SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
SC 710.01
SPRING, 2013
Mondays: 3 to 5:30
Mc Guinn Hall 415
Professor Sharlene Hesse-Biber
Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4 and by appointment
Office: McGuinn 419
Phone: 552-4139
Email: hesse@bc.edu
“ ‘Method’ has to do, first of all, with how to ask and answer questions with some assurance that the answers are
more or less durable. ‘Theory’ has to do, above all, with paying close attention to the words one is using, especially
their degree of generality and their logical relations.
The primary purpose of both is clarity of conception and economy of procedure, and most importantly just now,
the release rather than the restriction of the sociological imagination.”
— C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, 1959
Welcome to our Class I am excited to have you on-board and look forward to our working together to
make your learning experience positive and fruitful. I anticipate that all of you are excited and eager to learn the
methodological skills necessary to move forward in your sociological career.
Research methods provide basic building blocks that will enable you to engage with understanding and tackling
complex social problems.Your journey in this course requires commitment in the acquisition of both theoretical
and practical methods skills and applications. The course structure takes on a seminar format where we will meet
for 2.5 hours once a week.
The seminar is part lecture format and part student engagement/dialogue around course readings as well as
engaging in dialogic working groups for part of the seminar. The course provides you with praxis and hands-on”
assignments, ” what I term “live research.” During the course of the semester students will be asked to prepare
sections of their research proposal and to engage with their peers in the process of proposal writing.. I look
forward to our journey!
Course Description & Objectives This course introduces you to basic foundational
questions :“ What is the nature of reality?” “ How do we know we know?” Who can know?
We delve into these philosophical aspects of sociological inquiry that will cover a spectrum
of methodological perspectives onto knowledge seeking. These perspectives challenge and
engage with a positivist paradigm onto social science inquiry that seeks to move beyond the
“paradigm wars.”
You will become familiar with a range of methods practices that includes in-depth interviewing, field research,
survey research, content analysis and experimental and mixed methods research.
Considerable attention will be given to the comparisons among alternative methods, the types of research
questions/problems that engage these methods as well as an assessment of the relative strengths and limitations of
each method. In connection with each methodology, we deal with issues such as measurement, reliability, validity
and sampling. The readings in the course reflect both theoretical/conceptual research issues and first-hand
experiential research accounts.
Each student will learn to complete a well-developed research proposal on a topic that is suitable for an M.A. or
Ph.D. thesis.
1
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Course Requirements
• Class Attendance & Discussion Leading ( 10 points)
• Five (5) Reaction Papers (500-700 words) (25 points)
• Two (2) Short Methods Response Papers (30 points):
• Research Proposal (35 points):
I have a separate Handout on Preparing and Writing your Research Proposal. This proposal will be written
iteratively and will be integrated into our overall course schedule.
Procedures
1.
Attendance Policy: Four percent (2%) is deducted from your final grade for each class missed. One unexcused
absence is allowed. All other absences are not excused. Students are responsible for the assigned readings,
taking part in class discussions, and presenting oral summaries of their research projects.
2.
Late Assignment policy and procedures: I will not accept assignments via email. All assignments are handed in
at the beginning of class. If your assignment is not handed in during class it will be considered late and the
next time you can hand it in is the next class period.To be fair to other students who hand in their work on
time, I will deduct one letter grade for each course day your assignment is late. Please back up all your work.
3.
Class Readings: The seminar format relies on your informed contributions and therefore it is important that
you read all relevant articles BEFORE the class in which they will be discussed. Please bring hard copies of all
articles discussed for a given week (consult handout on doing a class discussion). Please keep up with the
course readings. You are expected to come to class prepared to discuss and engage with these readings in
seminar discussion and also in research practice.
4.
Class Etiquette: No eating in class.You can bring a favorite beverage if you like. All cell phones must be turned
off and stashed for the duration of class. Come to class on time.
