No abstract

In this paper we outline our current thinking on the processes associated with desistance from crime. This work, conducted as part of the theoretical apparatus of a fifth sweep of interviews with a cohort of ex-probationers originally interviewed for the first time in the late 1990s-but which, by implication holds lessons for those researching people leaving prisonis an attempt to build an account of the processes which help to shape the speed, nature and direction of an individual's efforts to avoid further offending. In it we develop an account of desistance which draws on thinking about macro-level structures and meso-level influences whilst retaining sufficient room for individual agency. Our account, whilst based on what we have learnt from the previous four sweeps of interviews with this cohort and other studies we have undertaken, nevertheless remains a 'work in progress'. We describe briefly the design and aims of the fifth sweep of interviews towards the end of the article.

Desistance research emphasizes that offenders identify a future self that aids desistance efforts. However, it is unclear how future selves operate when offending opportunities arise. To explore this we employ qualitative accounts of instances when offenders and ex-offenders abstained from offending, and the emotions this evoked. Offending was avoided to preserve aspects of offenders' lives or avoid negative consequences but, for some, avoiding offending brought frustration. Finally, those who had made the most progress towards desistance were less likely to identify opportunities for offending. These findings suggest future selves inform the desistance process, highlighting particular ways to be. However, time is needed to build up valued aspects of the life that may be feared lost if engaging in crime. Before the benefits of abstaining are recognized, there may be a tension between the future and current self.

Attrition represents a significant obstacle to overcome in any longitudinal research project. It is, perhaps, most keenly felt when the data collected are from a qualitative study, since, unlike quantitative longitudinal research, weighting factors cannot be applied to 'correct' for any biases in the achieved sample and even a small number of 'lost' respondents can equate to a large percentage of the original sample. It is perhaps because of qualitative longitudinal research's (QLR) reliance on, generally speaking, smaller samples that few have been able to shed much light on which re-contacting procedures are associated with achieving higher rates of retention. In this article, using data from a fifth sweep of a larger but particularly challenging cohort of 199 former probationers, we explore the strategies which helped us maintain high levels of retention in a QLR study. The article contains many practical suggestions which others planning or undertaking similar studies may find useful.Keywords: qualitative longitudinal research (QLR); retention; follow-up studies Introduction Whilst qualitative longitudinal studies have become popular, there have been few efforts to provide guidance on maintaining contact with cohort members over time. Often this is because samples are small, often non-deviant, and conducted by single researchers; consequently: (a) it is relative easy to keep in contact with sample members since there are few of them, and they have little reason to conceal their identities; and (b) small numbers do not readily enable researchers to distil lessons about 'what worked' in maintaining contact over years or decades. Herein we unpack lessons which may be transferable to other qualitative longitudinal research (QLR) studies. The sample size (n = 199) enables us to make suggestions about 'what works' which other QLR studies have not been able to.We start by reviewing what is known about retention in longitudinal research, before describing our aims and objectives more thoroughly. We then outline the project and present our findings. We conclude with a consideration of ethical matters and suggestions for those undertaking QLR studies. Our aim is to distil lessons about how to most effectively re-trace sample members in QLR research. We begin by outlining QLR studies and what is currently known about maintaining QLR samples.

No abstract