Search results

Narrative criminology has made stories respectable again, despite criminology's long-professed ties to a model of positive science. Given the field's continued scepticism about the ‘truthfulness’ of stories, narrative scholars have grappled carefully with the place and utility of lies for understanding the social worlds and individual identities of crime-involved populations. In this chapter, we draw from a study of women's pathways to incarceration in Sri Lanka, analysing the case of one study participant who shared with us many ‘tall tales’ about their life. In comparing Daya's account with those of other participants, we explore the complex relations among ‘truth,’ ‘fiction’ and ‘lies,’ and their implications for narrative criminology. We offer specific cautions about the place of verisimilitude and plausibility in narrative criminologists' efforts to make sense of offender narratives.

An existing tension in sociological and criminological research with young people is the need to seek parental consent for research participation, while acknowledging that providing parents with descriptions of the research may put youth in precarious positions. This is particularly true when discussing sensitive topics such as interpersonal violence, gang involvement, and/or LGBTQ identity. One mechanism to maximize research participant protections while still preserving their privacy is to utilize independent youth advocates during the consent and research processes, sometimes by sampling with the assistance of youth-serving community agencies. Although such arrangements can be mutually beneficial for research participants, scholars, and the agencies themselves, concerns about strain on agency staff, ownership of data/results, how to engage in meaningful collaboration, conflicts of interest, funding, and other related issues also exist. This chapter draws from our recent investigation of the social worlds of urban LGBTQ youth to discuss the ethical and practical considerations of utilizing the assistance of youth advocates and community agencies. We also articulate how the case for utilizing youth advocates can be made to university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) by directly citing the federal guidelines regarding research with minors.

This chapter presents the broad themes of this special issue by introducing the contributions and connections among the chapters in the volume. Recent theoretical constructions of childhood have positioned children as social actors resulting in a growth of child- and youth-centered empirical research. Yet, there is a continued importance for researchers to discuss ethical issues that arise in research with youth, contend with the competing constructions of children as social agents and in need of protection, and explore innovative methodological strategies used in research with youth.

Methodological traditions are like any other social phenomena. They are made by people working together, criticizing one another, and borrowing from other traditions. They are living social things, not abstract categories in a single system.– Andrew Abbott (2004, p. 15)