Course Outline – Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice
COURSE NUMBER AND TITLE: 3002 Qualitative Research Methods SECTION B
TERM: September – December 2010 (FALL)
TIME: Monday 6pm
LOCATION: Southam Hall 516 INSTRUCTOR: Kevin Walby
Office hours: Mondays 330pm-415pm Loeb C563Email:
COURSE OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT:
In this course we will focus on theoretical and methodological issues associated with qualitative research practices, including epistemology, reflexivity, observations, field notes, interviews, data analysis and writing. In particular, we focus on debates concerning the politics of knowledge construction, truth claims and scientific method. We will strike a balance between the goal of becoming acquainted with literature on qualitative methods and the objective of gaining practical experience in fieldwork methods. The major assignment for the course is a team-based research assignment. There are also a few smaller assignments. The course will nurture the development of basic qualitative research skills by asking students, working in small research teams, to go through all major steps of knowledge construction using qualitative research methods. Students will more fully appreciate the epistemological and theoretical dimensions and debates that characterize any project that involves systematic interpretationof the world we live in. Students will also come away from the class with a keen understanding of how to do team-based research.
Course Objectives:
- Students will learn about the theoretical claims associated with qualitative research
- Students will learn the skills required of a good qualitative researcher and creative writer
- Students learn how about issues concerning research ethics
The course also features tutorials that will provide students with a practical understanding of how to do qualitative research. These sessions will beoriented toward skill building. Tutorial List:
*FORMULATING A RESEARCH QUESTION* WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL
* INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES* FIELD NOTES
* MAPPING TEXTS* ANALYZING TEXTS*ETHICS PROPOSALS
REQUIRED READING:
Students are expected to read the articles and book chapters detailed in the schedule (see below) before class. All required readings can be downloaded from, and printed off, WebCT.
Please also consider the recommended readings at the end of the syllabus.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES:
Letter grades assigned in this course will have the following percentage equivalents:
A+ = 90-100 (12) B+ = 77-79 (9) C+ = 67-69 (6)
A = 85-89 (11) B = 73-76 (8) C = 63-66 (5)
A - = 80-84 (10) B - = 70-72 (7) C - = 60-62 (4)
D+ = 57-59 (3) D = 53-56 (2) D - = 50-52 (1)
F Failure. No academic credit, WDN Withdrawn from the course ABS Absent from the final examination, DEF Official deferral (see ‘Petitions to Defer’) FND “Failed, no Deferral” – assigned when the student is absent from the final exam and has failed the course on the basis of inadequate term work as specified in the course outline.
WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT ACADEMIC PENALTY
Check with the registrar about the last possible days to withdraw and penalties for withdrawal.
Evaluation
1st Individual assignment 10%Due: SEPT 27 2010
Critical summary of the chapter ‘Dangerous knowledge’ (see lecture I in the Schedule section). The assignment is 3-4 pages long (bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). Your summary will identify and summarize the main critiques of mainstream criminology, and the methodological alternatives outlined in the chapter. As a conclusion, you must critically engage the arguments and propositions of the authors: do you accept their critiques and methodological alternatives? (Justify your answer).
2nd Individual assignment 20% Due: OCT 7 2010 330pm CRIM dropbox
Critical analysis of a piece of qualitative research. The assignment is 4-5 pages long (bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). Your assessment provides an analysis of the research problem, theoretical framework, methodological strategies, discursive strategies used to present the results, strengths and weaknesses of a qualitative research published in a peer-reviewed academic journal (here is a tip: look in the journals Qualitative Research and Qualitative Inquiry). Each student works on a different article. I recommend you chose a piece related to your team research project. I will need to approve your selection (this can be done through email – send me a .pdf of the article – please use my regular email address). Make sure you select the article no later than lecture III. The article should also be printedand placed as an appendix to your assignment.
Team research project proposal 25% Due: OCT 25 2010
Research topic and question, plusdetails on the methodological strategy. The assignment is 12-15 pages long (bibliography and cover page do not count). The proposal presents and justifies the choice of your overarching research question, the smaller questions that guide your research project, and includes some pragmatic considerations (how will you get this done in the small amount of time you have to get it done). The proposal provides a critical overview of, and dialogue with, the related literature. It presents and justifies the methodological strategy (focus on media/texts/discourses and/or participant-observation), as well as the space/relations to be studied. It includes a timetable of the research process, detailing each research team’s member contribution. The research project shall be conducted in groups of five students. Each team member is expected to conduct participant-observation and/or media/texts/discourses analysis. Each team is thus responsible for devising a research project that can be conducted in the limited time frame of the term.