Required & Recommended Readings
Required Texts:
•
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Patricia Leavy (2011). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
•
Duneier, Mitchell. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
•
Becker, Howard, 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About your Research While You’re Doing It.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Recommended Readings:
Punch, Keith F. (2000). Developing Effective Research Proposals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Przeworski, Adam and Frank Solomon. 1995 (revised). “The art of writing proposals: Some candid suggestions for
applicants to Social Science Research Council Competions.” Social Science Research Foundation. Available at: http://
fellowships.ssrc.org/art_of_writing_proposals/printable.html
Wolcott, Harry. (2008). Writing Up Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hesse-Biber. S. (2010). Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. Guilford Publications.
2
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Course Outline
Part I. Paradigmatic Viewpoints: Epistemology & Social Inquiry. What is knowledge ? Who
gets to know? How do we know what we know?
MONDAY: JANUARY 14TH. INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Course
Paradigms of Social Inquiry
MONDAY: JANUARY 21ST
(WE WILL NEED TO SCHEDULE CLASS FOR A DIFFERENT DAY/TIME BECAUSE OF
HOLIDAY)-Class will meet Friday, January25th. in McGuinn 415.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: JEREMIAH MORELOCK AND BRIAN
WALKER
Introduction & Course Overview:
Bring A Research Problem/Question to Class: The Scientific Method/Challenges to Traditional
Positivism.
Topic: What are qualitative and quantitative approaches to social inquiry? Examples of each approach will be
discussed looking at specific research articles students provide during class as examples of Research Standpoints.
Required Readings: Assigned Readings available on Blackboard for SOC710:
• Hesse-Biber and Leavy. Chapters 1 & 2.
• Durkheim, Emile. [1895]. “What is a social fact?” The Rules of Sociological Method. Pgs. 50-59.
• BEGIN READING Mitch Duneier’s. Sidewalk. ( First Half).
• What are paradigms?
• How does Duneier challenge the dominant paradigm set up by Durkheim? Be specific.
MONDAY: JANUARY 28TH. Challenges to Traditional Positivism
DISCUSSION LEADER: ELIANA (LILY) CROSINA
Required Readings:
•
•
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. “The Promise.” The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press. Pgs. 3-24.
Schwandt, Thomas A.1998. Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. pp. 221-259. The
Landscape of Qualitative Research :Theories and Issues Ed by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
3
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
•
Maxwell, J.A. and K. Mittapallli (2010) Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research. Chapter 6. Abbas
Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd edition). Sage
Publications, 2010.
•
Kincheloe, Joe, and Peter McLaren, “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research.” In Norman Denzin &
nd
Yvonna Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 edition, pp. 279-314.
• PROPOSAL ASIDE: OBTAIN YOUR IRB CERTIFICATE ON-LINE;
• NIH training:
http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php
MONDAY: FEBRUARY 4TH. Emergent Paradigmatic Viewpoints.
DISCUSSION LEADER: MEHMET SULEYMAN CANSOY
Required Readings:
• Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” Pp. 105-117 in
Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• *Sprague, Joey. 2005. “Seeing through science: Epistemologies,” Pp. 31-52 in Feminist Methodologies for Critical
Researchers. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
• Dunbar, Christopher 2008 “ Critical Race Theory and Indigenous Methodologies”. In Handbook of Critical and
Indigenous Methodologies. Edited by N.K.Denzin.Y.S. Lincoln and L.Tuhiwai Smith. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications.
MONDAY: FEBRUARY 11TH.
DISCUSSION LEADERS: ELIZABETH BRENNAN &
PAULINA BONGAY
Developing Research Questions & Linking Questions to a Literature
Required readings:
• Firebaugh, G. 2008. Chapter 1, Seven Rules for Social Research. Princeton University Press
• Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Ch. 7 “Ideas and Puzzles” in Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New
York: W.W. Norton. CH. 4 & 5
• Becker, Howard. Ch. 2 Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About Your Research While Doing It. University of Chicago
Press.
