HISTORY, DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES OF SERIAL MURDER 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Previous chapters have discussed the body of theoretical work on serial murder. The approach used to interpret the current findings, namely family systems theory, has also been discussed. In Chapter 1, the purpose of the study was spelt out, namely: to investigate serial murder from a systemic point of view. To achieve the above, the following question was proposed as focus:
“How does the family system of a person who commits serial murder function?”
That is, what is the family structure, who are the people in the family system and how do they maintain the family system.
This chapter explains the methodology, research design, procedures, ethical considerations, data analysis and data integration of the study.

METHODOLOGY

This study is qualitative in nature. Qualitative research has been understood as “the interpretive study of a specified issue or problem in which the researcher is central to the sense that is made” (Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor & Tindall, 1994, p.2). Qualitative research focuses on the meaning of experience, actions and events as they are interpreted through the eyes of certain researchers, participants and cultures or groups, and is sensitive to the particular contextual nuances of the study topic (Harre & Secord, 1972) as well as the impact that the relationship between researcher and the participant/s and context has on interpretation of the study topic. Quantitative research focuses on measuring, manipulating and specifying relationships between certain variables in order to test causal hypotheses (Henwood, 1996).
Parker (1992) describes the differences between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of three “methodological horrors” (Woolgar, 1988). These are indexicality, inconcludability and reflexivity.
In terms of indexicality, an explanation is always tied to a particular context, and will change as the context changes. This is viewed as problematic in quantitative research and is addressed via reliability and validity. Qualitative research does not view this as a problem and instead it into the research process by focusing on specificity with respect to the topic of study. The qualitative researcher does not and cannot generalize his findings, but provides an understanding of the phenomenon as it occurs.
In the current study, the researcher focuses specifically on serial murder in the South African context and acknowledges that this phenomenon is subject to change as the South African political and socio-economic and cultural climate changes, or as policing initiatives targeting individuals who commit this crime become more sophisticated and accurate. Consequently, the current research is framed by specific contextual parameters, and findings will be interpreted with reference to those parameters.
In terms of inconcludability, an account can always be added to, and as more is added to it, so it will mutate. Quantitative research deals with this “problem” by having a representative sample size; however, in qualitative research, the inconcludable nature of research is accepted and therefore, methods such as single case studies are acceptable. In fact, much qualitative research treats each study as if it was a case study and aims to provide an in-depth examination of the different meanings at work within a different context.
As will be discussed further, this study will focus on case studies of individuals who have committed serial murder in South Africa and will attempt to develop an understanding of these individuals and their family systems. The researcher acknowledges the sample size and findings that will be generated are by no means complete; and that these findings may be contradicted, elaborated or supplemented by other research on the same topic, or with the same individuals, for example. Yet, understanding and knowledge about serial murder within the context of family may shed light on aspects such as interpersonal familial patterns, emotional processes within the family and family structures.
Finally, reflexivity refers to the researcher’s awareness of his own subjectivity in terms of the way that a topic is conceptualized, and findings are interpreted. The way in which a researcher characterizes a phenomenon will change how it operates for him and that will change they way that that phenomenon is perceived. Rather than attempting to eliminate subjectivity as quantitative research attempts to do, qualitative research includes the researcher’s subjectivity as a resource in the research process.
In this study, the researcher has chosen to define the concepts under investigation in a certain way – see definitions of serial murder (Chapter 2) and family (Chapter 4). It is understood that these definitions impact upon the cases selected for analysis and data collection and that another researcher may have chosen different definitions, and obtained different findings possibly as a result. Additionally, the conceptual framework for family systems theory devised by the researcher will also impact upon the analysis of the data and findings generated, and will be kept in mind throughout the analysis and assessment of findings.

Evaluating qualitative research

As opposed to quantitative research, which focuses on validity and reliability to evaluate the strength and generalizability of a study, quantitative research has its own set of criteria by which a study can be evaluated.
These criteria are:

• credibility;
• transferability;
• dependability; and
• confirmability (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Credibility requires that the researcher must demonstrate that the study was conducted in such a manner that the subject was accurately identified and described.
Transferability refers to the question, how applicable or transferable are the findings to another setting or group of people? The burden of demonstrating transferability lies with the investigator who would make that transfer rather than the original investigator.
ependability refers to the degree to which one can be sure that the findings would be replicated if the study were conducted with the same participants in the same context. In order to satisfy this criterion, the researcher has to account for changing conditions in the phenomenon.
Confirmability refers to the extent to which the findings are reflective of the subjects and the inquiry itself rather than being brought about by the researcher’s own prejudices. This study will be evaluated by the researcher in relation to these four criteria, and this evaluation will be included in Chapter 8.

