SOC 500:
RESEARCH METHODS
! Instructor:
! Office:
UC 720 (ASU Downtown Campus,
! Phone:
602-496-0700 E-Mail: kulis@asu.edu
! Office
Hours: By appointment
! Web
Page: www.public.asu.edu/~atssk (Don’t forget the tilde “~”)
COURSE
DESCRIPTION
This 3 credit
hour graduate seminar explores the logic of social research and the most common
approaches to designing sociological research: quantitative analysis of survey
data, experiments, observational studies (quasi-experiments), qualitative
research, and secondary data analysis issues. We will examine typical phases,
key methodological and statistical decisions, and practical considerations in
the development of sociological research.
Students will develop the components of a research design to address a
sociological research question, write and critique research proposals,
following a National Institutes of Health model.
COURSE PRE-REQUISITES
Students are
expected to have training in undergraduate level social science research
methods and elementary statistics (including regression analysis), facility in
SPSS or ability to learn it on their own.
COURSE FORMAT
The course will
combine the following elements:
! Weekly
reading assignments, to be completed before each class.
! Weekly
exercises or assignments that guide discussions in class. All students are
expected to complete each assignment; designated students will be assigned as
Seminar Leaders who will write up their findings in a short paper, and then
present them in class and help lead the seminar discussion.
! Short
lectures and demonstrations by the instructor.
! A
mid-semester and final written assignment.
! Peer
review: Written critiques of other students’ proposed research questions,
literature reviews, and final proposals.
! A
mock proposal review process where students make oral presentations of their
research proposals and serve as panel reviewers.
TEXTS AND
Texts (required
reading in whole or substantial parts):
! Berg,
Bruce L. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th
edition. Allyn & Bacon.
! Burgois,
Philippe. (2003). In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, 2nd
edition, Cambridge University Press.
! Galvan,
Jose L. Writing Literature Reviews A Guide for Students of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences. (2004).
Pyrczak. (Any edition will do).
! Maxim,
Paul S. (1999). Quantitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
Recommended
references:
! Tabachnick,
Barbara, & Linda S. Fidell. (2006). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th
ed. Allyn & Bacon. (Excellent overview of accepted practice in statistical
analysis, mainly reflecting common approaches in psychology; any edition will
do if you find the chapter corresponding to the one assigned).
! Becker, Howard
S. (1998).Tricks of the trade: How to
think about your research while you're doing it.
Online readings: In addition to the texts above, some classes
will have assigned readings from journal articles or other sources. Many of the
additional readings will be available online to registered students through
Blackboard (MyASUcourses.ASU.edu) at least two weeks prior to a
particular class. These include:
! Ragin,
Charles C., Joane Nagel, & Patricia White (eds.). (2004). Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research. National Science Foundation (available on class
Blackboard site under Course Documents: Resources—Data and Reports).
Contributed papers by prominent qualitative sociologists, who are listed as
individual reading assignments on the syllabus.
Recommended
supplemental readings: For those seeking more in-depth coverage of topics,
check the online listing for each class for recommended readings; these
supplements are not required reading.
SEMINAR PARTICIPATION. To conduct the class as a seminar, attendance
is required.
SEMINAR
DISCUSSION EXERCISES AND SEMINAR LEADERS
Students will be expected to complete a non-graded exercise before most
class sessions. Exercises will be posted
through the class MyASU Blackboard system at least one week prior to
class. Student experiences in completing
the exercises will be discussed in class.
The exercises vary in format and content, but all are designed to
familiarize students with practical as well as substantive issues connected to
the main class session topics. To help
ensure that we are informed participants in the seminar, these exercises must
be completed by all students before the class session, although the assignments
will not be collected or graded. An exception is that, for each seminar
discussion exercise, 2-3 members of the class will be designated as Seminar
Leaders. Seminar Leaders take on extra responsibilities: they will prepare a
written summary (three pages maximum) of their explorations, findings, or
questions in response to the exercise and then present their thoughts in class
and help lead the seminar discussion of the exercise. The written summary must be submitted to the
instructor via email prior to the start of the class when the exercise is
discussed. The written and oral
contributions of the Seminar Leaders will be graded for thoroughness, depth and
insight.
