SOC 500: RESEARCH
METHODS
Fall 2010 (SLN #
79166) —
Wednesdays, 4:40-7:30 — PSH Room 230
! 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.