NCJ Number
214225
Journal
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Dated: May 2006 Pages: 157-172
Date Published
May 2006
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This study examined major issues encountered by comparative researchers who conducted fieldwork in China, including access, informed consent, and the validity of conceptual and cultural comparisons.
Abstract
Based on the authors’ research experience in collecting primary data on law and the legal system in several Chinese cities, they advise that it is critical to establish local contact in order to gain access to and understand local culture. It is important to appreciate the collectivism and relativism embedded in Chinese culture. The essence of collectivism is to place the rights and interests of groups above those of individuals. Relativism is a product of collectivism, in that laws, rules, and moral codes are all contextual and relative, depending on the needs and goals of the collective. Further, in designing the research and constructing the instruments of measurement, attention must be given to the validity of cultural and conceptual comparisons. This requires a review of the literature and conversations with local contacts in order to ensure that comparisons between countries and societies are dealing with equivalent variables. Pilot studies were the key to testing and improving research instruments. In the course of the research, strategies must be modified and adapted to new research issues and unexpected cultural phenomena. Flexible research techniques are required, such as open-ended questions and informal interviews. These lessons in research fieldwork in China are based on the authors’ 2002 research on legal reforms in China (Liang, 2003), an ongoing project begun in 1998 on China’s judicial reforms (Lu, 1998), and an ongoing project started in 2004 on the death penalty opinion (Liang, Lu, Miethe, and Zhang, 2006). 65 references