Designing and Doing Social Research
Contents
Who the course is for
2
What you will learn from it
2
Who and where
2
Do this first: Get hold of a book
3
Do this next: Watch the videos and sign up for a research group
3
Week by Week
5
Week 1: Choose your approach
5
Week 2: Asking questions
5
Week 4: Theories and Practicalities of Research
6
Week 6: Gathering Data
7
Week 7: Reviewing Data
7
Week 8: Thinking with and about your data
8
Week 9: Troubleshooting
8
Week 10: Presenting your findings
9
Assessment
10
Advice on the Final Essay: Reflections and implications
11
What it is for
11
What to do
11
What to put in
11
Suggestions from feedback on past assignments
12
Plagiarism
15
Further Reading
17
1
Who the course is for
The course is for anyone who wants practical experience and skills in social research. The
course is designed to mimic a real world research scenario, in which a multi-disciplinary
research team takes varying approaches to a topic but works together towards the same goal.
The emphasis is on learning while doing, and giving you a structured environment where you
can learn how to reflect on your research while you are doing it. Many of the skills you learn
on the course will be relevant to your honours project or dissertation, and to your future career.
What you will learn from it
By the end of the course you will be able to:

Design a research project

Conduct a literature search and review

Use a range of research methods common in research that are used in academia
and the public, private and charity sectors of the economy

Understand the process of social research

Assess and evaluate your own and others’ research

Analyse data

Write a research report

Present your findings

Work together in a team
You will end up with demonstrable employment skills in:

Team and personnel management

Project design and problem solving

Report writing, summarising, and presentation

Analytical and critical thinking

Evaluation of your own and others’ work
Who and where
Course organiser:
Dr. Angus Bancroft, angus.bancroft@ed.ac.uk. Contact me for anything related to the course.
You can find me at 6.23 Chrystal Macmillan Building. Guidance and Feedback hours: Weds
11-1 or drop by when you like.
Lecturers:
Angelica Thumala, Angelica.Thumala@ed.ac.uk, Lisa McCormick,
Lisa.McCormick@ed.ac.uk, Vernon Gayle, Vernon.Gayle@ed.ac.uk
Senior Tutor: Maddie Breeze
2
Research tutors: Maddie Breeze, Maggie Morrison, Anna Ross, Cara Blaisdell, Nichole
Fernandez, Jacques Human, Órla Murray, Ceren Sengul
Course secretary: Shazia Leonard, Shazia.Leonard@ed.ac.uk
Monday lectures are in Hugh Robson Building, lecture theatre.
Thursday/Friday group project meetings are in the rooms assigned on Learn.
Video blog
Maddie Breeze will produce a video blog of the course, answering common questions and
problems submitted by you.
Do this first: Get hold of a book
The main textbook for the course is Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning
in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. It provides a good insight into what is
involved in doing research and being a researcher. We have negotiated a small discount on
the book with Blackwell’s.
A well written and enjoyable book looking at controversies and debates in methods is Davidson,
Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. (1994) Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology Press.
This is particularly useful for discussions about epistemology and reliability.
A good general handbook covering different methods and epistemological debates is: Seale,
C., ed. (2012) Researching Society and Culture. Sage Publications.
Core readings for each lecture topic and group sessions are listed below. The lecture readings
are available on Learn. There is an extended reading list at the end of this handbook.
Do this next: Watch the videos and sign up for a research group
The course is taught through lectures and group work. The lectures give you grounding in
various research skills, debates and controversies in social research. The main focus of the
course is the group work. You choose what research group you join. The groups are organised
into four topics: Welfare policy and inequality; Deviance and obedience; Art, music and culture;
Relationships and emotions. We have prepared a short video about each topic so you can get
a sense of what is involved before you choose.
Within your topic, each group uses one method to research the topic: Observation and
participation; Visual methods; Discourse; Internet and networks. You choose a topic you are
interested in, and then the method you would like to use. The topics and methods are starting
points for your group – where you go with them is up to you.
Most students find the project a valuable experience. However it is the nature of group work
that you can have disagreements and difficulties along the way. For instance, you may not all
agree with the shape the research takes, and you may feel that some group members are doing
more than their fair share of work while others are being carried. This happens in all team work,
but problems can be avoided if you keep to some ground rules: make sure everyone has their
say, the allocation of tasks is clear, and that problems and grievances are aired early on.
3
Here is some advice on running group meetings.
 Set ground rules (how you are going to communicate outside class, how you will be sharing
work. Some groups set up their own Facebook group, for example)
 For each meeting appoint someone to chair and someone to take notes and write up. Take
turns at each role.
 Have an agenda or key points to discuss at the start of each meeting
 Ensure everybody gets a turn to speak and no one person dominates – everybody has their
view aired. If there is disagreement, acknowledge it.
 Always agree what work has to be done by the next meeting before the end of the meeting.
 Do not leave the majority of tasks to one or two people, even if they want to.
 You can allow group members to specialise depending on their abilities.
 At the end of each meeting ask everyone to say how they felt it went.
 Get out of your comfort zone
Your research tutor is there to help with problems, but as in life it is up to the group to resolve
any difficulties. As with all research, you should keep a diary of what the group does and your
thoughts on it. This is invaluable preparation for the assignments, acting as a memory jogger
and a source of self-reflection.
4
Week by Week
Week 1: Choose your approach
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Introduction: research as a craft.
Reading:
Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 2, ‘The Researcher as Learner.’
Sign-up for your group opens on Tuesday on Learn.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
First group session: come ready with some thoughts about why you chose this topic and what
you think of the method your group is doing. These do not have to be fully formed but at the
end of the group meeting you should have some idea of what the group is going to study and
how. Discuss how you want to communicate with each other e.g. by a Facebook group. End
the session with a plan to find some published research on this topic and method.
Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 5, ‘Conceptualizing and Planning the
Research’.
Week 2: Asking questions
Monday: 2.10pm-3pm
What makes for good research questions?
Reading:
Robson, Colin. (2002) Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitionerresearchers, Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 3 “Developing your ideas.”
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group:
In the light of Monday’s lecture, discuss what your core concepts are? Are there disagreements
over how they are defined? What kind of data will you get? How have others gone about this
kind of research and what problems have they faced?
Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012). Learning in the Field: An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 5, ‘Conceptualizing and Planning the
Research’.
Week 3: Planning your research
5
Monday, 2.10pm-3pm
Data collection and sampling
Reading:
*Becker, Howard (1998). Tricks of the Trade - Chapter 3, “Sampling.” Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Fielding, N, and H Thomas (2008). “Qualitative Interviewing.” Pp. 245–265 in Researching
Social Life, edited by Nigel Gilbert. Los Angeles: Sage.
Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 7, ‘Gathering Data in the Field’.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group: Following on from Monday’s lecture, discuss your research field. Is there a population
to sample? Are you sampling something other than individuals, such as networks or images?
What characteristics does your study sample have? In preparation for next week, consider:
What do you want to investigate and how? What do you want to know about at the end that you
do not know about now? Who or what is the most appropriate unit of analysis, e.g. an individual,
a location, a group, a place, an institution, an event? Discuss this object of study, what are its
qualities? Where can you find it? What kind of data/evidence will you need to meet your aims?
Will comparisons (such as by age, sex, or some social characteristics) help you achieve your
aims? Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or
research to be brought to the next meeting. Discuss the research problem you are tackling.
Week 4: Theories and Practicalities of Research
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Theories of research
Reading:
*Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder (1994) Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology
Press. Chapter 2, ‘Dimensions of Social Research.’
*Grix, J. (2002). “Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.” Politics
22(3):175–186.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group presentation: our research problem
This might consist of any of the following a discussion of; your research aim questions;
sampling; epistemology; scoping what data there is; background reading on the problem.
Present your thoughts on the problem you have been set.
Week 5: Preparing to enter the field
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Ethics and position in research
6
Reading:
Punch, M. (1994) “Politics and ethics in qualitative research.” Pp. 83–98 in Handbook of
Qualitative Research, vol. 2. London: Sage.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group project: Develop data collection
Prepare with Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the
Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 6, ‘Entering the field’.
Work on the design of your data collection methods. Conduct an ethical review of your project.
Groups must complete an ethical self-audit of their research, which you can find here:
http://goo.gl/kW7zcK
Give some thought to what you are going to do with your data when you have collected it. For
instance, you might want to analyse it jointly. What will you be looking for? Work on designing
the data collection instruments e.g. a topic guide for interviews, or an observation frame for
observational methods. Review your plan of who is doing what where and when in order to
collect and record data and be finished data collection in time. Agree tasks to be completed by
the next week.
Week 6: Gathering Data
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Analysis
Reading:
Silverman, David (2005) Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook - Chapter 11,
“Beginning Data Analysis.” Sage.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group project: Collect data this week
Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 7, ‘Gathering Data in the Field’.
Begin data collection, review progress with data collection, decide on any further data you want
to obtain. Is the data collection working as planned? Are there any initial thoughts or ideas that
are emerging from the data? You should be thinking both about the findings and also the
research process itself. Give some thought to what you are going to do with your data when
you have collected it. For instance, you might want to analyse it jointly. What will you be looking
for? Based on initial ideas coming from the data, do you want to finesse your data collection,
e.g. by focusing on one emerging issue? Review what you will be doing next week and agree
any reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting.
Week 7: Reviewing Data
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
7
Writing up and producing results workshop
Reading:
Holliday, Adrian. (2002) Doing and writing qualitative research - Chapter 5 “Writing About Data.”
SAGE.
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group Project: Finding the data
Use this session to share data and develop a good idea of the kind of evidence you have
obtained. Consider whether and how the data will prove useful in your data analysis. Can you
identify any obvious gaps you can still address? How has the data collection worked compared
with how you expected it would work? Review what you will be doing next week and agree any
reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting.
Week 8: Thinking with and about your data
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Making your argument
Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 11, ‘Our Characters’ Analysis’.
DHT, Faculty Room North
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Group Project: Presentation
Presentation.
Finding and interpreting the data
This will focus on doing the research, covering data collection; the form the data takes; how the
research is conducted; ethical challenges. Following on from Monday’s lecture, think about how
to make the most of the evidence you have gathered and how best to present it to your intended
audience.
Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 9, ‘Issues that arise in the field’.
Think about how to make the most of the evidence you have gathered and how best to present
it to your intended audience. Agree plan and divisions of labour for preparing the presentation.
Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or research to
be brought to the next meeting.
Week 9: Troubleshooting
Monday 2.10pm-3pm
Troubleshooting – the lecturers discuss problems and controversies in research
Thursday/Friday, various times.
8
Group project: Prepare analysis
Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012). Learning in the Field: An
Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 10, ‘Analysing and interpreting data’, and
Chapter 12 ‘Presenting the Learnings’
Review your data analysis and preparation for the final presentation. What conclusions can be
drawn from your data? How are these conclusions based on the evidence you have generated?
Have you achieved the aims and objectives of the research? Can you generalise from the
study? Do you want to place yourselves ‘in’ the study? To what extent did your presence and
decisions affect the results that were produced? Review your progress and division of labour
for making the group presentation and (individually) the preparation still to be done for your final
report.
Week 10: Presenting your findings
Thursday/Friday, various times.
Final group presentations.
9
Assessment
You are not being assessed on how well your group does the research. You are being assessed
on your ability to reflect on the research process and to link what you have done to wider themes
in research methods.
Course work will be submitted online using our submission system – ELMA. You will not be
required to submit a paper copy.
Marked course work, grades and feedback will be returned online – you will not receive a paper
of your marked course work or feedback.
For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback, please
see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA
There are three parts to the assessment:
Total course mark
Group Presentation
20% (all group members receive the same
mark)
Individual Performance
10% (individual)
Final Essay
70% (individual)
1. Group Presentation
Your group presents three times on the research. See the timetable for suggested topics.
The presentation is to the rest of the class. Group members receive the same mark. If a member
of the group is absent or has not contributed they will receive zero. If you are unavoidably
absent or have other difficulties preventing you contributing please let Angus know as soon as
possible.
2. Individual Performance
So that individual contributions to the group can be properly recognised, tutors will evaluate
the performance of each group member. The purpose of this is to assess how you work as well
as the work you produce, and to ensure that each student’s contribution to the group is
recognized fairly. We will look for you taking on and carrying out tasks (e.g. research tasks,
chairing, writing up meetings), you contributing to group discussions and general being a
committed member of your project group.
3. Final Essay: Reflections and implications.
Word count: 3500-4000 words, due December 16th.
A personal reflective essay on the implications of the study. Use this essay to situate the
group’s work in the context of other groups’ findings and/or what is more generally known about
the topic.
To prepare you can complete an essay structure. This is a short piece which will allow us to
give you feedback and help you to prepare for your final essay. Use it as a practice for the final
10
essay and choose one theme or aspect of the research that you will tackle in the final essay
using the guidance for the final essay. The essay structure is 750 words long. You can also
look at past examples of final essays on Learn.
Advice on the Final Essay: Reflections and implications
The essay is a personal, reflective essay on the implications of the study. Use this essay to
situate your group’s work in the context of other groups’ findings and/or what is more generally
known about the topic, or about social research as an activity, or apply knowledge from your
own discipline or interests to the research. For instance, you might write about the research
from a feminist perspective, or its relevance to policy, or the political debates that go on around
the research topic.
What it is for
The final part of a research project is putting it in context and saying what is relevant about it.
This is also your opportunity to give your own personal account and interpretation of the
research, as distinct from the group report on the wiki and presentation. We would like you to
think of the group presentation and wiki as the public face of the research. They are like an
executive summary for a client or funder, according to the brief they gave you. The final essay
is a more considered and personal examination of the research and its findings in a wider
context, much as an academic researcher might do.
What to do
In this essay you discuss the strengths and limitations of the research, reflect on your group’s
approach, and outline the implications of what you found. This should be a reflective piece of
work, and should go beyond describing the study.
To help yourself prepare, Write notes on the decision making in the group on the data collection
methods, what factors influenced your selection and design of the research instrument (the
‘instrument’ is the interview topic guide, observational guide etc that you employ in data
collection so is not the same as the method). Take notes on your data collection as you are
doing it.
For a good example of how to write about the research process, see Seale, C, ‘My Research
practice’, pp 463-473 in Seale, C. (2004) Researching Society and Culture, London: Sage. @
http://goo.gl/QJcaL
What to put in
There are several ways to approach this essay. Include a short overview of your research and
findings just to make explicit the thinking that went into the overall design. Exactly what you say
here depends on the angle you take from those suggested below.
You may select a particular angle to take from the following (do not try to do all of them):
11

