Hallo Marcel

The collection of qualitative data by means of the lived experiences of participants is an acknowledged and recognised method in social science. However, qualitative research has not always been considered sound evidence for practice and has been accorded lesser importance than quantitative research, which has been the gold standard. The importance of qualitative research and its role in evidence-based practice has continued its steady gains in terms of becoming a “mainstream” form of inquiry. In my opinion are those handful of researchers/critics, who dismiss the human trafficking phenomenon in SA, still from the school of thought that quantitative research is more important than qualitative research.

Quantitative studies illustrating statistical evidence is not superior to evidence gained through qualitative research. The fact that rigorous, quantitative data in terms of human trafficking is scarce, given the various reasons you've mentioned, further emphasise the value of the findings (evidence) of qualitative studies. In other words, the value of qualitative methods lies in their ability to pursue systematically the kinds of research questions that are not easily answerable by quantitative methods. Qualitative methods best suit many of the research questions addressed in the human trafficking context.

Consequently, I totally agree when a clearly explicated and sound qualitative research methodology is followed and data is systematically collected, which include first-hand lived experiences of practitioners and survivors of the crime, sufficient empirical 'evidence' undoubtedly exists. The findings of these studies are furthermore validated by a range of methods ensuring the trustworthiness thereof. I therefore, dispel the notion of critics against qualitative research findings.

I hope my interpretation will shed some light on your question.

just some thoughts....

The issue, I think, is that when you are providing qualitative information from non-scientific sampling practices, you are always open to criticism. This does not mean that such data is useless, but that more effort must be expended to illustrate why it is valid. In the case of trafficking, it might be likely that the validity of empirical data might be poor, given the extent to which trafficking may be hidden and undiscoverable. So, here, it is potentially likely that both kinds of data have limits, and you have to draw on both to start to understand the extent and nature of the problem.

With respect to the specific crime here, there is also certainly reluctance to address problems of human trafficking for several reasons. In some cases, this may be the result of the fact that human trafficking plays a role in promoting the dominate economic system and relations between nations. I am thinking here not just of trafficking in a very traditional sense, but also of trafficking related to the imposition of conditions of human slavery that occur in many places, and not only in less developed countries, but in hidden locations in more developed nations as well. In other cases, countries that are at the victims (ie., the places from which people are trafficked), don't want to admit this problem for any number of reasons (e.g., one being politicians "loss face" when they admit to the existence of this problem), and also perhaps don't have the resources to deal with these concerns.

Dear Marcel, I find your question very complex and it requires a polyhedric answer . I do not think that we should belligerently look into qualitative and quantitative methodology, on the contrary, I believe that qualitative methodology complements quantitative data. For instance, you can observe the different application of the trafficking definition in different countries, due to their perception on vulnerability, exploitation, consent, etc... All these concepts reflect the socio-cultural aspect of the national territories and, thus highly influence on the quantitative data. This should be where qualitative methodology steps in and tries to understand the applicability of these concepts and how data is gather- of course, many scholars might present different visions of governmental reports. And, I believe that this is exactly the battle of Academics, in counselling governments-whenever they are ready to embrace your work- and try to complement each other's work.

Dear Marcel,

Sorry, am responding rather late. Colleagues who offered some thoughts on the question you posed have touched on the issues I think are pertinent to the debate. I agree and stress that qualitative and quantitative methodologies are more complementary rather than contradictory. This is also true when one considers the meaning of evidence as a socio-legal term. Evidence literally means any matter of fact that is presented to prove or disprove a case.

Social sciences researchers use 3 or more types of evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a social problem. The first type of social science evidence is anecdotal evidence. This is basically the citation of one or two related or unrelated cases, reported in the media.

To strengthen anecdotal evidence we need a reasonable number of experiential or lived experience. In the human trafficking research, this will mean, for example, the number of victims identified and interviewed. The number of victims needed to establish strong evidence is not known. This is where guidance is needed from government agencies and where the Second type of social science evidence - statistical evidence comes in. The number of arrests, prosecution and convictions on human trafficking is increasing yet some still do not consider the crime a threat to the South African society.

The third type of social science evidence is testimonial or the writing of experts on the subject of concern. In research terms, this is the citation of articles in accredited/peer reviewed journals.

Human trafficking research fulfills the 3 types of evidence briefly discussed.

While evidence presented by human trafficking researchers to prove the prevalence of human trafficking crime in South Africa are often criticized or dismissed as anecdotal, critiques have not been able to provide counter evidence to disprove it.