Interpreting performance in offender supervision: The use of observation as a data collection method
| Author | Ester Blay,Johan Boxstaens,Anna Melendez Pereto,Pascal Décarpes |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220315610244 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
610244EJP0010.1177/2066220315610244European Journal of ProbationBoxstaens et al.
2015
Special Issue Article
European Journal of Probation
2015, Vol. 7(3) 218 –240
Interpreting performance in
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
offender supervision: The use sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220315610244
ejp.sagepub.com
of observation as a data
collection method
Johan Boxstaens
University of Antwerp, Belgium
Ester Blay
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Anna Melendez Pereto
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Pascal Décarpes
University of Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
Empirical research on practicing offender supervision seems to be rather scarce in many
European jurisdictions. Existing studies tend to be mostly descriptive and use interviews
and surveys as methods of data collection. Moreover, comparative research on the
practice of offender supervision is almost non-existent (Bauwens, 2011; Robinson and
Svensson, 2013). This article describes and reflects on the exploratory work that has
been done by researchers from different European jurisdictions in their effort to pilot
observations as an innovative research method to study probation practice within a
comparative framework. The authors briefly discuss observations as a method for
collecting data in general. A description of the (ongoing) project of piloting observations
as a method in comparative research and the methodological issues that arose, led to
the development of a structured observation schedule that has been tested in Catalonia,
Spain. We describe the first results of this study and discuss them in relation to our
Corresponding author:
Johan Boxstaens, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Sint-
Jacobstraat 2, 2000 ANTWERP, Belgium
Email: johan.boxstaens@uantwerpen.be
Boxstaens et al.
219
ongoing effort to assess the added value of observations in comparative research on
probation practice.
Keywords
Comparative research, innovative research methods, observations, offender
supervision, probation practice
Introduction
Empirical research on practicing offender supervision seems to be rather scarce in many
European jurisdictions. In a review of research that covers 15 countries,1 Robinson and
Svensson (2013) argue that most existing studies are fairly small, which means that they
have been conducted by one researcher during a limited period of time. They tend to be
mainly descriptive and interviews are predominantly used as a method of data collection,
followed by surveys. In an earlier article in this journal and in her PhD, Bauwens (2010,
2011) shows that only a few research projects have used observations to try and under-
stand the practice of offender supervision. Studies on how practitioners actually work
with offenders are even more difficult to find. This could be explained by the fact that
observational research is more time and cost intensive than conducting interviews or
surveys (Robinson and Svensson, 2013). Another issue might be that the core business
of probation practice in many jurisdictions was and still might be a one-on-one process
between practitioners and service users. Confidentiality obviously plays an important
role in this process, which could result in resistance or reluctance of practitioners and
offenders to participate in observational research (Bauwens, 2010; Deering, 2011). The
fact that research on how offender supervision is practiced is scarce and that existing
research is mainly interview- and survey-based, leads to the assumption that we only
know something about what practitioners say they do and very little about what they
actually do in daily practice. In other words, interviews and surveys seem to tap into
people’s attitudes and reports of their behavior, but we cannot just assume that they per-
fectly reflect actual behavior. Earlier research by Bauwens (2010, 2011) in the Belgian
context supports this assumption by showing that there seems to be a discrepancy
between: (1) what policy instructs practitioners to do and what they do in practice, and
(2) between what practitioners say they do (in interviews), their perceptions about how
they deal with practice and how they actually behave in contacts with service users.
The aim of this article is to describe and reflect on the work that has been done by a
group of researchers from different European jurisdictions within the framework of
COST Action 1106 on Offender Supervision in Europe.2 The main goal of the authors is
to explore the use of observations as an innovative method of data collection in compara-
tive research on probation practice. This article begins by briefly describing observations
as a research method in general. We then describe our small-scale (ongoing) research
project with specific attention to the methodological issues we encountered along the
way and our efforts to tackle these issues by constructing a structured observation sched-
ule. The article continues discussing the use of the observation schedule in a pilot study
220
European Journal of Probation 7(3)
in Catalonia, Spain. Finally, we argue why observations could have an added value in
research on probation practice, underline its limitations and discuss our further research
steps for the future.
Observation as a research method?
Observation seems to be a natural part of everyday life. People observe reality and the
people around them continuously, mostly without being conscious of the fact that they
are doing it. However, using observation as a scientific method to collect data is not an
easy thing to do. In fact, Shank (2006) argues that using observation as a method in sci-
entific research is difficult precisely because it is a natural element deeply rooted in our
everyday life. Nevertheless, observational methods have been widely used in research in
different academic disciplines, seeking to study both explicit and tacit cultural knowl-
edge (Levi-Strauss, 2011).
Marshall and Rossman (1989: 79) define observation as a research method as: ‘the
systematic description of events, behaviors and artifacts in the social setting chosen for
study’. Used as a method for collecting data, observations should enable researchers to
describe a situation in order to produce a so-called ‘written photograph’ (Erlandson et al.,
1993). This photograph should allow an in-depth description of three essential elements:
the place(s) where the activity that is being researched takes place, the person(s) that are
present and the activity itself (Spradley, 1980).
In research literature, different forms of observational methods are described. Bryman
(2012) distinguishes between six major types of observational research that can be pre-
sented in three dichotomies: participant versus non-participant observation; simple ver-
sus contrived observation and structured (systematic) versus unstructured (open)
observation. Because of its importance for our pilot study, this article will only address
the advantages and disadvantages of structured versus unstructured observation.
In unstructured or open observation, the goal is to look at a situation with a non-lim-
itative scope, gathering as much detailed data as possible. Rooted in the constructivist
paradigm, open observation can be used to describe and make sense of social situations
in general or, in our case, professional practice in particular. The researcher starts with a
general idea on potentially interesting topics and does not use detailed topic lists or pre-
coded schemes. The aim is to produce a narrative that is relevant to the research ques-
tions (McKechnie, 2008).
In contrast to open observation, systematic observation uses a pre-constructed obser-
vation schedule that contains predetermined categories or topics that are relevant to par-
ticular investigatory purposes.
Bryman (2012: 272) defines structured or systematic observation as: ‘A technique in
which the researcher employs explicitly formulated rules for the observation and record-
ing of behavior. The rules inform observers about what they should look for and how
they should record behavior’. The data that are collected by using structured observa-
tion can be considered as variables and treated as such in quantitative analyses.
Structured observation is extensively used in psychological research rooted in a positiv-
ist paradigm. Researchers using a predetermined observation schedule are attempting to
Boxstaens et al.
221
remain objective and stay as close to reality as possible without contaminating data with
their own interpretations and preconceptions (Mulhall, 2003).
Although unstructured and structured observation are often described as two distinct
types of observation that are grounded in opposing paradigms (constructivist vs positiv-
ist), Pretzlik (1994) argues that it is possible to triangulate both methods in the same
study. Such an approach would combine qualitative and quantitative data, so that both
deductive and inductive methods are at play, which makes it possible to cross-check facts
and results.
In the following section, we will explain how and why we moved from open to sys-
tematic observation as a research method in a small-scale pilot study on probation prac-
tice throughout different European jurisdictions.
Observing the practice of offender supervision: A small-
scale pilot
In this section, we describe the work that has been done in an initial small-scale pilot study
on observing supervision...
To continue reading
Request your trial