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
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- 14 Mixing and Combining Research Strategies and Methods to Understand Compliance
- 15 Using Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review to Examine Corporate Compliance
- 16 Data Simulations as a Means of Improving Compliance Measurement
- Index
- References
14 - Mixing and Combining Research Strategies and Methods to Understand Compliance
from Part 4 - Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
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
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- 14 Mixing and Combining Research Strategies and Methods to Understand Compliance
- 15 Using Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review to Examine Corporate Compliance
- 16 Data Simulations as a Means of Improving Compliance Measurement
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract: The main objective of this chapter is to present a concise overview of key debates and issues relating to the use of mixed methods and mixed strategies to understand compliance. We first engage with philosophical issues that underpin compliance research, the direction of different research traditions, and the implications of these for mixed strategy research. We argue that mixed methods should be attractive to researchers of compliance for a range of theoretical and methodological reasons and assess how these have been used so far in the discipline. In a bid to push forward the mixed methods movement in compliance research, we present further methods of inquiry and ways of thinking about compliance research: deliberative methods, comparative perspectives, time series analyses, and new technologies in the study of compliance. We then consider how mixed methods research designs can be fruitfully employed in the study of the complexities around compliance with COVID-19 regulations. We conclude by recognizing the practical, political, and resource challenges to undertaking mixed methods compliance research but argue that much can be gained in terms of the production of knowledge on the social complexity of compliance, by pursuing integrative, collaborative, and multidimensional research that encourages disciplinary and philosophical tensions to flourish, rather than constrain our understandings of compliance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Measuring ComplianceAssessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention, pp. 241 - 263Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Almond, Paul and Esbester, Mike. 2018. Regulatory inspection and the changing legitimacy of health and safety. Regulation & Governance, 12, 46–63.Google Scholar
Black, Julia. 1997. Rules and Regulators (Oxford Socio-Legal Studies). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, Megan. 2015. Banking on Climate Change: How Finance Actors and Transnational Regulatory Regimes are Responding. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John. 2016. In search of Donald Campbell. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 417–37.Google Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113.Google Scholar
Buckley, Jennifer A. 2016. Food safety regulation and small processing: A case study of interactions between processors and inspectors, Food Policy, 51, 74–82.Google Scholar
Chan, Janet and Bennett Moses., Lyria 2016. Is Big Data challenging criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 20(1), 21–39Google Scholar
Chanin, Joshua and Welsh, Megan. 2020. Examining the validity of traffic stop data: A mixed-methods analysis of police officer compliance. Police Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/1098611120933644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2009. Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L.. 2006. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. and Tashakkori, Abbas. 2007. Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 303–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Wendy L., Gozman, Daniel P., and Seddon, Jonathan J. M.. 2018. Dialectic tensions in the financial markets: A longitudinal study of pre- and post-crisis regulatory technology. Journal of Information Technology, 33(4), 304–25.Google Scholar
De Loë, Rob C., Melnychuk, Natalya, Murray, Dan, and Plummer, Ryan. 2016. Advancing the State of Policy Delphi practice: A systematic review evaluating methodological evolution, innovation, and opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 78–88.Google Scholar
Dean, Olivia and Marshall., Shelley 2020. A race to the middle of the pack: An analysis of slavery and human trafficking statements submitted by Australian banks under the UK Modern Slavery Act. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 26(1), 46–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, Norman K. 2010. Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 1–9.Google Scholar
Drahos, Peter. 2017. Social-psychological foundations and methodological issues. In Drahos, Peter, ed., Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. and Talesh., Shauhin A. 2011. To comply or not to comply – that isn’t the question: How organizations construct the meaning of compliance. In Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehman, eds., Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 103–22.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger., Howard S. 1999. The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 406–54.Google Scholar
Edwards, Adam and Levi, Michael. 2008. Researching the organization of serious crimes. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(4), 363–88.Google Scholar
Edwards, Adam, Hughes, Gordon, and Lord, Nicholas. 2013. Urban security in Europe: Translating a concept in public criminology. European Journal of Criminology, 10(3), 260–83.Google Scholar
Edwards, Adam, Housley, William, Williams, Matthew, Sloan, Luke, and Williams, Malcolm. 2013. Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: Surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 245–60.Google Scholar