WRITTEN
ASSIGNMENTS
Four additional
written assignments will be graded. All are connected to the development or
critique of a research proposal. In the first assignment, all students will
develop a research question and prepare a literature review on a potential
topic for their course research proposal (due on October 6th), and then
incorporate a revised version of this into the final research proposal (due on
December 8th). Written assignments must be in Word format, and be
submitted by email to the instructor. All written assignments—Seminar Leader
exercises for a particular week of class, research topic/literature review, and
final proposal—should use a file name that includes the last three
digits of your ASU ID (e.g., Exercise02-321.doc [for class #2], Litrev-321.doc,
Proposal-321.doc) but no names. Note: remember to use the last three digits of
your ASU ID (yours’ all begin with 120) rather than your “posting” ID.
PEER CRITIQUES
The remaining
two written assignments will be peer reviews of other students’ first written
assignments and final research proposals.
Each student will evaluate the work of two or more class members
(anonymously) according to structured criteria, and make suggestions for
improvement. Instructions will be given
in class for submitting these critiques to the instructor and to the student
whose work you review.
ORAL
PRESENTATIONS
Students will
make a 10-15 minute Powerpoint presentation in class during one of the mock
proposal review sessions, outlining key elements of their proposed research
design. Seven days before their oral presentation in class, students will
submit a draft of their research proposal by email to the instructor and to
designated peer reviewers.
THE RESEARCH
PROPOSAL
The final
research proposal and the class mock review panels will follow guidelines for
‘R03’ ‘small grant’ proposals submitted to the federal National Institutes of
Health. The format and requirements will be detailed at length in class and
assignments, but R03 background and requirements can be previewed at http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/funding/r03.htm.
Certain R03 requirements will be waived (e.g., budget details) or modified
(e.g., preliminary studies). For
abstracts and descriptions of successful proposals to NIH (R03, R01, R21, and
others) and examples of the appropriate format, language and style, go to http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm (RePORT) to search by topic areas. RePORT
(Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) has many fields for narrowing your
search, including a topical Term Search field.
Typing “%R03%” in the Project Number field will select only R03 proposals,
but scan for other types of proposals as well, including innovative “R21” and
the more standard large grants funded as “R01” applications. RePORT also has
links to available publications from these grants in the PubMed system.
THE MOCK PROPOSAL REVIEW PANEL
The last class sessions will be structured as a mock proposal
review process, similar to panels at NIH that review R03 applications for
funding. At each session, students will
either make an oral presentation of their research proposal in Powerpoint or
serve on a review panel. Presenting
students will submit a draft of their proposal to the instructor and to peer
reviewers before their mock review presentation. Each peer reviewer on the
panel will be responsible for preparing a written critique of a particular
proposal and for leading the panel discussion of that proposal, information
that will be shared with the presenter shortly after the presentation. All panel reviewers will comment verbally on
that day’s presentations, offering suggestions for improvement, assessing their
adherence to formal review criteria, and providing a score according to the NIH
scoring system.
GRADING
All graded
assignments will be evaluated by letter: A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C, D, E. The
grade of A+ indicates performance at the level expected of top researchers in
the field, and is rarely granted. Other
A grades reflect highly accomplished work in need of refinement, revision, or
elaboration. B grades will be assigned
for satisfactory graduate level work that requires substantial improvement to
meet scholarly expectations in the field.
C indicates worthy efforts but not at the level expected among graduate
students in sociology. D will be assigned when work is highly incomplete or not
competent, and E will be assigned for required work that is not submitted. The
weighting of assignments for final grades will be:
Assignment % of final grade
Research question and literature review 20
Peer critique of research question and
literature review 10
Seminar leader discussion of designated
class exercises 10
Class presentation of research proposal 10
Peer critiques of research proposals 15
Final R03 format research proposal 35
Total 100%
Grading philosophy: The course is designed to help students begin to
calibrate their assessments of their own scholarly work and that of others to
professional standards by which NIH applications are assessed. These standards are represented by the following
scoring system, from 1 to 9:
Impact Score Descriptor Additional Guidance on Strengths/Weaknesses
High 1 Exceptional Exceptionally strong with essentially no
weaknesses
2 Outstanding Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses
3 Excellent Very strong with only some minor
weaknesses
Medium 4 Very
Good Strong but with numerous minor
weaknesses
5 Good Strong but with at least one
moderate weakness
6 Satisfactory Some strengths but also some moderate
weaknesses
Low 7 Fair Some strengths but with at least one
major weakness
8 Marginal A few strengths and a few major
weaknesses
9 Poor Very few strengths and numerous
major weaknesses
Additional
Information for Scoring Guidance
Minor
Weakness: An easily addressable weakness that does not substantially lessen
impact
Moderate
Weakness: A weakness that lessens impact
Major
Weakness: A weakness that severely limits impact
[More
information on the NIH scoring system is available on the course Blackboard
site].
MATERIAL ONLINE
Course materials
will be available on-line to enrolled students through the mycourses.asu.edu Blackboard system (contact the instructor if you
encounter problems with this site).
Online you will find the syllabus, all written assignments, many
assigned articles other than from the texts, class exercises, downloadable
datasets, and other guides and supplements.
These materials are organized sequentially by class session in
Blackboard. Students will be expected to
have checked the Blackboard site for information about reading assignments and
exercises prior to each class session.
COURSE EMAIL
Please use only
your ASU email account for any communication with the instructor. Because of
the university’s spam filters, messages from non-ASU email accounts may not be
received. For unexpected class changes or important updates, students will be
notified through their ASU email addresses.
SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS
If you have a
documented disability and need special accommodations or will miss class due to
a religious holiday, please notify the instructor before the end of the second
week of the semester.
CLASSROOM CELLPHONES AND PAGERS
Cellphones, text
messaging, and paging devices may not be used in class and must be turned off
to avoid disturbing class sessions.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Students are
expected to act in accordance with university policies on plagiarism and
related matters at the following link: http://provost.asu.edu/academicintegrity. For information on ways to avoid plagiarism
see this link: http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml
.
CLASS TOPICS,
EXERCISES, AND
Class 1: August
25
Topic: Introduction to social research;
Orientation to on-line bibliographic resources; Literature search strategies.
Assigned reading (catch up by the next class):
Maxim text:
Chapter 1
Berg text:
Chapter 1 (Introduction)
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Becker, H. S.
(1998). Tricks. In Tricks of the trade:
How to think about your research while you're doing it (pp. 1-9).
Class 2: September 1
Topic: Crafting research questions & literature
review
Discussion exercise due at
start of class:
Stating a research problem; literature search strategy
Assigned reading:
Galvan text:
scan all chapters, read chapters 3-9 more thoroughly.
Hargens, L.
(2000). Using the literature: Reference networks, reference contexts, and the
social structure of scholarship. American
Sociological Review, 65, 846-865.
Jacobs, J.
(2009). Where credit is due: Assessing the visibility of articles published in
Gender & Society with Google Scholar. Gender
& Society, 23, 817-832.
Wicked Anomie:
“The Academic Manuscript” (http://wickedanomie.blogspot.com/2008/03/academic-manuscript.html (Blog describing the implicit expectations
for the structure of scholarly articles.)
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Booth, W.C.,
Williams, J.M. & Colomb, G. (2008). The
Craft of Research.
Class 3: September 8
Topic: Conceptualization, theory construction,
and causation
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Research
questions: theoretical propositions & hypotheses; identifying relevant data
sources
Assigned reading:
Maxim text:
Chapters 2, 3
Berg text:
Chapter 2 (Designing qualitative research)
Becker, H. S.
(1998). Concepts. In Tricks of the trade:
How to think about your research while you're doing it (Chapter 4).
Link, B., & Phelan, J.
(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.
Green, S. (2003). "What do
you mean 'what's wrong with her?'": Stigma and the lives of families of
children with disabilities. Social
Science and Medicine, 57,
1361-1374.
