Introduction

Thus far, current challenges in the study of female serial killers have been outlined and intersectionality and institutionalism have been identified – key influences that would shape the approach to the study of Mary Ann’s case. Within this chapter, the specific methodology deployed in the analysis of her case is described. The chapter will begin by explaining the process of arriving at a specific methodology before identifying the sources of data on which the authors drew. Following on from this, the framework through which the evidence was analysed will be presented and the limitations of the approach used will be considered.

The foundations of a method

In Chapter Two, the authors concurred with other criminologists in recognising the potential of institutionalism (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2004; Karstedt, 2010; Messner et al, 2013). While they wished to deviate somewhat from the positivist epistemology that characterise existing institutional studies of homicide, they did want to utilise some of the key concepts – notably ‘institutional configurations’ and ‘social roles’. Developing a specific method would, however, be particularly challenging given the aims to both describe the institutional configurations of the Victorian society in which Mary Ann lived and explore how she engaged with the structural backdrop to her life. This was largely uncharted territory but the authors were not the first to be concerned about how to proceed. Indeed, the trailblazing criminologists who had played a central role in embedding institutional studies in criminology had noted: ‘It is far easier to call for more and better institutional analysis in criminology than indicate precisely what such analysis should look like and how it ought to be implemented’ (Messner and Rosenfeld, 2004, p 98). Such challenges were still very much present several years later when Richard Rosenfeld spoke on the subject to members of the American Society of Criminology in his presidential address: