Advertisement

Trends in Organized Crime

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 13–30 | Cite as

Listening to the wire: criteria and techniques for the quantitative analysis of phone intercepts

Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on phone conversations wiretapped by the police. It discusses issues of validity and reliability of this type of data and it proposes the use of a combination of data analysis techniques. In order to utilize wiretapped conversations in a valid manner, individuals under surveillance must talk freely on the phone, the coverage of the group must be reasonably wide, and a large enough sample of conversations must be available. As for the analysis, we propose the use of a set of techniques: content analysis, correspondence analysis, descriptive network analysis and longitudinal stochastic actor-oriented models. Each technique highlights a different aspect of the criminal network. Systematic analysis of phone conversations can yield valid inferences on the nature and activities of criminal groups and enrich the understanding of the ties within a criminal network. If followed, the procedures discussed here should facilitate comparisons across groups.

Keywords

Criminal groups Wire tapped conversations Content analysis Social network analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to John Goldthorpe, Michelle Jackson, Luca Ricolfi, the two anonymous referees and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions. They are also thankful to Liz David-Barrett and Morag Henderson for their help in editing the text, and their comments. This research was supported by a grant from Leverhulme Trust (F/01 532/B).

References

  1. Amorim D, Saul G, Barthélemy J-P, Ribeiro CC (1992) Clustering and clique partitioning: simulated annealing and tabu search approaches. J Classif 9(1):17–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker WE, Faulkner RR (1993) The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. Am Sociol Rev 58(6):837–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benzécri J-P (1973) L’Analyse des Données, Tome 2. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for windows. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruinsma G, Bernasco W (2004) Criminal groups and transnational illegal markets. A more detailed examination on the basis of Social Network Theory. Crime, Law Soc Chang 41(1):74–94Google Scholar
  7. Burk WJ, Steglich CEG, Snijders TAB (2007) Beyond dyadic interdependence: actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviours. Int J Behav Dev 31(4):397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Campana P (2011). Eavesdropping on the Mob: the functional diversification of the Mafia activities across territories. Eur J Criminol 8(3):1–16Google Scholar
  10. Coles N (2001) It’s not what you know—It’s who you know that counts. Analysing serious crime groups as social networks. Br J Criminol 41(4):580–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2005) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra JK, Lindenberg S, Veenstra R, Steglich C, Isaacs J, Card NA, Hodges EVE (2010) Influence and selection processes in weapon carrying during adolescence: the roles of status, aggression, and vulnerability. Criminology 48:187–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finckenauer JO, Waring EJ (1998) Russian Mafia in America: immigration, culture and crime. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gifi A (1990) Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenacre MJ (1984) Theory and application of correspondence analysis. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. University of California, Riverside. At: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/
  18. Harcourt BE (2002) Measured interpretation: introducing the method of correspondence analysis to legal studies. Univ Ill Law Rev 979–1017Google Scholar
  19. Hill MO (1974) Correspondence analysis: a neglected method. Appl Stat 23(3):340–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschfeld HO (1935) A connection between correlation and contingency. Proc Camb Philos Soc (Math Proc) 31:520–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  22. Horst P (1935) Measuring complex attitudes. J Soc Psychol 6:369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klerks P (2001) The network paradigm applied to criminal organisations: theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the Netherlands. Connections 24(30):53–65Google Scholar
  24. Knoke D, Rogers DL (1979) A blockmodel analysis of interorganizational networks. Sociol Soc Res 64:28–52Google Scholar
  25. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  26. Lauman EO (1991) Comment on “The future of bureaucracy and hierarchy in organizational theory: a report from the field”. In: Bourdieu P, Coleman JS (eds) Social theory for a changing society. Westview, Boulder, pp 90–93Google Scholar
  27. Lauman EO, Marsden PV, Prensky D (1983) The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In: Burt RS, Minor MJ (eds) Applied network analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 18–34Google Scholar
  28. McNally D, Alston J (2006) Use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in the examination of an outlaw motorcycle gang. J Gang Res 13(3):1–25Google Scholar
  29. Mohr JW (1998) Measuring meaning structures. Annu Rev Sociology 24:345–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohr JW, Duquenne V (1997) The duality of culture and practice: poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory Soc 26:305–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morselli C (2005) Contacts, opportunities, and criminal enterprise. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  32. Morselli C (2009) Inside criminal networks. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Natarajan M (2000) Understanding the structure of a drug trafficking organization: a conversational analysis. In: Natarajan M, Hough M (eds) Illegal drug markets: from research to policy. Crime preventions studies, Vol. 11. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, pp 273–298Google Scholar
  34. Natarajan M (2006) Understanding the structure of a large heroin distribution network: a quantitative analysis of qualitative data. J Quant Criminol 22:171–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pattison PE, Breiger RL (2002) Lattices and dimensional representations: matrix decompositions and ordering structures. Soc Netw 24:423–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Podolny JM, Page KL (1998) Network forms of organizations. Annu Rev Sociology 24:57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reuter P (1994) Research on American Organized Crime. In: Kell R, Chin K, Schatzberg R (eds) Handbook of organized crime in the United States. Greenwood, Westport, pp 91–119Google Scholar
  38. Richardson M, Kuder GF (1933) Making a rating scale that measures. Pers J 12:36–40Google Scholar
  39. Roberts CW (ed) (1997) Text analysis for the social sciences: methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Erlbaum, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Robins G (2009) Understanding individual behaviours within covert networks: the interplay of individual qualities, psychological predispositions, and network effects. Trends Organ Crime 12(2):166–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robins G, Kashima Y (2008) Social psychology and social networks. Asian J Soc Psychol 11(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlegel K (1984) Life Imitating Art: Interpreting Information from Electronic Surveillances. In: Fairbank JK (ed) Critical issues in criminal investigations. Criminal Justice Press, Cincinnati, pp 53–61Google Scholar
  43. Scott J (2000) Social network analysis. A handbook, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith DC (1975) The Mafia mystique. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol Methodol 31:361–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Snijders TAB, Steglich CEG, Schweinberger M, Huisman M (2007) Manual for SIENA version 3.1. University of Groningen: ICS / Department of Sociology and University of Oxford: Department of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  47. TM(Tribunale di Monza) (1994) Atti del procedimento contro Sansalone Antonio (Proceedings against Sansalone Antonio), Monza Penal CourtGoogle Scholar
  48. Torgerson WS (1952) Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika 17(4):401–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Varese F (2006) The structure of a criminal network examined: the Russian Mafia in Rome. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 21. University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Varese F (2010) General introduction. What is organized crime? In: Varese F (ed) Organized crime. Routledge, London and New York, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  51. Varese F (2011) Mafias on the move. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. von Lampe K (2009) Human capital and social capital in criminal networks: introduction to the special issue on the 7th Blankensee Colloquium. Trends Organ Crime 12(2):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Weber RP (1990) Content analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Extra Legal Governance Institute, Department of SociologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations