Explain why you are not using other methods
The method described above is the most applicable to this study since I would need a closely involved study. I would not use a quantitative experimental approach since randomization is out of the question here -- this is a convenience sample. I would also like to have a rich study that operates in a real-life situation and this cannot be studied via empirical means.
I agree with Dilthey (1954) that humans, being more flexible and diverse than objects studied in a lab (animals included), cannot and should not be 'frozen' under a 'microscope' for statistical analysis and factual conclusions. Humans, not reducible to the physical world, cannot be fissured down to discrete variables. Doing so would result in ignoring the very aspects of their humanity, consequently leading to erroneous conclusions.
I also choose qualitative rather than quantitative methodology since this is longitudinal research, exploratory rather than fixed in the manner in which laboratory psychology conducts its analyses. An exploratory, ongoing approach is more reflective of the human condition, which, itself, is in a constant state of flux and development. Rather than seeking verification, the qualitative approach prides itself on being more fluid and flexible than the quantitative research in that its focus is, continuously, on the attempt to remain open to the 'newness' in the human journey and to the possibility of altering previous judgments. Humans, being multi-faceted, have to be studied in all their complex details for conclusion to be reached, and since humans interact with their environment, the environment has to be studied too. Now, since humans undergo a variety of environments in one lifetime, and since humans differ one from the other, definite scientific conclusion are ontologically impossible. Human research, consequently, has to be an ongoing process, with the scientist steeped in the other's environment in order to gain some sort of assumption (never a definite or conclusive assumption) of the why's and wherefores...
The opposite of the scientific inductive approach, grounded theory adopts a deductive stance where research develops from data, rather than the other way round. Its constructivist approach will be useful to both the researchers and to the field as a whole since a constructivist approach examines the participants' thoughts, feelings, opinions, stance etc., A constructivist approach is also helpful to the researchers themselves since it allows them to compare the sentiments and opinions of the studied participants with their own particular cognitions and attitudes (Charmez, 2006).
References
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. NY: Sage,
Correctional Service of Canada. [Online] Retrieved from:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/pen/pen02-eng.asp
Correctional Service of Canada. The CAC System [Online] Retrieved from:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/cac/resrces/rm/2-eng.shtml
Correctional Service of Canada. Transforming Corrections. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/organi/trnsfrmtn-drgs-eng.shtml
CTV News. Easy Out: Catching those on the lam, (Apr. 22, 2003). Retrieved on Monday, December 13, 2010 from http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/WFive/20030422/WFIVE_rope_parole_030425/
Dilthey, W. (1954). The essence of philosophy. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAGC). 1996 May Report of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199605_10_e_5041.html)
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (OAGC). 2008 December Report of the Auditor General of Canada http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200812_00_e_31824.
