Furthermore, Kaufmann and Vicente, (2011, p.195) state that there is often the need to determine the “motivations behind individuals”, especially public officials, getting involved in corrupt deals when they have been tasked with representing and defending the interests of the public. When making a study of corruption, it is best to conduct it qualitatively rather than quantitatively as a means of getting accurate results.
When conducting studies on corruption, it should be recognized that qualitative methods have many characteristics that define them and these can be used for the development of ideas, which determine the findings of the studies (Devine, 2002, p.201). One would argue that among the most impressive aspects of qualitative methods, when compared to quantitative ones, is the development of the design which is extremely important because among its contents is the study of real world situations as they unfold in a natural state. For example, in a situation where a study of corruption is being conducted, the researcher is bound by the situation under study as it is and does not get involved in attempting to control the situation to get the results he requires (Vishnevsky & Beanlands 2004, p.236). Furthermore, Castellan (2010, p.5) argues that unlike in the use of quantitative methods, the researcher is not hindered by any ideas that have been predetermined and the findings are as they are discovered, ensuring that there is a measure of credibility that does not appear in situations where studies are generalized. Castellan further argues that when using qualitative methodologies, the researcher will more often than not be required to “adapt his findings to the situation as it unfolds,” so that there are no predetermined or rigid designs when conducting a study on corruption. These methods can be extremely useful in a study