Tezcan, M. (2006). What can
critical realism offer us as a conceptual tool for our analysis of society?” Concepts and Methods (IPSA section
newsletter), 2, 3-6.
Gorski, P.S. (2004). The poverty
of deductivism: A constructive realist model of sociological explanation. Sociological Methodology, 34, 1-33.
Fine,
G.A. (2004). The why of theory. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.)
Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 81-82). National Science Foundation.
Snow, D. (2004).
Thoughts on alternative pathways to theoretical development: Theory generation,
extension and refinement. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.) Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 133-136). National
Science Foundation.
McLaughlin, E.
(1991). Oppositional poverty: the quantitative/qualitative divide and other
dichotomies. The Sociological Review, 39,
292-308.
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Becker, H.S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A.
Colby & R. Schweder (eds.) Ethnography and human development: Context
and meaning in social inquiry.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Especially
Chapter 3 (on “normal science”). See also Chapter 6 (anomalies), and Chapter 11
(the invisibility of scientific revolutions).
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A.
(2006). A postscript on postmodernism in Foundations
of Multimethod Research (pp. 151-167). Sage.
Abbott, Andrew. (2008). Methods of Discovery. Especially Chapter
2 (Basic debates and methodological practices, pp. 41-79).University of Chicago
Press.
Class 4: September 15
Topic: Measurement, reliability, and validity
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Measurement,
data cleaning and scale construction
Assigned reading:
Maxim text:
Chapters 9, 10, 11; 12 & 14
Tabachnick &
Fidell text: Chapter 4 (“Cleaning up your act”)
Freedman, V.A., Aykan, H., &
Kleban, M. (2003). Asking neutral versus leading questions: Implications for
functional limitation measurement. Journal
of Aging and Health, 15, 661-687.
Presser, S.,
Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin., E., Martin, E., Rothgeb, J.M., &
Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 09-131.
Brush, L.
(1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological
issues in the National Study of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 156-167.
Mosher, W.D.,
Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and selected health
measures: Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States 2002. CDC-National Center on Health Statistics
report, Sept. 15.
Ragin, C.
(2000). Fuzzy set social science.
Storm, Ingrid.
(2009). Halfway to heaven: Four types of fuzzy fidelity in
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Sudman, S.,
& Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire
design. Josey-Bass.
Judd, C.M.,
& McClelland, G.H. (1998). Measurement. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G.
Lindzey (eds.) The Handbook of Social
Psychology.
Schultz, K,
& Whitney, D. (2005). Measurement
theory in action (pp. 69-85, 313-328) (reliability & factor analysis)
Czajka, R.,
& Blair, J. (1996). Designing
surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Chapters 1-6.
Tabachnik &
Fidell text: Chapter 13 (If needed,
this is a refresher or introduction to factor analysis).
Class 5: September 22
Topic: Sampling Issues
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Critique of
sampling vignettes
Assigned reading:
Maxim text:
Chapters 5, 6, 7
Becker, H.S.
(1998). Sampling. In Tricks of the trade:
How to think about your research while you're doing it (pp. 67-108).
Marker, D.
(2008). Methodological review of “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of
Salganik, M.J., & Heckathorn,
D.D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using
respondent-driven sampling. Sociological
Methodology, 34, 193-239.
Parrado, E.A., McQuiston, C.,
& Flippen,
Abraham, K.G., Helm, S., & Presser, S. (2009). How social
processes distort measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of
volunteer work in the
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Stuart, A.
(1984). The ideas of sampling.
Miles, M.B.,
& Huberman, A.M. (1994). Sampling: Bounding the collection of data. In Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.) (pp. 27-34).
Czajka, R., & Blair, J. (1996). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and
procedures.
(Chapter 17 to end).
Class 6: September 29
Topic: Experimental methods
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Critique of and
alternatives to experimental designs
Assigned reading:
Maxim text:
Chapter 8;
Hecht, M.L.,
Marsiglia, F.F., Elek, E., Wagstaff, D.A., Kulis, S., Dustman, P.A., &
Miller-Day, M. (2003). Culturally grounded substance use prevention: An
evaluation of the keepin' it REAL
curriculum. Prevention Science, 4, 233-248. (Example of an RCT).
