There are three chief beginnings of information about the offenses for sociologists – the official offense statistics. which are collected by the constabulary and are presented as secondary informations for sociologists ; victim study such as British Crime Survey. which is besides collected by the constabulary and sponsored by the authorities. and in order to roll up primary informations sociologists use self-report surveies and its purpose is to bring out the true sum of offense in the society. OCS are a beginning of secondary informations. therefore it can be trusted as it has been verified before by other researches and are accepted by some sociologists uncritically. for illustration functionalist sociologists explain why the young person and working category are more condemnable merely due to the fact that the OCS say so. As a consequence. Marxists argue that the OCS are being manipulated by the authorities that represents the governing category in order to keep their place and forestall the labor from deriving some power.
There is a procedure called ‘cuffing’ . which is when the constabulary does non enter the offenses that they can non work out. that reduces the cogency of the OCS every bit good as the fact these statistics are unfastened to political maltreatment. therefore both rationalists. who prefer quantitative informations collected in a systematic manner. and interpretivists. who seek for more in depth researches with a batch of qualitative informations to happen out the grounds. have all the rights to disregard this statistic as the dark figure of live statistics is still hidden. as the British Crime study discovered that more offenses are found through research other than through coverage to constabulary. Even though the statistics may be biased toward the authorities. the rationalist would still reason that these statistics are extremely dependable as they are collected in a scientific and systematic manner. therefore they will be able to generalize and compare different tendencies and form. whereas interpretivists ignore these statistics due to the fact that they may non show the whole image of the offenses as they do non include people’s socio-economic background. so as a consequence there is a small information about their motivations. However the most of import failing is considered as that statistics are socially constructed. therefore they are based on someone’s sentiment and stereotypes and this is why the OCS may be invalid.
Another beginning of information is the victim study – the British Crime study. The information there is collected through structured interviews. hence in comparing with unstructured interviews. which are used by the women’s rightists and Left Realists. they are less time-consuming and more organized. the volume of deepness will be balanced and can be easy categorized. whereas in unstructured interviews the volume of deepness is limitless. therefore the research worker will hold to utilize his ain sentiment in order to categorise the replies doing this method less accurate. However. interpretivists would extremely rate the women’s rightist and Left Realist manner of roll uping victim study as unstructured interviews enable the research worker to develop trust and resonance. therefore he will be able to see everything through the victims’ eyes and as a consequence this method is high in cogency as it provides a batch of qualitative information. However. the interviewee may overstate or underestimate the state of affairs because of either fright or benefits that are given in a serious state of affairs as people became for mercenary. significance that the cogency may be every bit good reduced.
It may besides be undependable. as they can non be replicated by anyone else and expensive as it requires developing. otherwise the interviewee may experience uncomfortable. and hence he will non be every bit unfastened as he could. A self-report is a type of questionnaire. which attempts to bring out the true sum of offense in society. The questionnaires are confidential and anon. for the respondent. therefore the cogency of this type of research may better. nevertheless Ian Marsh notes that cogency is undermined by under coverage and over-reporting as people may under-report because self study surveies are retrospective and depend on respondents memory of offense 12 month ago and people may besides either exaggerate or maintain quiet due to the fright of constabulary. Besides the representativeness is questioned because all offenses can non be included in a questionnaire as the research worker has to be selective. so as a consequence some people may hold committed a offense. but they can neither describe it because of fright of being fined or put in gaol nor because it is non included in the questionnaire.
This means that the figure of offenses in statistics will be decreased. nevertheless it will non stand for the world. In add-on to this job. chiefly the young person are questioned as the BCS 2007 provinces that most of the offenses are committed by males aged from 15 to 25 and by females aged from 13 to 19 in England and Wales. therefore the remainder of the population is non included and the construct of “white collar” offense is created. which is in-between classed people non acknowledging their offenses. therefore this information can non be generalized among the population. As separate pieces of the research. all of the methods have their ain advantages. nevertheless there are chiefly disadvantages that make all of them either invalid or undependable and nor representative. However if all these methods were combined into one – a assorted method research. all the qualities of the researches could hold gone up. therefore it could hold been even more utile to sociologists. Even though it may non stand for the whole image. it is the best that the sociologists may acquire. so as a consequence its value and importance goes up because there are no options.