Each team must attend the mandatory supervision sessions (failing to do so will cost you -10% on your final research report) - other sessions are optional (see the Schedule section).
Final research report 45%Due: DEC 8 2010
Research topic and question (including literature review), methodological strategy (projected and realized), data presentation and analysis, conclusion, directions for future research. The assignment is 35-40 pages long (bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). It presents and justifies the choice of your overarching research question, the smaller questions that guide your research project. It carries out a critical overview of, and dialogue with, the related literature. It presents and justifies the methodological strategy as well as the field studied. It accounts for the field experiences (if research using participant-observation), and thoroughly presents the interpreted material (you can choose to have either a section devoted to results presentation with another one for an analytical discussion, or have only one section which constantly moves back and forth between the material and its sociological interpretation). A portion of the conclusion should reflect on the overall research process. An annex should indicate clearly the role of each student in the entire research process. 50% of the mark is team-based; 50% is individual.
Evaluation will be guided by the following criteria:
- Quality (clarity, rigor, precision, justification, depth, exhaustiveness);
- Originality;
-Consistent formatting, use double spacing, insert page numbers;
-Make a cover page;
-Secure your work with staples;
-Print with black ink (except for pictures, figures and so on);
-Make sure all cited work appears in the bibliography;
-I do not accept submission of assignments through emails;
-Any late assignment is penalized at -10% per business day (except on exceptional circumstances with supporting documentation);
-Any assignment not directly handed to me in class has to be dropped in the Criminology drop box (C562 Loeb) no later than 4.30pm on the due date or the above penalty is enforced.Aim to hand it to me in class.
Deadlines
*SEPT 27(week 3) First individual assignment due & Journal article selection approval
*OCT 4(week 4) Second individual assignment due
*OCT 18(week 6) First team assignment due
*DEC 8(week 13) Final research report
SCHEDULE OF READINGS:
Week 1 (SEPTEMBER 13). Introduction to Qualitative Research
Ferrell, J., K. Hayward and J. Young 2008. ‘Dangerous Knowledge’. in Ferrell, J., K. Hayward and J. Young, Cultural criminology: An Invitation. London: Sage, 158-193.
THIS WEEK: This session explores some of the themes we will encounter during the term. We will focus on the role that qualitative research plays in social science. We will talk about the strengths and limits of qualitative research design in the social sciences. We will talk about the complexity of qualitative research and the diversity of methods.
*RESEARCH TEAM FORMATION
Week 2 (SEPTEMBER 20). Theoretical Foundations of Qualitative Research
Becker, H.S. 1967. ‘Whose side are we on?’Social Problems, 14 (3), 239-247.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln 2003. ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’ in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.),Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, 2nd edition. London: Sage, 1-45.
THIS WEEK: This session will consider key questions concerning the relationship between qualitative research, constructivism and epistemology. We will discuss some of the theoretical assumptions of qualitative research. We will discuss how social theory guides the research process.
*TUTORIAL: FORMULATING A RESEARCH QUESTION
Week 3 (SEPTEMBER 27). Research Design and Proposal Writing
Corbin, J. and A. Strauss. 1990. ‘Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria’. Qualitative Sociology, 13/1: 3-21.
Penrod, J. 2003. ‘Writing a Successful Qualitative small-project Proposal’. Qualitative Health Research, 13/6: 821-832.
THIS WEEK: This session will cover the ‘what’ of research design, including the relationship between research question and overall plan of research, the relationship between theory and analysis, as well as literature review, purpose, justifications, and contributions. We will discuss the idea of grounded theory as one way of designing qualitative research to facilitate a discussion about the various approaches toward qualitative research design. We will also discuss how to translate research design into a proposal. Writing a proposal is an essential craft that the social scientist needs to master. We will discuss the essential components of a research proposal, and also examine some examples of successful research proposals.
*TUTORIAL: WRITING YOUR PROPOSAL
Week 4 (OCTOBER 4). Participating and Observing
Emerson, R., R. Fretz and L. Shaw. 1995. ‘In the Field: Participating, Observing and Jotting Notes’ & ‘Writing Up Fieldnotes I: From Field to Desk’. In Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bolton, R. 1995. ‘Tricks, Friends and Lovers: Erotic Encounters in the Field’. Kulick, D. and M. Willson (eds). In Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork. London: Routledge.
THIS WEEK: We will discuss practical matters of describing social spaces and describing the sensorial experiences of research. It is not easy to get access to certain social spaces, and even if one does have access it is not easy to be accepted as an ‘insider’. We will discuss how to negotiate access. We will discuss how to take systematic field notes. We will discuss issues of deception, participation, interpretation, and emotions in participant observation research.
*TUTORIAL: OBSERVING and TAKING FIELD NOTES
OCTOBER 11 – NO CLASS……………………………………………………………
Week 5 (OCTOBER 18). Working with Texts
Tonkiss, 2004. F. ‘Analyzing Text and Speech: Content and Discourse Analysis’. Seale, C. (ed). In Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage.
Sasson, T. 1995. ‘Appendix B’ in Crime talk. How citizens construct a Social Problem. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 175-181.
O’Reilly, Karen. 2005. ‘Visual Data and Other Things’. In Ethnographic Methods. London: Routledge.
THIS WEEK: An interview transcript does not speak for itself. How can we make sense of interview transcripts? What about other texts such as media articles, reports, etc. Many forms of text analysis are not systematic and fail to account for issues of interpretation and reflexivity. This session will cover the basics of various kinds of text analysis. We will discuss the strengths and limitations of text-based research. We will talk about following and mapping textual trails between organizations. We also discuss issues as it regards writing. We will talk about use of metaphors in social science publications, the usefulness of creative writing in claims making.
*TUTORIAL: CODING and ANALYZING TRANSCRIPTS
Week 6 (OCTOBER 25). Interviewing
De Leon, J., and J. Cohen. 2005. ‘Object and Walking Probes in Ethnographic Interviewing’. Field Methods, 17/2: 200-204.
Charmaz, K. 2003. ‘Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis’. in Holstein, J.A. and J.F. Gubrium (eds.).Inside Interviewing. New lenses, new Concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 311-330.
THIS WEEK: One of the most elemental techniques of data collection is the interview. But it is not easy to be a first-rate interviewer. This session will cover the basics of various kinds of interviewing, with a particular focus on meaning-making during the interview encounter. We will practice various techniques to use depending on who you are interviewing and why.
*TUTORIAL: INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES
Week 7 (NOVEMBER 1). Ethics
Van Maanen, J. 2003/1982. ‘The moral fix. On the ethics of fieldwork’. reprinted in M.R. Pogrebin (ed.), Qualitative approaches to criminal justice. Perspectives from the field. London, Sage, 363-376.
Haggerty, K. 2004. ‘Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics’. Qualitative Sociology, 27/4: 391-414.
THIS WEEK: In this session we will discuss the rise of ethical review boards (ERBs) and their role in governing the research social scientists carry out. We will discuss various models of research ethics in social science, with a particular focus on ethics during the research encounter.
*TUTORIAL: ETHICS PROPOSALS
Week 8 (NOVEMBER 7). Group work and consultation for major project teams 1, 3, 5, 7, 9
Week 9 (NOVEMBER 14). Group work and consultation for major project teams 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
Week 10 (NOVEMBER 21). Group work / consultation for major project teams 1, 3, 5, 7, 9
Week 11 (NOVERMBER 28). Group work / consultation for major project teams 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
Week 12 (DECEMBER 6). Group work and consultation for major project all teams
No blackberries, no I-phones, no computers unless you have a letter from the Paul Menton Centre.
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS
Supplementary readings can be useful to draw on for assignment #3 and assignment #4, but also might be useful to draw on for assignment #2. Or you might read these pieces for the sake of interest!
Agar, Michael. 1990. ‘Text and Fieldwork: Exploring the Excluded Middle’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19/1: 73-88.
Aléx, L. and A. Hammarström. 2008. ‘Shifts in Power during an Interview Situation: Methodological Reflections Inspired by Foucault and Bourdieu’. Nursing Inquiry, 15(1): 169-176.
Altork, K. 1995. ‘Walking the Fire Line: the Erotic Dimension of the Fieldwork Experience’. Kulick, D. and M. Willson (eds). In Taboo: Sex, Identity and Erotic Subjectivity in Anthropological Fieldwork. London: Routledge.
Angrosino, M. 1989. Documents of Interaction: Biography, Autobiography and Life History in Social Science Perspective. Gainesville: University of Florida.
Arendell, T. 1997. ‘Reflections on the Researcher-Researched Relationship: A Woman Interviewing Men’. Qualitative Sociology, 20(3): 341-368.