Enachescu, Janina, Olsen, Jerome, Kogler, Christoph et al. 2019. The role of emotions in tax compliance behavior: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 74, 1–16.Google Scholar
Fielding, Nigel G. 2012. Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–36.Google Scholar
Frawley, Shayna. 2018. The decision to comply with workplace law: A mixed-methods investigation of human resource practitioners, PhD dissertation, York University, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Gilad, Sharon. 2014. Beyond endogeneity: How firms and regulators co-construct the meaning of process-oriented regulation. Law and Policy, 36(2), 134–64.Google Scholar
Gorski, Philip S. 2013. What is critical realism? And why should you care? Contemporary Sociology, 42(5), 658–70.Google Scholar
Gray, David E. 2017. Doing Research in the Real World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry. 2006. The regulation of corporate violations: Punishment, compliance, and the blurring of responsibility. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 875–92.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry and Silbey, Susan S.. 2014. Governing inside the organization: Interpreting regulation and compliance. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 96–145.Google Scholar
Gray, Garry and van Rooij, Benjamin. 2021. Regulatory disempowerment: How enabling and controlling forms of power obstruct citizen-based regulation. Regulation & Governance, 15, 800–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, Neil, Kagan, Robert A., and Thornton, Dorothy. 2004. Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, Neil, Thornton, Dorothy, and Kagan., Robert A. 2005. Motivating management: Corporate compliance in environmental protection. Law and Policy, 27(2), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, Fiona. 2011. The Paradox of Regulation: What Regulation Can Achieve and What It Cannot. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Keith. 1984. Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith. 2002. Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith and Hutter., Bridget M. 1993. The response of business to social regulation in England and Wales: An enforcement perspective. Law & Policy, 15(3), 199–217.Google Scholar
Hutter, Bridget M. 1997. Compliance: Regulation and Environment: Oxford Socio-Legal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutter, Bridget and Lloyd-Bostock, Sally, eds. 2017. Regulatory Crisis: Negotiating the Consequences of Risk, Disasters and Crises. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Burke R. and Onwuegbuzie., Anthony J. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
Jordanoska, Aleksandra. 2021. Regulatory enforcement against organizational insiders: Interactions in the pursuit of individual accountability. Regulation & Governance, 15(2), 298–316.Google Scholar
KCL (King’s College London) Policy Institute. 2020. Compliance or complacence? Attitudes to UK lockdown rules, King’s College London Policy Institute. www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/attitudes-to-uk-lockdown-rules.pdf.Google Scholar
Kelly, Erin L. 2010. Failure to update: An institutional perspective on noncompliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act. Law & Society Review, 44(1), 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooistra, Emmeke B. and van Rooij, Benjamin. 2020. Pandemic Compliance: A systematic review about influences on social distancing behaviour during the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. Working Paper Published in SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3738047.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. 2003. Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance. Washington University Law Quarterly, 81(2), 487–544.Google Scholar
Kuiper, Malouke Esra, de Bruijn, Anne Leonore, Folmer, Chris Reinders et al. 2020. The Intelligent Lockdown: Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the Netherlands (May 6, 2020). Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020-20, General Subserie Research Paper No. 2020-02. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3598215 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3598215.Google Scholar
Lange, Bettina. 1999. Compliance construction in the context of environmental regulation. Social & Legal Studies, 8(4), 549–67.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Alford, John R.. 1980. Can government regulate safety: The coal mine example. American Political Science Review, 74, 745–56.Google Scholar
Linstone, Harold. A. and Turoff, Murray. 2002. Introduction. In Linstone, Harold A. and Turoff, Murray, eds., The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, pp. 1–12. www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/index.html.Google Scholar
Losoncz, Ibolya. 2017. Methodological approaches and considerations in regulatory research. In Drahos, Peter, ed., Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Maesschalck, Jeroen. 2021. Using Grid-Group Cultural Theory to assess approaches to the prevention of corporate and occupational crime: The EU as a natural experiment. In Lord, Nicholas, Inzelt, Éva, Huisman, Wim, and Faria, Rira, eds., European White-Collar Crime: Exploring the Nature of European Realities. Bristol: Bristol University Press, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
Maggetti, Martino, Gilardi, Fabrizio, and Radaelli., Claudio M. 2013. Designing Research in the Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mason, Jennifer. 2006. Real Life Methods Working Papers: Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research; ESRC / NCRM Working Paper Series, 4/06. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/482/1/0406_six%2520strategies%2520for%2520mixing%2520methods.pdf.Google Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen. 2006. After Enron will “whiter than white collar crime” still wash? British Journal of Criminology, 46(6), 1091–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McChesney, Katrina and Aldridge., Jill 2019. Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), 225–38.Google Scholar