West, S.G.,
Duan, N., Pequegnat, W., Gaist, P., Des Jarlais, D.C., Holtgrave, D.,
Szapocnik, J., Fishbein, M., Rapkin, B., Clatts, M., & Mullen, P.D. (2008).
Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1359-1366.
Brown, C.H.,
Wang, W., Kellam, S.G., Muthen, B.O., Petras, H., Toyinbo, P., Poduska, J.,
Ialongo, N., Wyman, P.A., Chamberlain, P., Sloboda, Z., MacKinnon, D.P., &
Windham, A. (2008). Methods for testing theory and evaluating impact in
randomized field trials: Intent-to-treat analyses for integrating the
perspectives of person, place, and time. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 95S
S74–S104. (Discusses randomized field trials and how they differ from
controlled experiments).
Sniderman, P.M.,
& Grob, D.B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude
surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377-399.
(Use of experimental methods in surveys about social attitudes.)
Ganong, L.,
& Coleman, M. (2006). Multiple segment factorial vignette designs. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68,
455-468. (Survey, experimental and qualitative approaches used in combination)
Schram, S.S.
Soss, J., Fording, R., & Houser, L. (2009). Deciding to discipline: Race,
choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74,
398–422. (Experimental methods using vignettes, triangulated with observational
data).
Cohen, J.
(1992). A power primer. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 155-159. (Basics
of power analysis).
LeCroy, C.W.,
& Krysik, J. (2007) Understanding and interpreting effect size measures. Social Work Research, 31, 243-248.
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Aronson, E.,
Wilson, T.D., & Brewer, M.B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology.
In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology.
Campbell, D.T.,
& Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Class 7: October 6
First written assignment due before start of class:
Research question and literature review
Topic: Quasi-experimental designs and
observational studies
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Applications of
Propensity Score Matching.
No Seminar
Discussion leaders will be assigned for this class.
Assigned reading:
Smith, H.L.
(1997). Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in
observational studies. Sociological
Methodology, 27, 325-353. (Introduction to propensity-score matching in
sociology).
Hennigan, K.M.,
del Rosario, M.L., Heath, L., Cook, T.D., Wharton, J.D., & Calder, B.J.
(1982). Impact of the introduction of television on crime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 461-477. (A
regression discontinuity design).
Kirk, D. (2009).
A Natural experiment on residential change and recidivism: Lessons from
Hurricane Katrina. American Sociological
Review 74, 484-505.
Applications of propensity score matching [PSM]: Pick one of the following to read
intensively, browse the description of PSM and results in the others:
Brand, J.E., & Xie, Y.
(2010). Who
benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous
economic returns to higher education. American
Sociological Review, 75, 273–302
Harding, D.J.
(2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: The effect of
neighborhood poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology 109, 676-719.
Morgan, S.L.
(2001). Counterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the Catholic school
effect on learning. Sociology of
Education, 74, 341-374.
Frisco, M.L., Muller, C., & Frank, K. (2007). Parents’ union
dissolution and adolescents’ school performance: Comparing methodological
approaches. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 69, 721–741.
Crosnoe, R.
(2009). Low-income students and the socioeconomic composition of public high
schools. American Sociological Review, 74,
709-730.
Gangl, M.
(2006). Scar effects of unemployment: An assessment of institutional
complementarities. American Sociological
Review, 71, 986–1013.
Frank, R.,
Redstone, I, & Lu, B. (2010). Latino immigrants and the
Class 8: October 13
Topic: Selected topics in advanced estimation:
mediation, moderation, missingness
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Elaboration
(crosstab) and mediation test exercise
Assigned reading:
Maxim text:
Chapters 13 & 15;
Wu, A.D., Zumbo, B.D. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and
moderators. Social Indicators Research,
87, 367-392.
Kraemer, H.C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D.,
& Kupfer, D. (2001). How
do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent,
overlapping, and proxy risk factors. The
American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 848-856.