What you have found out about social research, your role as a researcher, and this
research field.
You could approach this in terms of questions of epistemology: Should the principles of natural
science inquiry (objectivity, replicability, neutrality) apply to the social sciences? Should your
research be value neutral or emancipatory? Are an interviewee’s statements descriptions of
reality or are they constructed accounts? Is there a single truth about this phenomenon that
you can get close to by researching it?

Discuss the quality of the research
When doing this consider not only common yardsticks of research quality (confirmability,
transferability, measurement validity etc.) but also what you have learned about whether these
measures apply. Consider if social research can be judged according to these or other
yardsticks.

You might explore what worked and did not work in the research design approach,
or how you might have done things differently.
We are not looking for any amazing insights here into the nature of research design, more a
sense that in the light of what you did, do you think that the research design/epistemology you
settled on was the right one for the job? Did it capture the phenomena you were interested in?
Did your design approach really match what was going on? If you had gone about the research
in a different way, would you have generated different findings?

You can reflect on your experience collecting the data.
For example, if you were speaking to individuals, how you described the research to them, and
their reactions, how people responded to you and if built rapport with them. Or if observing,
how you felt when observing in that setting. Whether your own characteristics or the
assumptions you brought to the study affected the data collection process, and how you sought
to address these assumptions. Did you treat them as bias, as a threat to objectivity, or as an
inevitable part of naturalistic enquiry? Were there ethical and political dilemmas that you faced?

You could situate the findings in comparison to the rest of the project, the wider
context of research in this field, or the wider policy/theoretical context
Here you should discuss the significance of what you found. This might be for policy, or for
future research. You could say what other questions arose from the research you did that you
might like to explore further. Your interpretation of the results can be very different from those
of other group members or groups. Likewise, you can give different emphasis to different
aspects of the research literature, theory, or policy.
Suggestions from feedback on past assignments
In past years, good assignments were well grounded in the methods literature and course
concepts. Some reflection on the research process is a good way to approach the assignment.
This might involve relating your own experiences to the research. For instance, did you take a
12
stance as a ‘neutral researcher’, or were you more involved, revealing information about
yourself to the people you researched? What about, for instance, your gender, age or social
class? Did your experiences influence the research questions you settled on? Did doing the
research meet your expectations? However it is not absolutely necessary to write in this way.
A more theoretical account would be just as good.
Weak assignments tended to:
-
Fail to adequately define terms.
-
Not focus on the research or be vague about what was done that was relevant to the
essay
-
Confuse research design with method.
-
Contradict themselves, such as saying that sampling was both random and theoretical.
-
Make general and unconvincing statements of good intention, e.g. ‘We tried to be
sensitive when interviewing people,’ without saying how this worked in practice.
-
Apply inconsistent epistemological positions, e.g. saying they took an interpretivist view
but then using positivist language about testing and objectivity.
The following are suggestions based on previous years’ work for this assignment.
Say what you did: ‘This paper presents some very good ideas concerning alcohol and
university life. It includes important concepts of research design such as data collection,
limitations/advantages of semi-structured interviews, the relationship between interviewer and
interviewee, and sampling. Overall, the report engaged in some critical analysis of the
methodological concepts.’
Balance methodology and epistemology: ‘Use your findings to critique the existing studies
and the apparent notion there of a one directional ‘causal link’ between alcohol moderation and
general health’ ‘Your inclusion of the different sides of the theoretical debate demonstrates
engagement with your chosen topic.’
Discuss research problems: ‘I particularly liked your awareness not only of the problems of
defining political engagement and activism, but also the research implications of particular kinds
of definition, which was extended to the use of a subjective, respondent-led, definition, which
also has problems and advantages. You raised interview bias as an issue – I would have liked
your particular thoughts there, on whether it was something you were aware of in the interviews,
e.g. around your own political engagement/awareness.’ ‘On some occasions you tend to skim
over issues which it would have been interesting to elaborate on, such as criticism in the
literature of your chosen sampling techniques; and there does seem to be some lack of clarity
over the benefits of these different techniques (a clearer grasp of these will help you in your
final essay). Overall, while the report would benefit from greater clarity of methodological
concepts, it does otherwise present a relatively full account of your research design.’
Critically discuss key concepts: ‘I liked your discussion of the meanings of work and leisure
– this is a point I feel could be developed further. For instance, would some forms of work not
be ‘relaxing and enjoyable’? What about e.g. compulsory leisure (a feature of Japanese working
13
life, and of some Fresher’s week events)?’ ‘A somewhat unproblematic approach to nationality
weakens the reasoning behind your choice of research questions.’
Pay attention to bias in commonly used definitions: ‘Overall a very good account, carefully
constructed and well written. A bit more reflection on key decisions would have been valuable.
You said you defined leisure using the Oxford English Dictionary definition to avoid bias, but of
course that definition has its own biases, which you could usefully explore further – is there
anything it misses out? E.g. forms of leisure which aren’t strictly enjoyable or relaxing such as
‘edgework’ or some forms of hallucinogenic drug use.’
Show, don’t tell: ‘When discussing how you felt conducting the interviews, you need to use
your emotions more reflectively – say why you felt satisfied, was it the interaction itself, or the
successful completion of the interview? In which case, how did you know they were successfully
completed? Likewise, the group may have agreed that the data collected was robust etc, but
you need to demonstrate that. Stylistically, a more punchy introduction is preferable – one that
gives a sense of what is to come specifically, rather than merely outlining the separate sections.’
Explain key decisions: ‘Some decisions need to be explained more carefully, e.g. why political
engagement was expected to be higher among politics students (rather like expecting
psychology students to be more psychologically balanced than other students). Be clear about
the points of comparison – e.g. what are the problems affecting students you mention in
reference to Heath and Douglas. Don’t assume that all students are young, or that youth means
immaturity.’
Tell a story: ‘A good account, especially of the ins and outs of designing the research itself.
The ‘story’ structure of the assignment also worked well – perhaps more could be made of that.
There were some good reflections on relationships with respondents. Some more reflection on
the topic itself would have been good here – how respondents understood it, whether they used
the same terminology of engagement used in yours’ and others research etc. Explain the
reasoning behind your decisions – e.g. you stated you wanted interviewees to answer questions
without too much prompting – why? What was wrong with prompting? Did you think it would
damage the quality of data, or something else? This is also apparent when discussing sampling
– I think there was more to the choice of Sociology/Politics students than stated here. I liked
the way you looked forward to the next stage in the conclusion.’
Reflect on your own claims: ‘Generally good, with some nice personal, involved reflections
on the development of the study. Although you say a bit about the benefits of political
engagement, there isn’t much about what it actually is, how you defined it and what the
implications of your definitions were for the study. I don’t think you can judge a respondent (or
yourself) as ‘introverted’ – perhaps they were in a bad mood that day, or didn’t know what you
expected of them? If you are going to make these assessments, the basis for them needs to
be clear. You need to explain also why you thought people might exaggerate in focus groups –
presumably you though so because there is a cultural expectation for political engagement
among these students, but it could just as easily be the opposite.’
14
Analyse the literature: ‘Describe the relevant research literature as a body, and then critically
assess how key readings you identify have arrived at their findings, and any weaknesses in
how they have done so.’ ‘You could reflect on the different disciplines the literature comes from
– what effect does that have on the research findings? What issues are considered relevant in
the sociology of alcohol, for instance, that you don’t find in medical studies of alcohol and vice
versa? You could use your study to critique the attempt to establish a causal law between
alcohol consumption and bad behaviour, so turning an apparent weakness into a strength.’
Think about your own role: ‘You raise an interesting issue in the final paragraph in relation to
the role of the researcher, which relates well to your Goffman/dramaturgical approach.’
Balance description and reflection: ‘This is a very well written paper that critically engages
with the literature on social methodology. It provides a good analysis of limitations and
challenges of conducting a qualitative study on alcohol and student social networks. The paper
included a discussion of sampling methods, the interview process, and the theoretical
framework/research design of the study. However, it may have been useful to include content
on why focus groups or other interview methods were not utilized. Also, it may be relevant to
include a further discussion of current literature on alcohol and social networks. Overall, well
done!’ In contrast: ‘The introduction did not really include relevant information concerning the
topic of student social networks and alcohol. At times, the report was repetitive-especially in
the sections on developing a research question and acquiring a sample group. The paper was
too descriptive and could have utilized the literature on social methodology more extensively
(i.e. more information could be included on convenience sampling).’
Word Count Penalties
Essays above the word count will be penalised using the Ordinary level criterion of 1 mark for
every 20 words over length. You will not be penalised for submitting work below the word limit.
However, you should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and
that this will be reflected in your mark.
Plagiarism
Never reproduce material that is not your own unless it is clearly marked as such. This includes
material from readings, the internet, your own work that has been submitted for another course,
and other students' work. An exception to the latter is the group submission to which all your
group contributes.
You must ensure that you understand what the University regards as plagiarism and why the
University takes it seriously. This is your responsibility. All cases of suspected plagiarism, or
other forms of academic misconduct, will be reported to the College Academic Misconduct
Officer. You’ll find further information in your Honours (or Visiting student) handbook, and at
the following page:
http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/honours/what_is_plagiarism
15
The School of Social and Political Science uses the ‘Turnitin’ system to check that essays do
not contain plagiarised material. Turnitin compares every assignment against a constantlyupdated database, which highlights all plagiarised work.
16
Further Reading
Doing research
*Becker, Howard Saul, and Pamela Richards. (2007) Writing for social scientists: how to start
and finish your thesis, book, or article. University of Chicago Press. Chapter 7 ‘Learning to write
as a professional’.
*Clifford, James, (1986) "Introduction" from James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds),
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography
pp.1-26, Berkeley, University of
California Press.
Clough, Peter, and Cathy Nutbrown. 2007. A student’s guide to methodology: justifying enquiry.
Sage
Cottrell, Dr Stella. 2011. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument.
2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. 1994. Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology
Press.
*Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2000. “The discipline and practice of qualitative research.” Pp.
1–28 in Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.
Greener, Ian. 2011. Designing Social Research: A Guide for the Bewildered. SAGE
Publications.
*Mills, C.W. 1980. “On intellectual craftsmanship.” Society 17(2):63–70.
Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 2, The Researcher as Learner,
pp 31-60
Seale, C., ed. 2012. Researching society and culture. Sage Publications.
Silverman, David. 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about
qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Silverman, Professor David. 2009. Doing Qualitative Research. Third ed. Sage Publications
Ltd.
Deciding on your research questions
Cryer, Pat. 2006. The Research Student’s Guide to Success. 3rd ed. Open University Press.
Chapter 20, 21, pp203-225, ‘Developing ideas’ and ‘Keeping going’.
*Greener, Ian. 2011. Designing Social Research: A Guide for the Bewildered. SAGE
Publications. Chapter 2, pp 22-37, ‘Reviewing What Other People Have Said - Or How Can I
Tell If Others' Research is Any Good?’
*Robson, Colin. 2002. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitionerresearchers - Chapter 3 “Developing your ideas”. Blackwell Publishers.
17
Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. Chapter 5, ‘Planning the Research’.
Data collection and interviews
*Fielding, N, and H Thomas. 2008. “Qualitative Interviewing.” Pp. 245–265 in Researching
social life, edited by Nigel Gilbert. Los Angeles: Sage.
* Kvale, Steinar, (1996) "Thematizing and designing an interview study" from Kvale, Steinar,
Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing pp.83-108, London, Sage. [26
pages].
*May, Tim. 2001. Social research: issues, methods and process - Chapter 6, “Interviewing.”
Open University. (available as an e-book through the library)
McComack, C. 2004. “Storying Stories: A Narrative Approach to In-depth Interview
Conversations.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(3):219–236.
Roulston, Kathryn. 2010. Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice. SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Sampling
*Becker, Howard. 1998. Tricks of the Trade - Chapter 3, “Sampling.” Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
*Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative researching, Chapter 7, Sampling and Selection in
Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
Politics and ethics of research
Andreas, Peter, and Kelly M. Greenhill, eds. 2010. Sex, Drugs, and Body Counts: The Politics
of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict. Cornell University Press.
Bulmer, Martin (2008) ‘The Ethics of Social Research’ in Nigel Gilbert (ed.) (2008) Researching
Social Life (3rd edition), London: Sage.
Crow, Graham et al (2006) ‘Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed
Consent’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9 (2).
Hammersley, Martyn. 2005. “Should Social Science Be Critical?” Philosophy of the Social
Sciences 35(2):175 –195.
Lambert, E, ed. 1990. The Collection and Interpretation of Data From Hidden Populations.
Rockville, MD.
Munro A, Lesley Holly, Helen Rainbird, and Ruchira Leisten. 2004. “Power at work: reflections
on the research process.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7:289–304.
Retrieved August 17, 2010.
*Punch, M. 1994. “Politics and ethics in qualitative research.” Pp. 83–98 in Handbook of
qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.
*Sanders, Teela. 2005. Sex work: a risky business. Willan. Chapter 2, ‘Ethnography, sex and
the self’
18
Sanders, Teela. 2008. Paying for pleasure: men who buy sex. Willan. ‘Researching Men who
buy sex’.
*Stanley, Liz, and Sue Wise. 1993. Breaking out again: feminist ontology and epistemology.
Routledge. Chapter 8 ‘Afterword’
Stevens, Alex. 2007. “Survival of the Ideas That Fit: An Evolutionary Analogy for the Use of
Evidence in Policy.” Social Policy and Society 6(01):25–35. Retrieved May 26, 2011.
Analysis
*Cottrell, Dr Stella. 2011. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument.
2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 8, ‘Where’s the proof?’ pp125-146
*Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook - Chapter 11,
“Beginning Data Analysis”. SAGE.
Silverman, David. 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and
Interaction. Third ed. Sage Publications Ltd.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michal Krzyzanowski. 2008. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social
sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
Writing up and producing results
Bryman, Alan. 2008. “Writing Up Social Research.” Pp. 661–688 in Social Research Methods.
Oxford University Press.
Fossey, Ellie, Carol Harvey, Fiona McDermott, and Larry Davidson. 2002. “Understanding and
evaluating qualitative research.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36(6):717–
732. Retrieved September 12, 2011.
*Holliday, Adrian. 2002. Doing and writing qualitative research - Chapter 5 “Writing About Data.”
SAGE.
Merriam, S. 1995. “What Can You Tell From An N ofl?: Issues of Validity and Reliability in
Qualitative Research.” PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning 4:50–60.
Epistemology and reflecting on research
*Bancroft, Angus. 2011. “In the Field: The Research Relationship.” in Researching Families
and Relationships: Reflections on Process, edited by Lynn Jamieson and Roona Simpson.
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
*Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. 1994. Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology
Press. Chapter 2, Dimensions of social research, pp 29-60
*Grix, J. 2002. “Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.” Politics
22(3):175–186.
Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing paradigms in qualitative research.” Pp. 163–
194 in Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.
Seale, Clive. 1999. “Quality in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 5(4):465 –478.
Retrieved October 14, 2011.
19
External Examiners
The External Examiner for this course in session 2015-2016 is Dr Michael Halewood, University
of Essex
20