Atkinson, P. and S. Delamont. 2006. ‘Rescuing Narrative from Qualitative Research’. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1): 164-172.
Atkinson, P. and William Housley. 2003. Interactionism: an Essay in Sociological Amnesia. London: Sage.
Best, A. 2003. ‘Doing Race in the Context of Feminist Interviewing: Constructing Whiteness through Talk’. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(6): 895-914.
Boudens, C. 2005. ‘The Story of Work: A Narrative Analysis of Workplace Emotion’. Organization Studies, 26(9): 1285-1306.
Carrier, J. 1999. ‘Reflections on Ethical Problems Encountered in Field Research on Mexican Male Homosexuality, 1968 to Present’. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 1(3): 207-221.
Coffey, A. 1999. The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity. London: Sage.
Crossley, N. 2007. ‘Researching Embodiment by way of ‘Body Techniques’. Shilling, C. (ed). In Embodying Sociology: Retrospect, Progress and Prospects. London: Blackwell.
Czarniawska, B. 2004. Narratives in Social Science Research. London: Sage.
Denzin, N. 2001. Interpretive Interactionism. London: Sage.
Doucet, A. and N. Mauthner 2008a. ‘What Can Be Known and How? Narrated Subjects and the Listening Guide’. Qualitative Research, 8(3): 399-409.
Doucet, A. and N. Mauthner. 2008b. ‘Qualitative Interviewing and Feminist Research’. Alasuutari, P., L. Bickman and J. Brannen (eds). In The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods. London: Sage.
Doucet, A. 2008. ‘On the Other Side of “Her” Gossamer Wall: Reflexivity and Relational Knowing’. Qualitative Sociology, 31(1): 73-87.
Gamson, J. 2000. ‘Sexualities, Queer Theory, and Qualitative Research’. Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln (eds). In Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Gilligan, C., R. Spencer, K. Weinberg, and T. Bertsch. 2005. ‘On the Listening Guide: A Voice-Centered Relational Method’. S. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (eds.) Emergent Methods in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Harding, J. 2006. ‘Questioning the Subject in Biographical Interviewing’. Sociological Research Online, 11(3).
Hoffman, E. 2007. ‘Open-Ended Interviews, Power, and Emotional Labour’. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36(3): 318-346.
Holstein, J. and J. Gubrium. 1995. The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holt, A. 2010. ‘Using the Telephone for Narrative Interviewing: a Research Note’. Qualitative Research, 10(1): 113-121.
Honan, E., M. Knobel, C. Baker and B. Davies. 2000. ‘Producing Possible Hannahs: Theory and the Subject of Research’. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1): 9-32.
Irwin, K. 2006. ‘Into the Dark Heart of Ethnography: the Lived Ethics and Inequality of Intimate Field Relationships’. Qualitative Sociology, 29(2): 155-175.
Järvinen, M. 2001. ‘Accounting for Trouble: Identity Negotiations in Qualitative Interviews with Alcoholics’. Symbolic Interaction, 24(3): 263-284.
Katz, J. 2004. ‘On the Rhetoric and Politics of Ethnographic Methodology’. Annals AAPSS, 595: 280-308.
Luckman, T. 1999. ‘Remarks on the Interpretation and Description of Dialogue’. International Sociology, 14(4): 387-402.
Manning, P. 2005. ‘Reinvigorating the Tradition of Symbolic Interactionism’. Symbolic Interactions, 28(2): 167-173.
Mason, J. 2002. ‘The Challenge of Qualitative Research’. In Qualitative Researching. London: Sage.
Mauthner, N. and A. Doucet. 2003. ‘Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis’. Sociology, 37(3): 413-431.
Mauthner, N. and A. Doucet. 1998. ‘Reflections on a Voice Centered Relational Method of Data Analysis: Analysing Maternal and Domestic Voices’. Ribbens, J. and R. Edwards (eds.) In Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Private Lives and Public Texts. London: Sage Publications.
Mello, R. 2002. ‘Collocation Analysis: Method for Conceptualizing and Understanding Narrative Data’. Qualitative Research, 2(2): 231-243.
Newton, E. 1993. ‘My Best Informant’s Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork’. Cultural Anthropology, 8(1): 3-33.
Nilsen, A. 2008. ‘From Questions of Methods to Epistemological Issues: the Case of Biographical Research’. Alasuutari, P., L. Bickman and J. Brannen (eds). In The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods. London: Sage.