Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- 11 Engaging Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Compliance Motivations: Understanding the How and Why of Compliance
- 12 Admitting Noncompliance: Interview Strategies for Assessing Undetected Legal Deviance
- 13 Compliance Ethnography: What Gets Lost in Compliance Measurement
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
11 - Engaging Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Compliance Motivations: Understanding the How and Why of Compliance
from Part 3 - Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- 11 Engaging Qualitative Research Approaches to Investigate Compliance Motivations: Understanding the How and Why of Compliance
- 12 Admitting Noncompliance: Interview Strategies for Assessing Undetected Legal Deviance
- 13 Compliance Ethnography: What Gets Lost in Compliance Measurement
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract: The decisions firms make surrounding compliance drive the work of academics and practitioners alike as they respond and seek to understand those actions. Fundamentally, compliance is about behavior, which necessitates not only measuring the what, but also the why and the how. Often, this measurement elicits quantitative research techniques to offer insights into compliance behavior. We argue that measuring compliance must include an understanding of the why and how decisions surrounding compliance are made, and qualitative techniques, including interviews and focus groups, enable a deeper understanding of compliance behaviors and decisions. In this chapter, we conceptualize compliance as a process between individuals and organizations and that a qualitative research approach enhances understandings of the how and why of compliance. We offer brief descriptions of both qualitative interviewing (including semi-structured and elite interviews) and focus groups and provide examples of how these techniques can be employed to examine compliance. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each methodological approach. We conclude by making a case for integrating these approaches alongside other research methodologies as part of a multi-method pursuit of compliance measurement.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Measuring ComplianceAssessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention, pp. 189 - 201Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Suggested Resources
Brinkmann, Svend and Kvale, Steinar. 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rubin, Herbert J. and Rubin, Irene S.. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sim, Julius and Waterfield, Jackie. 2019. Focus group methodology: Some ethical challenges. Quality & Quantity, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11135-019–00914–5.Google Scholar
References
Berry, Jeffrey M. 2002. Validity and reliability issues in elite interviewing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 679–82.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S., eds. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Dubois, Vincent. 2019. Welfare fraud inspectors between standardization and discretion. In van de Walle, Steven and Raaphorst, Nadine, eds., Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government. New York: Palgrave, pp. 167–86.Google Scholar
Fine, Gary and Elsbach, Elizabeth. 2000. Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 51–76.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Kenneth. 2002. Getting in the door: Sampling and completing elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 669–72.Google Scholar
Grønkjær, Mette, Curtis, Tine, de Crespigny, Charlotte, and Delmar, Charlotte. 2011. Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative Studies, 2(1), 16–30.Google Scholar
Hall, Jeffrey B., Lindgren, Joakim, and Sowada, Moritz G.. 2019. Inspectors as information-seekers. In Walle, Steven van de and Raaphorst, Nadine, eds., Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government. New York: Palgrave, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Harvey, William S. 2011. Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431–41.Google Scholar
Hutter, Bridget M. 1997. Compliance: Regulation and Environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivankova, Nataliya and Stick, Sheldon. 2006. Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed-methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93–136.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A., Gunningham, Neil, and Thornton, Dorothy. 2011. Fear, duty, and regulatory compliance: Lessons from three research projects. In Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann, eds., Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert, and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Jenny. 2005. Focus group research: Using group dynamics to explore perceptions, experiences and understandings. In Holloway, Immy, ed., Qualitative Research in Health Care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, pp. 56–70.Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A. 1988. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Krueger, Richard A. and Casey, Mary Anne. 2008. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 4th ed., London, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Guba, Egon G.. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lynch, Julie. n.d. Summary of Focus Group Discussions with Screen Printers and Lithographers for the Design for the Environment Printing Project (epa.gov).Google Scholar
Marshall, Catherine and Rossman, Gretchen B.. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Merriam, Sharan B. and Tisdell, Elizabeth J.. 2016. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2011. Introduction. In Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann, eds., Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C. 2009a. Trust between regulators and the regulated: A case study of environmental inspectors and facility personnel in Virginia. Politics & Policy, 37(5), 1047–72.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C. 2009b. Perceptions of the regulated community in environmental policy: The view from below. Review of Policy Research, 26(5), 533–50.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C. 2010. Front-line regulators and their approach to environmental regulation in Southwest Ohio. Review of Policy Research, 27(6), 761–80.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle C. and Rinfret, Sara R.. 2013. The Lilliputians of Environmental Regulation: The Perspective of State Regulators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pautz, Michelle, Jones, John C., and Hoflund, A. Bryce. 2018. On the front lines in school cafeterias: The trials and tribulations of food service directors. In Hoflund, A. Bryce, Jones, John C., and Pautz, Michelle C., eds., The Intersection of Food and Public Health: Current Policy Challenges and Solutions. New York: Routledge, pp. 121–62.Google Scholar
Pham, Mai T., Jones, Andria Q., Sargeant, Jan M., Marshall, Barbara J., and Dewey, Catherine E.. 2010. A qualitative exploration of the perceptions and information needs of public health inspectors responsible for food safety. BMC Public Health. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-345.Google Scholar
Rubin, Herbert J. and Rubin, Irene S.. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd ed., Washington, DC: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rubin, Herbert J. and Rubin, Irene S.. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sim, Julius and Waterfield, Jackie. 2019. Focus group methodology: Some ethical challenges. Quality & Quantity, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11135-019–00914-5.Google Scholar
van de Walle, Steven and Raaphorst, Nadine. 2019. Introduction: The social dynamics of daily inspection work. In Walle, Steven van de and Raaphorst, Nadine, eds., Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Woliver, Laura R. 2002. Ethical dilemmas in personal interviewing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32(2) 677–8.Google Scholar