I am particularly keen to supervise PhD research either:
- on areas that overlap with my own research interests,
- criminological or criminal justice analysis that relate to the Spanish, Latin American, or Hispanic experience,
- or for students interested in applying quantitative work in criminological or socio-legal research.
In the past, however, I have been involved in the supervision of work such as: the role of academia in police training (using insights from Bordieu and the sociology of professions); street robbery in Nigeria; the prospects for community policing in South Arabia; Sure Start as a model for early intervention; or the organisation of illegal drug markets. Previous doctoral students now work in academic jobs, such as Hannah Smithson (Senior Lecturer at MMU), Katja Hallenberg (Lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University), Michael Salinas (Lecturer at MMU), or government jobs, such as Maji Al-Harbi.
Currently I co-supervise the work of Ana Morales (multilevel analysis of recidivism in Chile); Hidetaka Koyama (case study of crime prevention policy in Japan); Po-Yuan Wu (study of transnational police coperation in Taiwan); David Buil Gill (use of small area estimation methods and spatial micro-simulation to study fear of crime); Emily Buehler (meta analysis of correctional programs for female offenders); Rebecca Kaur (qualitative analysis of responses to honour based violence); Christina Thorne (gang desistance); and Alasdair Robertson (data driven approach to model and simulate domestic abuse for policing purposes). Some of these students benefit from co-supervisors in the discipline area of social statistics (School of Social Science) or machine learning (School of Computer Science).
Although gradually I am going back to my number crunching roots in my own research, I am happy supervising qualitative work. However, if I had to do that, I would prefer set-theoretic methods, qualitative comparative analysis or case-study designs and if you want to use particular qualitative analytical frameworks (social discourse, psychosocial, Foucaldian, etc) you will definetely need a second supervisor that is more familiar with those than I am. Epistemiologically you will find me closer to a critical realist perspective, so I would struggle with either pole in the epistemiological continuum.
Also traditionally I fit better what Garfield (2005) calls the “pastoral style” of supervision, though aspiring to be more “contractual”. So, as your second supervisor, you may want to choose somebody with a higher score in Garfield’s X axis, so that you get the best of two worlds (support and organisation).