Introduction
There is no use denying the fact that nowadays great attention is given to the development of science. More and more issues become investigated and more and more people become involved in researches. That is why it is possible to state the fact that there is a certain base for researchers that helps them to obtain the results they need. This base includes main patterns of investigation, main ideas, and directions.
Moreover, it also describes different ways of scientific researches and methods used in science. Great attention is given nowadays to quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. The reason for such popularity lies in the universal character of these methods. It is possible to determine different variables and understand the peculiarities of the functioning of a certain process (Christensen & Brumfield, 2009). With this in mind, the majority of researchers nowadays use these very approaches in their works.
Main Body
In order to understand the peculiarities of these methods better, it is possible to analyze the article which uses one of them in order to give credible evidence to the research. With this in mind, the work Judge Interventions in Criminal Trials: A Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Study by Gnisci Augusto and Angiola Di Conza is taken. There are several reasons for this choice. First of all, the authors use both qualitative and quantitative methods in this research to provide clear and understandable information that can be analyzed. The work centers around the issue of judges intervention in trials and the influence which these actions have on the whole process.
The authors take into account different factors and motifs which stimulated judges to act or interfere. In order to understand the peculiarities of these processes better, video recorded materials are analyzed and investigated. Resting on these tapes, the authors conduct qualitative and quantitative researches. The main aim of quantitative research is to determine the correlation between the number of trials in general and cases of judges interventions.
The authors determine that the identified judges’ interventions are N = 443 (Gnisci & Di Conza, 2012). With this in mind, taking into account the results of quantitative research, they are able to state the fact that the majority of trials are characterized by judges interventions. Moreover, the authors want to determine the influence which these interventions have on trials. With this in mind, qualitative research is conducted. The main aim of it is to determine whether there are significant shifts in the quality of the processes or not and what influence judges interventions have. Such factors as courts final decisions and the work of attorneys are taken into account. With the help of qualitative research, the authors state the fact of the negative influence of the judges interventions.
Conclusion
Having analyzed the following article, it is possible to say that the pattern chosen for this research can be recommended for further usage in practice. It is obvious, that this approach is vital for criminal justice as it allows to determine shifts in the quality of some factors which have a great influence on a trial. Moreover, qualitative research applied to the same issue will be able to determine the frequency or some other statistical information about the processes under investigation (Buckley, 2009). Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that the mixed method of investigations, which combines qualitative and quantitative researches, has great efficiency.
References
Buckley, M. (2009). Grounded Theory Methodology. In W. Sheperis, J Young & H. Daniels (Eds.), Counseling Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. (pp. 79 – 98). London: Pearson.
Christensen, T. & Brumfield, K. (2009). Phenomenological Designs. In W. Sheperis, J. Young & H. Daniels (Eds.), Counseling Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. (pp. 98 – 121). London: Pearson.
Gnisci, A. & Di Conza, A. (2012). Judge Interventions in Criminal Trials: A Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Study. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(1), 41-55. Web.