The Irish District Court: A Social Portrait

Appendix: Research Methodology

187 Appendix Research Methodology Introduction Methodology choices for social researchers are often shaped and limited by constraints. The researcher may well have to decide ‘what can I do?’ rather than ‘what would I like to do?’ Research methodologies employed therefore reflect practical accommodations necessary to get the work done. Research constraints may take many forms, such as limited resources, restricted access, lack of willing informants, inadequate statistical databases, and ethical considerations . Ethical considerations act as an over-arching constraint on the methodology adopted for social research projects, and given the requirement within most academic institutions that ethical approval must be obtained prior to embarking on research, they can be a very important determinant of what research takes place and how it is conducted. The choice of methodology for this research was mainly constrained by the limited information recorded pertaining to District Court defendants, which ruled out the possibility of quantitative research and essentially dictated that a qualitative research methodology be adopted for this. This appendix sets out the research methodology adopted in conducting qualitative research of proceedings in the Irish District Court. The appendix describes how a preliminary perspective of District Court proceedings was gleaned from interviews conducted with one sitting District Court judge and one retired District Court judge. The quasi-ethnographic approach adopted is located in relation to traditional ethnographic research, with the differences between traditional or ‘pure’ ethnography and quasi-ethnography highlighted and discussed. The appendix outlines and discusses the factors that determined the choice of research locations and provides a detailed description 188 APPENDIX of the various locations where research was conducted, and sets out the length of time spent at each site. The process of negotiating access to the ‘field’ is noted and discussed and the method adopted to write and code field notes and organise field note extracts thematically is described. The discussions held on an informal basis with various courtroom regulars during the course of the research are outlined, as is the process of seeking and conducting interviews with criminal law solicitors. Measures taken to protect research participants are outlined and departures from normal ethical practice are also discussed. Preliminary Interviews Prior to deciding on the research approach to be adopted, interviews were conducted with a retired District Court judge and a sitting District Court judge. Interviews were not recorded in accordance with the wishes of both judges. The objective of these interviews was to get an insider’s perspective of the day-to-day work of the court and an assessment of the impact of foreign defendants on the work of the court, and to use this information to devise a research strategy that was both appropriate and implementable. The interviews highlighted that procedural efficiency was a key concern of District Court judges and CS staff. Given the heavy caseload faced daily in most District Courts, it was essential that the research did not impinge on the work of the court or make undue demands on the time of CS staff. Judge Doyle expressed the view that most judges would not be keen to engage directly by way of interview with the research. After careful consideration it was decided that the most suitable methodology for this research project was quasi-ethnographic courtroom-based observation supplemented with informal discussions with various courtroom ‘insiders’ (Rock 1993), and more formal interviews with a number of selected solicitors . The term quasi-ethnographic and its application to other socio-legal research are explored below. Quasi-Ethnographic Research Ethnographic research methods have been used extensively in the study of deviance and hard-to-reach subcultures (see, inter alia, Shaw et al., 1938/2006; Shaw and McKay, 1942/2006; Agar, 1971; Inciardi APPENDIX 189 et al., 1993; Whyte, 1993) and in the research of criminal justice processes (Cicourel, 1968; Punch, 1979; Travers, 1992; Norris, 1993; Rowe, 2007; Travers, 2007). In looking at research focused on the work of criminal courts, it is helpful to distinguish between studies which use the tools of ethnography but do not adopt an ethnographic stance; those that present an ‘ethnographic perspective ’; and true ethnographic studies. Hogarth (1971), Crow and Simon (1987) and Ashworth et al. (1984) used a range of research methods which included courtroom observations and interviews with judges/magistrates. However, although these studies used methods commonly used by ethnographers , they are not ethnographic in character. Travers (2007) presents an ‘ethnographic perspective’ of an examination of sentencing in a children’s...