Preacher, K.J.,
& Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. (Describes software modules for
download, available via http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm,
for estimating indirect effects).
MacKinnon, D.P.,
Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., and Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
Thrane, C.
(2006). Explaining educational-related inequalities in health: Mediation and
moderator models. Social Science &
Medicine, 62, 467-478.
Pilgrim, C.C,
Schulenberg, J.E., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., &
Cohen, J.
(1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American
Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
Leahey, E.
(2005). Alphas and asterisks: the development of statistical testing standards
in sociology. Social Forces, 84, 1-24.
Gerber, A.,
& Malhotra, N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research
-Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods and Research, 37,
3-30.
Wagstaff, D.A.,
Elek, E., Kulis, S.S, & Marsiglia, F.F. (2009). Using a nonparametric
bootstrap to obtain a confidence interval for Pearson's r with cluster
randomized data: A case study. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 30, 497-512.
(Example of application of bootstrap techniques).
Recommended review of statistical techniques:
Tabachnik &
Fidell text: Chapters 5, 12 (If
needed, use these as refreshers or introductions to ordinary least squares
regression and logistic regression).
Class 9: October 20
Topic: Introduction to qualitative research;
Interviewing & focus groups
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: To be announced
Assigned reading:
Berg text:
Chapters 4 (Dramaturgical look at interviewing) & 5 (Focus group
interviewing)
Matthews, S.
(2005). Crafting qualitative research articles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 799-808.
Lee, R. (2004).
Recording technologies and the interview in sociology, 1920–2000. Sociology, 38, 869-889.
Ragin, C.,
Nagel, J. & White, P. (2004). General guidance for developing qualitative
research projects, and recommendations for designing, evaluating, and
strengthening qualitative research in the social sciences. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.) Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 9-20). National Science Foundation.
Class 10: October 27
Topic: Content & case analysis
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Unobtrusive
observation project
Assigned reading:
Berg text:
Chapters 8 (Unobtrusive measures), 9 (Historiography and oral traditions), 10
(Case studies), & 11 (Content analysis)
Krippendorff, K.
(2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human
Communication Research, 30,
411-433.
Tsutsui, K.
(2009). The trajectory of perpetrators' trauma: Mnemonic politics around the
Asia-Pacific War in
Prior, L.
(2004). Following in Foucault’s footsteps: Text and context in qualitative
research. In Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 317-333).
Maynard, D.W.
(2003). Conversation analysis: What is the context of an utterance? In Bad news, good news: Conversational order in
everyday talk and clinical settings (pp. 64-87).University of Chicago
Press.
Four approaches
to case method analysis:
Burawoy, M.
(2009). The extended case method.
Becker, H. S.
(1998). Concepts. In Tricks of the trade:
How to think about your research while you're doing it (pp. 109-145).
Thatcher, D.
(2006). The normative case study. American
Journal of Sociology. 111,
1631-76.
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Johnstone, B
(2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.).
Blackwell. (Especially chapter 1; good examples follow).
Neuendorf, K.A.
(2002). The content analysis guidebook.
Marrow, H.
(2009). Immigrant bureaucratic incorporation: The dual roles of professional
missions and government policies. American
Sociological Review, 74, 756-776.
Class 11:
November 3
Topic: Ethnography
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Critique of
Burgois
Assigned reading:
Berg text:
Chapter 6 (Ethnographic field strategies);
Burgois text:
All.
Maxwell, J.A.
(1996). Validity: How might you be wrong? in Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (pp. 86-98).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, E.
(2004). Urban ethnography. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J.,
& White, P. (eds.) Workshop on
Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research (pp. 33-38). National
Science Foundation.
Katz, J. (2004).
Commonsense criteria. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., &
White, P. (eds.) Workshop on Scientific
Foundations of Qualitative Research (pp. 83-90). National Science
Foundation.
Supplemental reading
(Optional. Other ethnographies notable for their methods or analysis):
Hondagneu-Sotelo,
P. (2001). Doméstica Berkeley: Univ.
of California Press.
Hochschild, A.
(2003).The managed heart, 20th
anniversary ed.
McLeod, J.
