Advertisement

Methodology

  • Rok HacinEmail author
  • Gorazd Meško
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Criminology book series (BRIEFSCRIMINOL)

Abstract

A mixed-methods approach was used to study the dual nature of legitimacy in the Slovenian prison environment, and to test the applicability of the model of the dual nature of legitimacy in the prison environment of a post-socialist country. The qualitative part of the study was implemented over a period of six months when structured interviews were conducted with prisoners and prison workers in all Slovenian prisons and the correctional home. The analysis of interviews was conducted in four stages (Mesec 1998): (1) editing the materials; (2) determining the coding units; (3) open coding; and (4) selection of relevant concepts and categories. The quantitative part of the study was implemented over a three-month period when surveying was conducted with every prison worker (except for managerial staff) and prisoners who agreed to participate in the study in all Slovenian prison and the correctional home. Data from the completed questionnaires were entered into the SPSS program, with which statistical analyses were performed.

Keywords

Mixed methods Qualitative research Interviews Quantitative research Survey Statistical analysis 

References

  1. Brent, J. J., & Kraska, P. B. (2010). Moving beyond our methodological default: A case for mixed methods. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brinc, F. (2011). Družbeno vzdušje v zavodih za prestajanje kazni zapora in v prevzgojnem domu Radeče leta 2010. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 62(4), 295–311.Google Scholar
  3. Copes, H., Hochstetler, A., & Brown, A. (2012). Inmates’ perceptions of the benefits and harm of prison interviews. Field Methods, 25(2), 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. http://joophox.net/papers/SurveyHandbookCRC.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2019.
  5. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Jacques, S., & Wright, R. (2008). Intimacy with outlaws: The role of relational distance in recruiting, paying, and interviewing underworlds research participants. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(1), 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacques, S., & Wright, R. (2010). Dangerous intimacy: Toward a theory of violent victimization in active offender research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kraska, P., & Neuman, L. (2008). Criminal justice and criminology research methods. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Liebling, A., & Price, D. (1999). An exploration of staff–prisoners relationships at HMP Whitemoor (Prison service research report, no. 6). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  10. Mesec, B. (1998). Uvod v kvalitativno raziskovanje v socialnem delu. Ljubljana: Visoka šola za socialno delo.Google Scholar
  11. Meško, G., Tankebe, J., Čuvan, B., & Šifrer, J. (2014). Samozaznava legitimnosti policistov in pravosodnih policistov v Sloveniji: Perspektive postopkovne pravičnosti nadrejenih, odnosov s sodelavci in zaznane legitimnosti policije v javnosti. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 65(3), 221–231.Google Scholar
  12. Polsky, N. (1998). Hustlers, beats, and others. New York, NY: The Lyons Press.Google Scholar
  13. Reisig, M. D., & Meško, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2015). Police self-legitimacy, use of force, and pro-organizational behaviour in Slovenia. In G. Meško & J. Tankebe (Eds.), Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice (pp. 261–277). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih. (2004). Uradni list RS (69/04).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Criminal Justice and SecurityUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia

Personalised recommendations