Relationship between Question and Literature Review:
• Becker, Howard S. 1986. “Terrorized by the literature” Pp. 135-149 in Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start
and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
PROPOSAL ASIDE:
CONTINUE TO FORMULATE YOUR RESEARCH PROBLEM/QUESTION AND
BRING TO CLASS NEXT WEEK TO EXCHANGE WITH YOUR RESEARCH GROUP.
OPTIONAL: Recommended Readings for Week 4.
Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: Norton. Especially chapters
4-5. Abbot offers the student some useful ways to come up with new ideas and talks about how this is done
using examples from innovative social science research ideas. There is also a useful discussion of how ideas are
related to the research literature.
RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL RESOURCE:
*Przeworski, Adam and Frank Solomon. 1995 (revised). “The art of writing proposals: Some candid suggestions
for applicants to Social Science Research Council Competions.” Social Science Research Foundation. Available at:
http://fellowships.ssrc.org/art_of_writing_proposals/printable.html
PROPOSAL ASIDE: PROPOSAL BOOK CAMP IS THIS FRIDAY,
FEBRUARY 15TH : ANYONE INTERESTED SHOULD SIGN UP FOR
THIS EVENT ON THE MONDAY FEBRUARY 11TH. PLEASE SEND
AN EMAIL TO ME NO LATER THAN 5PM ON FEBRUARY 11TH
STATING THAT YOU WILL BE COMING. WE WILL BE HOLDING
THE BOOT CAMP IN MCGUINN 415.
Part II. Finding Out: Linking Research Problems to Research
Designs
MONDAY FEBRUARY 18TH. What is Research Design? Causality?
DISCUSSION LEADER: ELIANA (LILY) CROSINA
Required Readings: Research Design & Ethics
Hesse-Biber & Leavy Chapter 3 & 4.
What is Causality?
Pager, Devah. (2003). “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108(5): 937-975.
Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally. Pp. 2-27.
Be prepared to discuss the following questions in class.
What is Causality? What are quantitative approaches to causality?
Qualitative approaches? Why is the experimental approach held out
as the best method to unearth causality?
5
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
MONDAY. FEBRUARY 25TH.
DISCUSSION LEADER: MEHMET SULEYMAN CANSOY
Role of Measurement & Conceptualization in Qualitative & Quantitative Research Designs.
ASSIGNMENT #1 IS DUE TODAY
Class exercise on measurement will be done today based on the class readings.
Required Readings:
• Becker, Howard S. 1998. “Concepts” Pp. 109-145 in Tricks of the Trade : How to Think About Your Research While
You're Doing It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Cohen, Bernard P. 1989. Chapters 7-9 (pp. 127-175) Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Treatment of the issues of conceptualization and operationalization from a very orthodoxly
“positivist” perspective
• Neuman. “Qualitative and Quantitative Measurement.” Chapter 7. ( Available via Blackboard)
• Rubin, Zick. (1976). “Measurement of Romantic Love and On Studying Love: Notes on the Researcher-Subject
Relationship.” Pp. 495-513 in The Research Experience, edited by Patricia Golden. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc. Available in BLACKBOARD for SOC710.
Recommended:
Wright, Erik Olin. 1985. “Biography of a Concept.” Pp. 19-63 in Classes. London:Verso. Describes the process by
which the concept of “contradictory class locations” was developed.
PROPOSAL ASIDE: BEGIN TO FORMULATE YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW. BRING A
TWO PAGE LITERATURE REVIEW TO CLASS.
Week 8.
SPRING BREAK: MARCH 4-8TH NO CLASS NEXT MONDAY-PLEASE WORK ON PROPOSAL
Qualitatively-Driven Research Designs
MONDAY. MARCH 11TH OBSERVING: Field methods/Ethnographic Research
DISCUSSION LEADERS: ELIZABETH BRENNEN &
WILL ATTWOOD-CHARLES
Assigned Readings:
Hesse-Biber and Leavy, Chapter 7
Recommended: Emerson, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, chapter 7
Why Ethnography? Mechanics of Fieldwork: Observing and Writing Field Notes:
Everyone: Ethnographic Research:
Duneier, Mitchell. 1999. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
6
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
MONDAY March 18th. Issues in Ethnography: Accuracy in Ethnographic Research
DISCUSSION LEADER: WILL ATTWOOD-CHARLES
Response to Duneier: These articles present a critique and additional frameworks of
critique with regard to Duneier’s e methods and his analysis and interpretations of life as
presented in his book, Sidewalk. These critiques address issues with regard to sampling of
research participants as well as how much the author integrates previous literature and
theoretical perspectives on this topic. In your assessment of these responses, it is vital that
you re-read and analyze Duneier’s Appendix to his book.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2002. "Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls of urban ethnography."American
Journal of Sociology 107:1468-1532. [esp. pp. 1471-86]
Duneier, Mitchell. 2002. "What kind of combat sport is sociology?" American Journal of Sociology 07:1551-1576.
[skipping 1561-1564]
Insider/Outsider? Issues in Ethnographic Research
Insider/Outsider Dilemmas in Conducting Ethnographic Research: See: Wolf, Diane L. (1996). “Situating Feminist
Dilemmas in Fieldwork.” Pp. 1-55 in Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork, edited by Diane L. Wolf. New York: Westview
Spalek, Baslia, (2005). “Researching Black Muslim Women’s Lives Post-September 11th. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology Vol. 8,No. 5, pp. 405-418.
Issues of Inference from Ethnographic Data (select ONE ARTICLE to read):
Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. "Validity: How Might You Be Wrong?" Pp. 86-98 in Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Discuss issues of validity of ethnographic data and provides an argument with regard
to its validity.
OR
Buraway, Michael. (1991). “The Extended Case Method.” Pp.271-300 in Ethnography Unbound: Power and
Resistance in the Modern Metropolis. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Methodological
example of how to think about the relationship between theory and ethnographic observation and how to navigate largescale and local social processes.
MONDAY MARCH 25TH. ASKING: Intensive Interviewing & Focus Groups
DISCUSSION LEADERS: PAULINA BONGAY &
CAITLIN MCCRACKEN
ASSIGNMENT #2 IS DUE TODAY
What are the underlying assumptions about interviewing and data collection held by DeVault, Riessman, Morgan
and Edwards? What specific insights and ideas are helpful? Problematic? What is not covered that you think is
important? Where do these authors diverge in their opinions on the interview process? Converge? Compare and
contrast a positivistic perspective on the interview process with a feminist perspective. In what ways are they
different? Similar?
Required Readings:
DeVault, Marjorie. (1990). “Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and
Analysis.” Social Problems 37(1), 96-115.
7
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Hesse-Biber, & Leavy The Practice of Qualitative Research. Chapter on Interviewing
Morgan, David. (1996). “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129-152.
Methods Practice :
Weiss, Robert, S. 1994. Learning from Strangers:The Art and Method Of Qualitative Interview Studies. Free Press:
chapter 4
Edwards, Rosalind. (1990). “Connecting Methods and Epistemology: A White Woman Interviewing Black Women.”
Women’s Studies International Forum 13(5), pp. 477-490.
MONDAY April 1st. (NOTE WE WILL HAVE CLASS TODAY APRIL 5TH, FRIDAY INSTEAD
OF MONDAY
DISCUSSION LEADER: JANE MARGOLIS
ASKING THE COMMUNITY: Action-Oriented Research
Required Readings:
Lykes, M Brinton. (1997). “Activist participatory research among the Maya of Guatemala: Constructing meanings
from situated knowledge.” The Journal of Social Issues 53(4):725-46. (Available on Blackboard for SC710)
Small, Stephen A. (1995). “Action-oriented research: models and methods.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:
941-55.
Vitucci, Judi and Whiteford, Linda M. (1997). “Pregnancy and addiction: translating research into practice.” Social
Science & Medicine 44(9):1371-80. (Available on Blackboard for SC710)
PROPOSAL ASIDE: BRING A TWO PAGE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR RESEARCH
DESIGN DATA COLLECTION /SAMPLING ETHICS)
MONDAY: APRIL 8th Analysis of Qualitative Data: Grounded Theory & Brief Introduction
to other Analytical Styles.
DISCUSSION LEADER: ANJALEE DAVIS
How will you analyze your qualitative data? Manually? Qualitative data analysis software?
What analytical Style: Grounded Theory? Narrative Analysis?
What is involved ? Open coding, selecting themes, focused coding?
Practice coding/analyzing data using field notes /interview transcripts
Required Reading:
Hesse-Biber & Leavy, Chapter 10
Charmaz, Kathy. Grounded Theory
Reissman, Catherine K. (1987). “When gender is not enough: women interviewing women.” Gender and Society
1(2): 172-207.
8
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Coffey, Amanda and Paul Atkinson. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complimentary Research
Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 2
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene. (2004). “Unleashing Frankenstein’s Monster: The Use of Computers in Analyzing
Qualitative Data.” Pp.535-545 in Approaches to Qualitative Research, edited by Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber
and Patricia Leavy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coding and Analyzing Qualitative Data
PRE-PREPOSAL ASSIGNMENT#1 IS DUE THIS WEEK
•Recommended: Harry Wolcott, Chapters 1-4.
SOFTWARE WORKSHOP (OPTIONAL): FRIDAY, APRIL 12TH. MCGUINN
415
3 TO 5PM ( YOU NEED TO REGISTER BY MONDAY, APRIL 8TH.
Learning HyperResearch & HyperTranscribe. There will be an optional
workshop scheduled as an evening class for those students who want to learn
more about Analyzing Qualitative Data with Computer-Assisted Software
and also to Learn about a Transcription Software, HyperTranscribe. This is not a “hands on
workshop,” but you will learn to basic “how to’s” in order to proceed to use these software
tools for your own data analysis project.
Quantitatively Driven Designs & Mixed Methods Research
Designs
We will focus on only two types of research designs using quantitative methods, given the very limited timeframe .
If you want more extensive readings on other quantitative methods I will be happy to provide some
recommendations.
MONDAY : APRIL 15 TH, (PLEASE NOTE: WE WILL NEED TO RE-SCHEDULE CLASS
THIS WEEK AS MONDAY, PATRIOT’S DAY IS A HOLIDAY) .
DISCUSSION LEADERS: JANE MARGOLIS &
CAITLIN MCCRACKEN
Making Generalizations: Survey Research
This week we will cover the following ideas: Why Do Surveys?
What is generalization with regard to a survey and why is sampling important ?
Constructing Survey Questions
We will NOT cover analysis of quantitative data as this is covered in several statistics courses. Required Readings:
Jacobs, Jerry and Ronnie Steinberg. (1990). Compensating Differentials and the Male-Female Wage Gap: Evidence
from the New York State Comparable Worth Study.” Social Forces. 69(2): 439-468.
9
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Carr, Deborah. 2004. “My Daughter Has a Career; I JustRaised Babies”: The Psychological Consequences of
Women’s Intergenerational Social Comparisons.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67:132-54.
Pager, Devah, and Lincoln Quillian. (2005). “Walking the Talk? What Employers Say vs. What They Do.” American
Sociological Review 70(3): 355-380.
Rychtarik, Robert G., Gerald J. Connors, Kurt H. Dermen and Paul R. Stasiewicz. (2000). “Alcoholics Anonymous and
the Use of Medications to Prevent Relapse: an Anonymous Survey of Member Attitudes.” Journal of Studies on
Alcohol 61(1): 134-138
Smith, Michael D. (1994). “Enhancing the Quality of Survey Data on Violence Against Women: A Feminist Approach.”
Gender and Society 18(1): 109-127.
PROPOSAL ASIDE: BRING A TWO PAGE OVERVIEW OF HOW YOU
WILL ANALYZE YOUR DATA.
MONDAY APRIL 22ND Content Analysis & Experimental & Quasi-Experimental Designs.
DISCUSSION LEADER: JEREMIAH MORELOCK
Please exchange your PRE-proposal with your research partner. Provide your partner with
specific constructive written feedback on their proposal thus far.