Mertens, Donna. 2007. Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–25.Google Scholar
Mertens, Donna. 2018. Mixed Methods Design in Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirchandani, Kiran, Vosko, Leah F., Soni-Sinha, Urvashi et al. 2018. Methodological k/nots: Designing research on the enforcement of labor standards. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(2), 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monciardini, David, Bernaz, Nadia, and Andhov, Alexandra. 2021. The organizational dynamics of compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act in the food and tobacco sector. Business & Society, 60(2), 288–340.Google Scholar
Nastasi, Bonnie K. and Hitchcock, John. 2015. Mixed Methods Research and Culture-Specific Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 2012. Solicitation 12–499: Core Techniques and Technologies for Advancing Big Data Science & Engineering (BIGDATA). www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12499/nsf12499.pdf.Google Scholar
Pagliari, Stefano and Wilf, Meredith. 2021. Regulatory novelty after financial crises: Evidence from international banking and securities standards, 1975–2016. Regulation & Governance, 15, 933–51.Google Scholar
Palinkas, Lawrence A., Mendon, Sapna J., Hamilton, Alison B. et al. 2019. Innovations in mixed methods evaluations. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(1), 423–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, Christine and Nielsen., Vibeke 2009. The challenge of empirical research on business compliance in regulatory capitalism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 45–70.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Lehman Nielsen, Vibeke. 2011. Introduction: From regulation to compliance. In Parker, Christine and Lehman Nielsen, Vibeke, eds., Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Q. 2014. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th ed., London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
PRA. 2020. Report: Evaluation of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, Prudential Regulation Authority. www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/report/evaluation-of-smcr-2020.pdf?la=en&hash=151E78315E5C50E70A6B8B08AE3D5E93563D0168.Google Scholar
Reuters. 2017. Barclays, U.S. FERC near settlement of power market manipulation lawsuit. www.reuters.com/article/us-barclays-ferc-penalty-idUSKBN1CI21E.Google Scholar
Simpson, Sally S. 2002. Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Sally S. and Koper, Christopher S.. 1997. The changing of the guard: Top management characteristics, organizational strain, and antitrust offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13(4), 373–404.Google Scholar
Solymosi, Reka. 2019. Exploring spatial patterns of guardianship through civic technology platforms. Criminal Justice Review, 44(1), 42–59.Google Scholar
Solymosi, Reka and Jordanoska, Aleksandra. 2021. Companies in Trouble: Exploring Debt, Insolvency and Corporate Noncompliance in the UK, Working Paper on file with the authors.Google Scholar
Solymosi, Reka, Jackson, Jonathan, Pósch, Krisztián et al. 2021. Functional and dysfunctional fear of COVID-19: A classification scheme. Crime Sci., 10(4), 1–23.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2015. Legal intermediaries: How insurance companies construct the meaning of compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Law and Policy, 37, 209–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timans, Rob, Wouters, Paul, and Heilbron, Johan. 2019. Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theoretical Sociology, 48, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinati, Ramine, Halford, Susan, Carr, Lesli, and Pope, Catherine. 2014. Big Data: Methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis. Sociology, 48(4), 663–81.Google Scholar
van Erp, Judith, Wallenburg, Iris, and Bal, Roland, 2020. Performance regulation in a networked healthcare system: From cosmetic to institutionalized compliance. Public Admin., 98, 46–61.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin, de Bruijn, Anne Leonore, Folmer, Chris Reinders et al., 2020. Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States (April 22, 2020). Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020-21, General Subserie Research Paper No. 2020-03, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2020-33. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3582626 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3582626.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin, Fine, Adam, Zhang, Yanyan, and Wu, Yunmei. 2017. Comparative compliance: Digital piracy, deterrence, social norms, and duty in China and the United States, Law & Policy, 39, 73–93.Google Scholar
Vickers, Ian, James, Philip, Smallbone, David, and Baldock, Robert. 2005. Understanding small firm responses to regulation. Policy Studies, 26(2), 149–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, James W. 2012. Policing the markets: Inside the black box of securities enforcement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winter, Søren C. and May, Peter J.. 2001. Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 675–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, Jennifer and Creswell., John W. 2013. Mixed Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis While Studying Patient-Centered Medical Home Models. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2013. AHRQ Publication No.13–0028-EF.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunmei and van Rooij, Benjamin. 2021 . Compliance dynamism: Capturing the polynormative and situational nature of business responses to law. Journal of Business Ethics, 168, 579–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar