Quali fourre-tout



Carleton University

Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice

CRCJ3002A - Qualitative research methods

Syllabus

Fall 2010

Professor Nicolas Carrier

C567 Loeb

e. nicolas_carrier@carleton.ca

t. 520.2600 ext.1237

Office hours: Wednesdays, 2-4pm

Content

CRCJ3002 is an introductory course to epistemological and methodological debates and practices related to qualitative inquiries, and to theoretical perspectives in interpretive, constructivist, sociology. The course focuses on research processes involving ethnographic strategies. Lectures and term assignments will notably address: qualitative research developments, varieties and impacts in sociology; the great divide between mirroring nature and textualizing artefacts; the varieties (and relationships between) ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives and practices; the politics of truth; the research process; morality and subjectivity; aspects related to the construction, exploration and (re)textualization of fields; the analysis, condensation and interpretation of co-produced texts; discursive strategies in structuring research reports.

Objectives

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 constitution with qualitative tools. Getting their hands dirty and experiencing research-related dilemmas, problems, and joys will help students to more fully appreciate the epistemological and theoretical dimensions and debates that characterize any project involving interpreting the world we live in. Hopefully, it will arm them with strong critical reflexes towards mainstream criminology’s research practices.

More specifically, at the end of this course, students will have developed basic skills in, and further developed their capacities in:

- Devising a socio-politically and theoretically relevant research problem;

- Assessing critically the epistemological and theoretical assumptions guiding sociologists’ and criminologists’ evidence-based ‘truths’;

- Co-producing and making sense of textualized realities through participant-observations and/or discourses/text/media analysis;

- Working in a team environment.

Material

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

1st Individual assignment 10% Due: September 29

Critical summary of the chapter ‘Dangerous knowledge’ (see lecture I in the Schedule section). The assignment is 3-4 pages long (annexes, bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). It identifies and summarizes the main critiques addressed to mainstream criminology, and the methodological alternatives outlined in the chapter. As a conclusion, you critically engage the arguments and propositions of the authors: do you accept their critiques and methodological alternatives? (Of course, you justify your answer).

2nd Individual assignment 20% Due: October 6

Critical analysis of a qualitative research. The assignment is 4-5 pages long (annexes, bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). It proposes an analysis of the: research problem, epistemological posture, 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. Each student works on a different article. I strongly recommend you chose a research piece related to your team research project. I will need to approve your selection (this can be done through email – please use my regular address instead of WebCT). Make sure you provide me with the complete bibliographical reference of the article no later than lecture III. A complete version of the journal article should be placed as an annex to your assignment.

Team research project 25% Due: October 20

Research topic and problem, and methodological strategy. The assignment is 12-15 pages long (annexes, bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). It presents and justifies the choice of your research problem, the questions that guide your research project, and includes some pragmatic considerations (how is this project realistic). It proposes 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 field to be studied. It includes a timetable of the research process, which details 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 responsible for devising a research project that can be conducted inside the limited time frame of the term.

Each team has to attend to the mandatory supervision session (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: December 8

Research topic and problem (including literature review), methodological strategy (projected and realized), data presentation and analysis, conclusion, directions for future research. The assignment is 35-45 pages long (annexes, bibliography and cover page do not count as pages). It presents and justifies the choice of your research problem, the questions that guide your research project. It proposes 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 of the field experiences (in research using participant-observation), and thoroughly presents the interpreted material. 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.

Some remarks:

- Evaluation will be guided by the following criteria:

o Quality (clarity, rigor, precision, justification, depth, exhaustiveness);

o Originality;

o Finesse (dodging common sense, considering alternative points of view, sharp but prudent and well supported affirmations);

- I really don’t care which font you use but choose a reasonable size;

- Use the justify function in your word processor;

- Use 1.5 line spacing;

- Insert page numbers;

- Make a cover page;

- Secure your work with staples;

- Print with black ink (except for eventual pictures, figures and so on);

- Make sure all cited work appears in the bibliography (and by the way, I really suggest you don’t try to rely on plagiarism…);

- I don’t and won’t 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 which is not directly handed in 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;

- Life is terrible: you have to work with other human beings. The Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice is no kindergarten: I expect each team members to be mature enough to deal with eventual problems within your team. If this does not work, make sure to report to me.

Deadlines

September 29 First individual assignment due & Journal article selection approval

October 6 Second individual assignment due

October 20 First team assignment due

December 8 Final research report

Academic Accommodation

You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the term. For an accommodation request the processes are as follows:

Pregnancy obligation: write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website:

Religious obligation: write to me with any requests for academic accommodation during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist. For more details visit the Equity Services website:

Students with disabilities requiring academic accommodations in this course must register with the Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) for a formal evaluation of disability-related needs. Documented disabilities could include but are not limited to mobility/physical impairments, specific Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/psychological disabilities, sensory disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and chronic medical conditions. Registered PMC students are required to contact the PMC, 613-520-6608, every term to ensure that I receive your Letter of Accommodation, no later than two weeks before the first assignment is due or the first in-class test/midterm requiring accommodations. If you only require accommodations for your formally scheduled exam(s) in this course, please submit your request for accommodations to PMC by the last official day to withdraw from classes in each term. For more information visit the PMC website at

Plagiarism

Students are reminded of the University regulations concerning plagiarism and other instructional offenses as outlined in the Undergraduate Calendar. The policy can be found at

_Policy.pdf

The University Senate defines plagiarism as “presenting, whether intentionally or not, the idea, expression of ideas or work of others as one’s own.” This can include:

-reproducing or paraphrasing portions of someone else’s published or unpublished material, regardless of the source, and presenting these as one’s own without proper citation or reference to the original source;

-submitting a take-home examination, essay, laboratory report or other assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else;

-using ideas or direct, verbatim quotations, or paraphrased material, concepts, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgement in any academic assignment;

-using another’s data or research findings;

-failing to acknowledge sources through the use of proper citations when using another’s works and/or failing to use quotation marks;

-handing in “substantially the same piece of work for academic credit more than once without prior written permission of the course instructor in which the submission occurs.”

Plagiarism is a serious offence which cannot be resolved directly with the course’s instructor. The Associate Deans of the Faculty conduct a rigorous investigation, including an interview with the student, when an instructor suspects a piece of work has been plagiarized. Penalties are not trivial. They can include a final grade of “F” for the course.

Schedule

I. Introduction - September 15

Historical overview of qualitative methods contributions in sociology; diversity of methods; overview of the research process; presentation of the course outline and term’s assignments.

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.

***research team formation + brainstorming session***

II. The great divide: mirroring nature / textualizing artefacts - September 22

Ontological and epistemological postures; the problem of induction; the theory- and value-ladenness of ‘facts’; usual forms of scientific hegemony and resistance to qualitative methods; the self-referentiality of observation.

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.

***time devoted to research proposal, focus on potential projects***

III. The research process as ‘bricolage’ - September 29

The researcher as ‘bricoleur/bricoleuse’; crafting a research problem; possible ways of producing/interpreting texts; the etic/emic distinction; competing approaches to interpretative practices/communities; the research process; using sociological databases.

Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein (2003). Analyzing interpretive practices, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 2nd edition, London: Sage, 214-248.

***time devoted to research proposal, focus on research questions***

!!!!! 1st assignment due !!!!!

IV. Action! Interactions in the field – I – participant-observation - October 6

Producing the field; gaining access; negotiating boundaries; the tension between participation and observation; covert/overt participant-observation strategies; researching common places; writing memos.

Bourgois, P. (1995). Violating Apartheid in the United States, in In search of respect. Selling crack in El Barrio, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-47.

Emerson, R., R. Fretz and L. Shaw. (1995). Writing Up Fieldnotes I: From Field to Desk, in Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 39-65.

***time devoted to research proposal, focus on problematic + design***

!!!!! 2nd assignment due !!!!!

V. Action! Interactions in the field – II – formal interviewing - October 13

Developing an interview grid; structuring interviews; open-ended questions; the interview dialogical process; biographical accounts; interview transcription practices.

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.

***tutorial on interviewing + time devoted to research proposal, focus on sampling & material***

VI. Analyzing textualized realities - October 20

Condensing details; developing coding categories; theoretical options; critical discourse analysis; presentation strategies in the mobilization of co-produced texts.

Tonkiss, F. (2004). Analyzing Text and Speech: Content and Discourse Analysis. in Seale, C. (ed), Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage, 367-381.

Sasson, T. (1995). Apprendix B, in Crime talk. How citizens construct a social problem, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 175-181.

***tutorial on coding & analysis***

!!!!! Research proposal due !!!!!

VII. Moral and legal issues in researching illicit activities - October 27

Writing proposals for ethics review boards; ethical, legal and self-censorship issues; fieldwork and moral relativism; completion (if needed) and review of the above topics; team work on the research project.

Van Maanen [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.

*** time devoted to modify the research program following evaluation ***

VIII. Supervision - all teams (optional) - November 3

Supervision of the teams’ research process – independent group workshops.

IX. No class - November 10

X. Supervision - teams 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (mandatory) - November 17

Supervision of the teams’ research process – independent group workshops.

XI. Supervision - teams 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 (mandatory) - November 24

Supervision of the teams’ research process – independent group workshops.

XII. Supervision - all teams (optional) - December 1

December 8: Final research report due!

Some recommended readings

Adler, P.A. and P. Adler (1993). Ethical issues in self-censorship: ethnographic research on sensitive topics, in C.M. Renzetti and R.M. Lee (eds.), Researching sensitive topics, London: Sage, 249-266.

Becker, H.S. (2007). Summarizing details, in Telling about society, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 92-108.

Best, J. (2008). Historical development and defining issues of constructionist inquiry, in J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium (eds.), Handbook of constructionist research, New York: Guilford Press, 41-64.

Bourgois, P. and J. Schonberg (2007). Intimate apartheid. Ethnic dimensions of habitus among homeless heroin injectors, Ethnography, 8 (1), 7-31.

Bourgois, P. (1995). In search of respect. Selling crack in El Barrio, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crapanzano, V. (1986). Hermes’ dilemma: the masking of subversion in ethnographic description, in Clifford, J. and G.E. Marcus (eds.), Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press, 51-76.

Denzin, N.K. (1998). The Art and Politics of Interpretation, in Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 313-344.

Denzin, N.K. (1997). Interpretive Ethnography. Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 2nd edition, London: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues, London: Sage.

DiCristina, B. (2006). The epistemology of theory testing in criminology, in B.A. Arrigo and C.R. Williams (eds.), Philosophy, crime and criminology, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 134-164.

Ferrell, J. (1998). Criminological verstehen: inside the immediacy of crime, in Ferrell, J. and M.S. Hamm (eds.), Ethnography at the edge: crime, deviance and field research, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 20-42.

Ferrell, J. and M.S. Hamm (1998). Ethnography at the edge: crime, deviance and field research, Boston: Northeastern U Press.

Fleisher, M.S. (1998). Ethnographers, pimps and the company store, in Ferrell, J. and M.S. Hamm (eds.), Ethnography at the edge: crime, deviance and field research, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 44-63.

Fox, K.J. (2001). Self-change and resistance in prison, in Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein (eds.), Institutional selves. Troubled identities in a postmodern world, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 176-192.

Gallagher, K. (ed.) (2008). The methodological dilemma. Creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research, Abingdon: Routledge.

Gerson, K. and R. Horowitz (2002). Observation and interviewing: options and choices in qualitative research, in T. May (ed.), Qualitative research in action, London: Sage, 199-224.

Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues, London: Sage, 195-220.

Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein (1997). The new language of qualitative method, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, S.R. (2008). Constructionism in sociology, in J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium (eds.), Handbook of constructionist research, New York: Guilford Press, 231-247.

Holstein, J.A. and J.F. Gubrium (eds.) (2008). Handbook of constructionist research, New York: Guilford Press.

Hunt, G., Riegel, S., Morales, T. and D. Waldorf (1993). Changes in prison culture: prison gangs and the case of the “Pepsi generation”, Social problems, 40 (3), 398-409.

Hunt, J. and P.K. Manning (1991). The social context of police lying, Symbolic interaction, 14 (1), 1-20.

Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of Distinctions. Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Luhmann, N. (1999a). The Paradox of Form, dans Problems of Form, D. Baecker (ed.), Stanford : Stanford University Press, 15-26.

Luhmann, N. (1999b). Sign as Form, dans Problems of Form, D. Baecker (ed.), Stanford : Stanford University Press, 46-63.

Lyng, S. (1998). Dangerous methods: risk taking and the research process, in Ferrell, J. and M.S. Hamm (eds.), Ethnography at the edge: crime, deviance and field research, Boston: Northeastern University Press, 221-251.

Madriz, E. (1997). Nothing bad happens to good girls. Fear of crime in women’s lives, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative interviewing: asking, listening, interpreting, in T. May (ed.), Qualitative research in action, London: Sage, 225-241.

Milovanovic, D. (2002). Edgework: boundaries, edges, excitement and visceral experiences, in D. Milovanovic, Critical criminology at the edge. Postmodern perspectives, integration and applications, Westport: Praeger, 115-131.

Noak, L. and E. Wincup (2004). Criminological research. Understanding qualitative methods, London: Sage.

O’Neill, M. (2004). Crime, culture and visual methodologies: ethno-mimesis as performative praxis, in Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., Morrisson, W. and M. Presdee (eds.), Cultural criminology unleashed, London: The Glass House Press, 219-229.

Pfohl, S. (2008). The reality of social constructions, in J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium (eds.), Handbook of constructionist research, New York: Guilford Press, 645-668.

Pollner, M. and J. Stein (2001). Doubled over laughter: humor and the construction of selves in Alcoholic Anonymous, in Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein (eds.), Institutional selves. Troubled identities in a postmodern world, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 46-63.

Porter, S. (2002). Critical realist ethnography, in T. May (ed)., Qualitative research in action, London: Sage, 53-72.

Pratt, M.L. (1986). Fieldwork in common places, in Clifford, J. and G.E. Marcus (eds.), Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press, 27-50.

Presdee, M. (2004). The story of crime: biography and the excavation of transgression, in Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., Morrisson, W. and M. Presdee (eds.), Cultural criminology unleashed, London: The Glass House Press, 41-48.

Prokos, A. and I. Padavic (2002). ‘There oughtta be a law against bitches’: masculinity lessons in police academy training, Gender, work and organization, 9 (4), 439-459.

Sasson, T. (1995). Crime talk. How citizens construct a social problem, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Schostak, J. (2006). Interviewing and representation in qualitative research, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Schwandt, T.A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues, London: Sage, 221-259.

Silverman, D. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research, London: Sage.

Silverman, D. and A. Marvasti (2008). Doing qualitative research. A comprehensive guide, London: Sage.

Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques, London: Sage.

Sutterlüty, F. (2007). The genesis of violent careers, Ethnography, 8 (3), 267-296.

Tyler, S.A. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: from document of the occult to occult document, in Clifford, J. and G.E. Marcus (eds.), Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography, Berkeley: University of California Press, 122-140.

Vidich, A.J. and S.M. Lyman (1998). Qualitative methods: their history in sociology and anthropology, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. Theories and issues, London: Sage, 41-110.

Weinberg, D. (2008). The philosophical foundations of constructionist research, in J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium (eds.), Handbook of constructionist research, New York: Guilford Press, 13-39.

Young, J. (2004). Voodoo criminology and the numbers game, in Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., Morrisson, W. and M. Presdee (eds.), Cultural criminology unleashed, London: The Glass House Press, 13-27.

(Some) academic journals specialized in qualitative inquiries

Cultural Anthropology

Ethnography

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

Qualitative Sociology

Symbolic Interaction

Crime, Media, Culture

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download