PRE-PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT#2 IS DUE THIS WEEK.
Why would you want to employ an experimental/quasi-experimental design?
Why do content analysis?
Required Readings:
Hesse-Biber & Leavy. Content Analysis
Neuman, “Experimental Research.” Chapter 9.
Practice Articles:
Select ONE of the following articles:
Ferree, Myra Marx, William Anthony Gamson, Jürgen Gerhards and Dieter Rucht. (2002). Shaping Abortion
Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
OR
Jenkins, C. (1998). “From Queer to Gay and Back Again:Young Adult Novels with Gay/Lesbian/Queer Content,
1969-1997.” Library Quarterly 68(3): 298-334.
Practice ( Experimental Design)
All Read:
Haney, C., Banks, W.C., and Zimbardo, P.G. (1973). “Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.” International
Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 69-97.
Choice :
Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2009.
“Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field
Experiment.” American Sociological Review 74:777-99.
OR
Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007.
“Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty.”American Journal of Sociology 112:1297-1338.
10
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
MONDAY APRIL 29TH. Mixed Methods Research .
DISCUSSION LEADERS: ANJALEE DAVIS &
BRIAN WALKER
Abstracts are Due today
(TO BE GIVEN OUT TO CLASS FOR NEXT WEEK’S PRESENTATIONS)
Final Proposals are Due Next Week
( ALONG WITH YOUR ORAL PRESENTATION)
Hesse-Biber, S (2010) “ Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Research” , Qualitative Inquiry16 (6) 455-468.
Julia Brannen. (1992). “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: An Overview.” Pp. 3-37 in Mixing
Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, edited by Julia Brannen. Aldershot: Avebury.
Practice:
Are two methods better than one? Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?
Tolman, Deborah L. and Laura A. Szalacha. (1999). “Dimensions of Desire: Bridging Qualitative and Quantitative
Methods in a Study of Female Adolescent Sexuality.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 9-41.
MONDAY MAY 6th -Proposal Presentation Celebration~
Each class member will present their proposal abstract and spend
between 5 to 8 minutes presenting an overview of their proposal. All
abstracts must be submitted on-line (Blackboard) by Friday, May 3rd
5pm.
Please bring a treat to class and I will bring pizza and some type of
beverage.
11
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
REQUIRED COURSE WORK:
(1) DISCUSSION LEADING: (SELECT TWO CLASS PERIODS).
You are to select TWO SEMINAR dates you would like to be a discussion leader. Discussion leading will
consist of TWO students as “team discussion leaders.” Each “Dyad team” will assume responsibility for leading
discussions of readings assigned for their chosen seminar week. Dyad members will be responsible for (1) placing
the week’s readings in conversation with each other. They will facilitate a discussion that serves to integrate the
readings for that week. They are responsible for (a) Drawing up a list or page of questions or points for discussion
and email their list of suggested discussion points or questions to Dr. Hesse-Biber for posting on Blackboard no
later than 5 p.m. the day before class.
Each student in the class is then responsible for looking over the discussion points before coming to class.
In class, dyad discussion leaders will start the seminar off with their general assessment of that week’s readings and
then open up the seminar for class discussions. It is expected that dyad discussion leaders will facilitate an in-depth
critical discussion of the week’s materials and promote productive dialogue among the seminar group.
(2) REACTION PAPERS:
FIVE Reaction papers (25 points).
You are asked to provide five written reactions to one (1) empirically-driven research article.
You can sign up for the specific weeks you would like to write up your reactions to weekly
readings.
Reactions papers should be between 500 to 600 words.
They should cover a specific research method used in an empirical study. Reaction papers
should focus on the RESEARCH conducted and might cover some of the following
things:
What are the strengths of this article ?
How well are the research problem and method/s selection linked?
Where are some missed opportunities in this article ?That is were there places in
the article where you thought the researchers might have extended their
analysis? Drawn out more implications from their findings? And so on-- What
specifically?
What in your opinion would have strengthen this article and why? Be specific.
