowledgeable respondents or high-level deviants and may encounter particular issues of social desirability, sympathy or antipathy. EEI are also often characterized by evasive or corporate answers, strict timing frames, requests to abandon anonymity, attempts to have a say in the analysis and so on.

Because of the wide applicability of the methodological questions covered here (i.e., their translation to different topics and domains, departing from a wide array of theoretical perspectives and pursuing diverse goals) and because of the concise and focused format of a pivot, we don’t always have the space to elaborate on each of the topics and dilemmas in great detail. Nevertheless, in order to guide researchers in their work, each chapter includes specific experiences of qualitative researchers (text boxes) and recommendations for further reading.

References

Aguiar, L. L. M., & Schneider, C. J. (Eds.). (2012). Researching amongst elites: Challenges and opportunities in studying up. Surrey: Ashgate.

Alvesalo-Kuusi, A., & Whyte, D. (2017). Researching the powerful: A call for the reconstruction of research ethics. Sociological Research Online,23(1), 136–152.Crossref

Barak, G. (Ed.). (2015). The Routledge international handbook of the crimes of the powerful. London: Routledge.

Beyens, K., Kennes, P., & Tournel, H. (2010). Mijnwerkers of ontdekkingsreizigers? Het kwalitatieve interview. In T. Decorte & D. Zaitch (Eds.), Kwalitatieve methoden en technieken in de criminologie (pp. 187–221). Leuven: Acco.

Bittle, S., Snider, L., Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (Eds.). (2018). Revisiting crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crime and deviance. London: Routledge.

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Crossref

Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challenges posed in studying an elite in the field. Area,36(3), 262–269.Crossref

Copes, H., Tewksbury, R., & Sandberg, S. (2016). Publishing qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education,27(1), 121–139.Crossref

Faria, R., & Eski, Y. (2018). Een wolf onder de wolven. Ethiek en ethische commissies in criminologisch onderzoek naar ‘the powerful’. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit,8(3), 43–58.Crossref

Geis, G., & Goff, C. (1983). Introduction. In E. H. Sutherland (Ed.), White collar crime: The uncut version (pp. ix–xxxiii). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Crossref

Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology,27(4), 391–414.Crossref

Herzog, C., & Ali, C. (2015). Elite interviewing in media and communications policy research. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,11(1), 37–54.Crossref

Israel, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2017). Ethics in criminological research: A powerful force, or a force for the powerful? In M. Cowburn, L. Gelsthorpe, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Research ethics in criminology: Dilemmas, issues and solutions (pp. 185–203). London: Routledge.

Kezar, A. (2003). Transformational elite interviews: Principles and problems. Qualitative Inquiry,9(3), 395–415.Crossref

Levi, M. (2015). Qualitative research on elite frauds, ordinary frauds, and ‘organized crime’. In H. Copes & J. M. Miller (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of qualitative criminology (pp. 215–235). London: Routledge.

Noaks, L., & Wincup, E. (2004). Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. London: Sage.Crossref

Poupart, J., & Couvrette, A. (2018). Les méthodes qualitatives en « terrain criminologique » : mise en perspective et usage de ces méthodes dans la revue Criminologie. Criminologie,51(1), 201–229.Crossref

Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology,13(2), 177–200.Crossref

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.

Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2007). Researching corporate and white-collar crime in an era of neo-liberalism. In H. N. Pontell & G. Geis (Eds.), International handbook of white-collar and corporate crime (pp. 125–184). New York: Springer.Crossref

Van Audenhove, L., & Donders, K. (2019). Expert interviews and elite interviews for policy analysis in communication studies. In H. Van den Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. Van Audenhove (Eds.), Handbook methods of media policy research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yeo, A., Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2014). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 177–210). London: Sage.

© The Author(s) 2020

O. Petintseva et al.Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33000-2_2

2. Interviewing ‘the Powerful’ in Crime and Crime Control

Olga Petintseva¹  , Rita Faria² and Yarin Eski³

(1)

Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

(2)

Faculty of Law, School of Criminology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

(3)

Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands

Olga Petintseva

Email: [e-mail]

Abstract

The chapter enters conceptual discussions on the notions of ‘the powerful’, ‘elites’ and ‘experts’. It discusses what makes elite and expert interviewing specific and why researchers would be interested in conducting qualitative interviews with the powerful, particularly within the study area of criminology. Simultaneously, the chapter highlights how the book intends to overcome a lack of systematic methodological reflection on using interviews with the powerful, when asking them about sensitive issues. The chapter underscores the importance of fostering critical, reflexive and ethical attitudes throughout the entire research process.

Keywords

ElitesExpertsThe powerfulConceptsQualitative interviewing

2.1 Introduction

We foreground interviewing ‘the powerful’, while relying on methodological insights fostered in the literature on ‘elite’ and ‘expert’ interviewing (EEI). So-called expert interviewing is often used in European and particularly German-speaking research communities to describe interviews that aim to elicit specific knowledge by speaking to experts and/or people who have privileged access to certain information (Meuser & Nagel, 2009). ‘Elite interviewing’, on the other hand, is more of an Anglo-Saxon notion, focusing on getting accounts of people who have power, authority or status (Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019). Although these interview types have somewhat different foci and rationales (see Van Audenhove & Donders, 2019), all of these concepts presuppose that EEI are somehow different from other interviews. This is what we centralize in this chapter: Who are the powerful, elites and experts? Aside from conceptual issues as such, a crucial critical question is whether we as researchers reproduce power imbalances and re-establish positions of the powerful by a priori dubbing these groups and individuals with such strong terms and somehow separating them from ‘other’ interviews? Without putting EEI in opposition to interviewing ‘the powerless’, this chapter discusses what makes EEI particular and why researchers would be interested in conducting qualitative interviews with the powerful, especially within the study area of criminology.

2.2 Conceptual Issues: Who Are the ‘Powerful’, ‘Elites’ and ‘Experts’?

Notions such as ‘powerful’ actors, ‘elites’ and ‘experts’ have been the subject of definitional quarrels across a range of domains and, as a result, there is much confusion and debate surrounding such definitions (Bogner, Littig & Menz, 2009; Tieberghien, 2014).

2.2.1 ‘Experts’

Expert interviews aim to elicit expert and profound knowledge (Bogner et al., 2009). Bogner et al. (2009) distinguish three types of concepts of ‘experts’: (1) The voluntaristic concept takes that everyone is an expert within particular fields and their own lives, which implies seeing knowledge in relation to personal arrangements; (2) the constructivist definition sees the expert position as a construct of a researcher’s interest in pursuing specific type of knowledge. Defining experts, therefore, does not necessarily relate to a hierarchical position or status. This constructivist definition equally takes that an expert is anyone who is seen or construed as an expert in a given social reality of research interactions. Finally, (3) definition of expertise in terms of the sociology of knowledge takes that only certain types of ‘special’ socially relevant knowledge are considered as expertise in particular societal contexts.

Anyone can be an expert on particular matters—and we certainly take that every individual is the expert of her/his own life and within specific areas. For example, illicit drug users have been identified as experts due to their knowledge of prices, purity and availability of substances (Mason, Baker, & Hardy, 2007). Other authors emphasize social position and legitimacy. For instance, also in the area of drugs and drug use, Becker, in Outsiders (1997 [1963]), refers to moral crusaders who "add to the power they derive from the legitimacy of their moral position, the