 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design is exploratory in nature. Exploratory or descriptive research does not concern itself directly with causal explanations but rather details empirical observations made by the researcher (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Consequently, the researcher does not specify research hypotheses prior to the study but rather generates findings that may be used in other studies in ways that may or may not be causal. Exploratory research is frequently used when the topic under study is novel; when little research is available on the topic of interest; when a researcher wishes to test out methods or approaches that may be formalized in a future study; or when the researcher wishes to generate findings that may be tested in a more formal manner in another study (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).
As discussed previously, although serial murder has not been researched extensively in South Africa, a few studies (Du Plessis, 1998; Hodgskiss, 2003; Hook, 2003; Pistorius, 1996; Labuschagne, 2001) have been conducted. Additionally, no prior study has assessed the role of serial murder within a family systems theoretical approach. Therefore, the topic of serial murder in South Africa is suited to an exploratory research design, which will be adopted for the current study, and which hopefully will yield findings that can be tested further in future research.

SAMPLING

Given the usual small population targeted by qualitative research, in this case individuals who have committed serial murder and are currently incarcerated in prisons in South Africa, the sampling strategy is a non-probability purposive sampling strategy. Non-probability sampling does not involve random sampling and consequently is limited with respect to how well it can be said to be representative of a particular population (Trochim, 2002). Given that qualitative research does not require representativeness in as strict a sense as quantitative research, and that the sample population is limited, non-probability sampling is suitable for this study.
There are two types of non-probability sampling, namely accidental and purposive sampling. This study will use a purposive sampling strategy. According to Trochim (2002)
purposive sampling is ideal when the researcher is seeking a certain predefined group; when a targeted sample is needed quickly; and where proportionality is not a primary sampling concern. The current study meets the first and third criteria, namely:

• individuals who have committed serial murder constitute a certain predefined group; and
• proportionality is not of primary importance given the small population size

According to the various types of purposive sampling strategies proposed by Patton (1990), the strategy adopted by this study can be further classified as a criterion-based purposive sampling strategy. This means that cases are selected on the basis of meeting some criterion – in this case, the generic definition of serial murder discussed in chapter two. Patton also states that this sampling strategy allows for quality assurance in purposive sampling.
The selected sample for this study consists of individuals who are currently serving sentences in various prisons in South Africa. A case consists of instances of serial murder behaviour and the family systems of which they are a part. It was important to select cases from similar cultural and ethnic backgrounds (namely, White, Afrikaans-speaking) as opposed to others (such as Black and speaking an African language) due to the researcher’s objective of obtaining a thorough, in-depth understanding of the phenomenon within a family system. In order to do this, the researcher selects the sample according to those with which she feels that she could communicate most adequately without potential contamination or influences that may have resulted due to lack of familiarity with linguistic practices. The introduction of a translator may also affect the system’s response and may dilute the investigation further. Future research may possibly aim at extending the realm of cultural backgrounds with regards to serial murder.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 SERIAL MURDER AS PHENOMENON
1.2 MOTIVATIONS FOR THE STUDY
1.2.1 Interaction of popular and academic sources
1.2.2 Limited available research on serial murder in South Africa
1.2.3 The novelty of the systemic perspective
1.2.4 Applications to correctional and investigative systems
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
1.4 RESEARCH FOCUS AND DESIGN
1.4.1 Research design
1.5 A NOTE ON THE PATHOLOGICAL MODEL
1.6 RESEARCH OUTLINE
1.7 CONCLUSION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW: HISTORY, DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES OF SERIAL MURDER 
2.1 DEFINING SERIAL MURDER
2.1.1 Mass and spree murder
2.1.2 Serial murder
2.1.3 Differences and similarities of definitions
2.1.4 Concluding remarks of definitions
2.1.5 Definition of serial murder for the purposes of this study
2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SERIAL MURDER
2.2.1 History of serial murder: international
2.2.2 History of serial murder: South Africa
2.3 WAYS OF CATEGORIZING SERIAL MURDER
2.3.1 Topological classification schemes
2.3.2 Geographical classification
2.3.3 Concluding remarks on classification schemes
3. LITERATURE REVIEW: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS CONCERNING SERIAL MURDER 
3.1 ORGANIC THEORIES
3.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES
3.3 SOCIO-CULTURAL THEORIES
3.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE CURRENT STUDY
4. FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORY 
4.1 DEFINITION OF “THE FAMILY
4.2 THE CONTEXT OF THE FAMILY
4.3 FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORY
4.4 KEY FAMILY SYSTEM CONCEPTS FOR THIS STUDY
4.5 SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
5. METHOD OF RESEARCH 
5.1 METHODOLOGY
5.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.3 SAMPLING
5.4 DATA COLLECTION
5.5 PROCEDURE
5.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
5.7 DATA ANALYSIS
5.8 DATA INTEGRATION
5.9 CONCLUSION
6. RESULTS 
6.1 CASE STUDY ONE – MR X AND FAMILY
6.2 CASE STUDY TWO – MR Y AND FAMILY
6.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
7. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 
7.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF CASE STUDY ONE – MR X AND HIS FAMILY
7.2 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF CASE STUDY TWO – MR Y AND FAMILY
8. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CRITIQUE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
8.1 COMPARISON OF MR X AND MR Y AND THEIR FAMILIES
8.2 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GENERAL LITERATURE
8.3 DEFINITIONS
8.4 HISTORY
8.5 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS OF TYPOLOGIES
8.6 THEORETICAL ASPECTS
8.7 METHODOLOGY
8.8 CRITIQUE
8.9 RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCE
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT