ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the ethical responsibilities that can arise when undertaking qualitative research which draws upon narrative, and longitudinal, approaches within the discipline of criminology. Within criminology there is a general push for quantitative-based research, often undermining qualitative approaches through arguments of generalisability, validity, and rigour regardless of their ability to offer a depth of understanding to provide a voice to those marginalised. However, there are also important challenges surrounding potentially exploitative experiences that can limit, and be limiting, for individuals involved in research that we need to be aware of (Buck et al., 2022). This chapter will explore vulnerability and the potential for re-traumatisation, how narrative and longitudinal research can challenge and blur relational boundaries between researchers and participants (Presser and Sandberg, 2015) and can also be somewhat intrusive (Sharpe, 2017), and the importance of our responsibilities as researchers to question the power dynamics at play, and in fact who benefits. Considering qualitative approaches, this chapter will specifically focus on research within the field of desistance. Our understanding of why people desist from crime is underexplored in comparison to what is known about why people commit crime. And once again, the nascent criminological theorising in this area has focused on young, white men with the voices of criminalised women being continually marginalised. Their experiences are therefore encapsulated within a male-centric understanding of what may be influencing factors in their desistance from criminal behaviour. The underlying aim of the chapter looks to a pragmatic philosophy, feminist literature, and methodological approaches through discussions of power to argue the importance of understanding criminalised women’s lived experiences in a male-centric environment and ensuring that we listen to these voices within research, practice, and policy to support participation and collaboration. Here discussions draw upon the value of participatory action research (PAR) in its ability to limit our exclusion and expand our understanding of those often marginalised within the criminal justice system (CJS), whilst ensuring we understand our ethical responsibilities as researchers.