(2008). Ain't No Makin' It, 3rd ed.
Menjivar, C. (2000). Fragmented
Ties: Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America. Berkeley: Univ. of
California Press.
How to do it: Background reading (optional):
Emerson, R.M.
(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Charmaz, K.
(2008). Constructing grounded theory.
Lofland, J.,
& Lofland, L. (2005). Analyzing
social settings, 4rd ed.
Class 12:
November 10
Topic: Research ethics; participatory action
research
Discussion exercise due at
start of class: Complete the
online NIH human subjects training
Assigned reading:
Berg text:
Chapters 3 (Ethical issues), 7 (Action research);
ASA Code of
Ethics (on line at asanet.org)
Kleinig, J.
(2004). Ethical issues in substance use interventions. Substance Use and Misuse, 39,
369-398.
Hoeyer, K., Dahlager, L., & Lynöe, N. (2005). Conflicting
notions of research ethics: The mutually challenging traditions of social
scientists and medical researchers, Social
Science & Medicine, 61, 1741-1749.
Riach, K.
(2009). Exploring participant-centered reflexivity in the research interview. Sociology 43, 356–370
Shea, C. (2000).
Don't talk to the humans: The crackdown on social science research Lingua Franca 10(6), 26-34..
Monaghan, P.
(1999). Can scholars protect confidential sources? Chronicle of Higher Education, April 7.
Cohen, P.
(2007). IRBs extend reach. New York Times,
Feb 28.
Irvine, J.
(2006). Sex, lies and research. Mobilization,
11, 491-494
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Halse, C., &
Honey, A. (2005). Unraveling ethics: Illuminating the moral dilemmas of
research ethics. Signs 30(4):
2141-2162.
Elliott, C.
(2008). Guinea-pigging: Healthy human subjects for drug-safety trials are in
demand. But is it a living? The New
Yorker, January 7, 83(42): 36ff. (some insights into what is and isn’t an
ethical concern)
Kirsch, G.
(2005). Friendship, friendliness and feminist fieldwork. Signs, 30, 2163-2172.
Class 13:
November 17
Topic: The art of combination: Meta-analysis
and mixed methods
Discussion exercise due at
start of class:
Assigned reading:
Schultz, K,
& Whitney, D. (2005). Measurement
theory in action (pp 135-151). (On meta-analysis)
Proulx, C.M.,
Helms, H., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family 69, 576-593.:
Axinn, W., &
Pearce, L. (2006). Mixed method data
collection strategies (pp. 183-197) Chapter 8.
Castro, F. G.,
Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S., J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for
conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4,
342-360.
Nee, V. (2004).
A place for hybrid methodologies. In Ragin, C.,
Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.) Workshop
on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research (pp.101-104). National
Science Foundation.
Ragin, C.
(2004). Combining qualitative and quantitative research. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.) Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 109-116). National
Science Foundation.
Satterfield, T.
(2004). A few thoughts on combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In Ragin, C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (eds.) Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research (pp. 117-120). National
Science Foundation.
Talaska, C.,
Fiske, S., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination:
Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Social Justice Research, 21, 263-296.
Background supplementary reading (optional):
Castro, F.G.,
& Coe, K. (2007). Traditions and alcohol use: A mixed-methods analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 13, 269-284.
Martin, J.
(1982). A garbage can model of the research process. In. McGrath, J., Martin,
J., & Kulka, R.A. (eds.). Judgment
calls in research (pp. 17-39, Chapter 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(Especially Chapters 1 & 3).
McGrath, J.E.
(1982). Dilemmatics. In. McGrath, J., Martin, J., & Kulka, R.A. (eds.). Judgment calls in research (pp. 69-102,
Chapter 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (Especially Chapters 1 & 3).
Lieberson, S.
(1985). Making it count: The improvement
of social research and theory. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Especially Chapters 2 (Selectivity) & 3 (Comparisons...)
Class 14:
November 24
Topic: Mock proposal reviews
Class 15:
December 1
Topic: Mock proposal reviews
The final
written assignment, submission of R03 format research proposals,
is due by 7:30 PM December 8, 2010.