Were there specific errors made? If so: What type of error/s? Explain.
What in your opinion were some crucial things left out by the researchers? Be
Specific.
12
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
What did you learn from this article specifically that you might apply in your
own research praxis? Be specific.
Your Reactions should be posted to Blackboard the Day Before Class-- Sunday at
Noon.
Grading. Reactions will be scored as follows:
5 points – Insightful argument and analytical engagement with the reading
4 points- Solid Reaction to the Reading. Demonstrates knowledge of methods praxis.
3 points- Some engagement with method presented. Does not fully integrate/conceptualize
argument.
1 to 2 points- Demonstrates a weak engagement to the underlying issues/themes of the
article. Weak grasp of methodological issues.
Grade reduction: 1 point is deducted for work turned in after the cutoff time.
2 points for work turned in for each day late.
(3) TWO SHORT RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS
ASSIGNMENT #1.
Research Inquiry Strategies: Induction vs. Deduction
Read the Following Articles for this Assignment:
• Becker, Howard S. (1953). “Becoming a Marihuana User.” American Journal of Sociology 59(3): 235-242.
• Bloemraad, Irene. (2004). “Who Claims Dual Citizenship? The Limits of Postnationalism, the Possibilities of
Transnationalism, and the Persistence of Traditionalism.” International Migration Review 38(2): 389-426.
Answer the following questions in essay format (no more than 4-5 pages).
How is Bloemraad’s article an example of a deductive sociological approach?
In what ways is Becker’s piece in line with an inductive, grounded theory approach?
How distinct, and in what ways, are deductive and inductive thinking in their approach to empirical analysis?
What is the relationship (if any) between 1) statistical analysis and deductive thinking and 2) qualitative research
and inductive thinking?
What do you conclude about the relationship between theory and evidence?
ASSIGNMENT #2.
Race and ethnicity are key sociological concepts in sociology, but how we conceptualize race is a difficult task. Can
we conceptualize and operationalize the concept of race? Why or why not? Is there a link between data collection
and measurement? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different ways this concept is conceptualized and
measured in these articles? How can we study race with reifying this concept and making it a biological category of
analysis?
For this assignment please read all of the following articles:
13
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
Edmonston, Barry, Joshua Goldstein and Juanita Tamayo Lott (eds). (1996). Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The Federal
Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Pp. 4-34)
Harris, David and Jeremiah Joseph Sim. (2002). “Who is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived Race.”
American Sociological Review 67(4): 614-627.
Pescosolido, Bernice A., Elizabeth Grauerholz and Melissa A. Milkie. (1997). “Culture and Conflict: The Portrayal of
Blacks in U.S. Children’s Picture Books Through the Mid- and Late-Twentieth Century.” American Sociological
Review 62(3): 443-464.
(4) The Research Proposal (35 %)
Stepwise Assignments toward your proposal:
1. Pre-proposal Assignment #1 (not graded)
2. Pre-proposal Assignment #2 (not graded)
3. Final Proposal (35%)
PROPOSAL EXPECTATIONS:
One of the goals of this course is to help students prepare a research proposal (see handout on
“Proposal Guidelines” on a topic suitable for an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis. To this end, there will be
two intermediate assignments that will lead to the generation of a final proposal.You will be
asked to team up with a classmate and give each other feedback on your pre-proposal
assignments. While the two pre-proposal assignments will not be graded, you are required to
submit them on time.
You will also work in Groups of 4 During the Second Half of the Class Starting At Week 3.
Our class meets only once a week, but I hope that you will also get together with your
“research partner(s)” to engage in a collective process of proposal dialogue and writing outside
of class. The pre-proposal assignments are set up to enable you to gradually create the building
blocks of a complete proposal.You and your partner will give feedback to one another on your
pre-proposal assignments.
.
**Instructions, Tips, & Guidelines for Proposal Assignments ( DUE IN STAGES)
STEP 1. Pre-Proposal Assignment #1
How you are guided in the writing of your proposal will depend on whether or not you
proposal is from a Qualitative or Quantitative Approach. Different Approaches required
somewhat different proposal steps. So… I will provide you with more specific guidelines later,
depending on what route you decide to take with regard to your research approach.
14
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
The objective of this proposal assignment is for you to explore a possible topic for research, to
develop skills in formulating a problem, and to learn to specify a research question.You will be
asked to justify your proposed research and conduct a literature review.
Pre-proposal assignment number one requires the following:
• Take the IRB (on-line test) to receive your IRB certificate.
• Obtain an IRB research proposal form on the Boston College Research Website. In addition
to handing in your pre-proposal assignment number one, go over what is required for an
IRB proposal and bring a print out of this form to class filling out all those parts that are
required for this pre-proposal assignment number 1 and placing this information on the
from . Please attach the IRB -- form filled out up to what you can do --and hand this in with
assignment number one.
Your pre-proposal paper requires that you provide:
• A Research Statement and Research Question (1-2 pages): Briefly describe the problem.
Describe the purpose of your research and conclude with a clearly-stated research
question.
•
Significance (1 page): This section provides the rationale and justification for the research.
For example, who cares about the answer? Is present opinion divided? How important is it to
have an answer to this question? What are the implications for practice/policy of various
possible outcomes of the research?
•
Review of Relevant Literature (5-6 pages, double spaced): This review provides background
information about your topic –it summarizes what is known about the subject, and critically
analyzes prior research on the topic. This review lets the reader know that you understand the
problem and provides a context for your proposed research. It also discusses studies that
include concepts that you are focusing on.
[note: IF YOU ARE DOING A QUANTITATIVELY DRIVEN APPROACH YOU WOULD ALSO
NEED TO DEFINE YOUR TERMS AND CONCEPTS:
• Conceptualization and Operationalization: Specify key concepts on which your study will focus
and how you intend to operationalize them as variables. Discuss the issues of reliability and
validity of measurement of key variables.
•
Hypotheses: If applicable, state the key hypotheses to be tested, indicating independent
and dependent variables.]
•
A Complete Bibliography: Use APA style. ( Please ask my about my handout on APA
style )
STEP 2. Pre-Proposal Assignment #2:
This assignment will ask you to describe the research method/s for your proposed study.You
are asked to specify your primary data collection method/s and sampling procedure/s.
Additionally, if applicable, you should include a description of the design of your instruments and
provide sample questions.
15
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
NOTE: This assignment builds on the previous one and you should include your revised work
from assignment #1 when you submit assignment #2. Please be sure to incorporate suggested
improvements into both your revisions to assignment #1 and your new work in assignment #2.
Therefore, in addition to your revised assignment #1, please submit:
• (2 pages): Describe your research design and data collection method.
• Sample: Specify your sample, how it will be selected, whether it is random, etc.
• Other Methodological Issues (1-2 pages): Indicate any additional concerns you have regarding
methodological issues in your study, such as response rate, sampling bias etc.
• Ethical and Political Considerations: Briefly discuss any ethical or political concerns you may
have with your proposed research focus and/or procedures. (2 /3 pages).
IF APPLICABLE:
• Instrumentation and Measurement: Provide and discuss sample instruments to be used. For
example, for a survey, you would include a questionnaire or interview schedule; for in-depth
interviewing, a set of open-ended questions; for content analysis, a coding sheet. Also include
instructions to respondents or recorders.
You are required to hand continue to fill in the IRB proposal form with additional information as
per assignment number 2. Attach IRB form to your paper.
STEP 3. Final Proposal Assignment:
The final proposal should build on the work you did in the previous two assignments.You
should have revised and improved your previous work based on the feedback you have
received. Please refer to the Research Proposal guidelines in your “handouts” packet to include
all relevant sections.Your final proposal should include an abstract, a budget, etc. ( ASK ME FOR
THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL GUIDELINE EVALUATION). A completely filled out IRB for is
also required and should be attached to your final proposal.
16
SOCIAL RESEARCH INQUIRY
17