UBST 725
URBAN RESEARCH METHODS
Fall 2014
Stephen Steinberg
Department of Urban Studies
250-H Powdermaker Hall
Office Hours: Mon 4-6 PM and by appointment
Email: ssteinberg1@gc.cuny.edu
2
Goals of the Course

To introduce you to the range of methodologies commonly deployed in urban
research. These include macroscopic analysis, demography, intensive
interviewing, survey research, participant observation, community studies, policy
analysis, and evaluation research.

To develop critical skills in reading and interpreting social science research,
whether you encounter this research in academic settings (textbooks, professional
journals, lectures), in the workplace (reports, documents), or in popular media
(newspapers, magazines, television).

To develop skills in laying the foundation for a research project.

To become an independent and critical thinker.
Course Materials
All material for the course is compiled in a coursepack. Copies are available at cost.
Weekly Exercises
The course is organized around a series of 13 weekly readings and corresponding
exercises. These exercises are designed to do two things simultaneously: 1) To introduce
you to the range of methodologies commonly deployed in urban related research; 2) To
sharpen your skills in reading and critical thinking.
Much of the learning for the course is done though the process of completing these
weekly exercises. Exercises will not be graded from week to week: it is expected that
your work will improve as we go forward and you get the “hang” of the course. Early in
the semester, I will give you an interim assessment of your work to make sure that you
are on the right track.
The exercises will be reviewed in class. Therefore, it is imperative that you
complete these exercises on time and attend class consistently.
Portfolio: You should make two copies of each week’s exercise—one that you will hand
in at the end of class each week, and the other that you will compile in a portfolio that I
will review at least twice during the semester.
The Research Proposal
One goal of the course is to develop skills that will prepare you to design and conduct
research, culminating in a research paper. For the purposes of this course, you are asked
only to design a research project—in other words, to develop the foundation and
scaffolding for a research paper centered on a topic of personal interest that might be
completed in another course in the department.
The research proposal should conform to the following format:
3
Statement of the Research Problem: What is the overarching question or issue that
defines the study? What is it that you are trying to find out?
Rationale: What is the background or context of the research? What is the significance of
the research for theory, research, or public policy?
Review of the Literature: Place your study in the context of existing research. You can
do this by identifying at least three published studies that provide background and
relevance to your study. Do you propose to fill a gap left by previous research? Do you
plan to challenge some finding or interpretation advanced by a previous study? Are you
proposing a case study of a phenomenon that has been addressed by previous research?
Generally speaking, how does your study build on previous research?
Objectives: State your research objectives in more detail. What specific questions or
issues govern your research?
Method: What method or methods do you plan to deploy? If you plan a field study,
identify the setting that is under examination, and show how the method deployed will
help to shed light on the research question(s). If you plan to collect new data, identify the
population being studied and how the sample will be drawn. If you plan to analyze
existing data—whether from the Census or some other data source—state in detail what
data are available and how they will advance the goals of the research. If you plan a more
theoretically based macroscopic study, identify the research materials or data sources that
fit into your analysis.
Conclusion: Remember you are NOT being asked to conduct the research. However, try
to anticipate the findings and the general contours of your paper. You might wish to
return to the question of why and how your study is significant, either for theory,
research, or public policy.
I will work with you during the semester in developing this research proposal. The first
step is developing a good research question—one that has clear and specific boundaries.
Keep the research proposal in mind as the semester progresses, and during the second
half of the course, we will have workshops on the research proposal.
The research proposal is due on December 23, the last day of the final exam period.
GRADES
Weekly exercises will count for 80 percent, and the research proposal for 20 percent of
your grade. Students who contribute substantively to class discussion will receive
appropriate credit.
Generally speaking, you can secure a grade of ‘B’ in the course by completing the entire
series of exercises in a timely manner, together with the research proposal at the end of
the semester. A grade of ‘A’ is reserved for those whose work is exemplary (with
appropriate gradations in-between).
4
READING WITH AND AGAINST THE GRAIN
Reading, then, requires a difficult mix of authority and humility. On the one hand, a
reader takes charge of a text; on the other, a reader gives generous attention to someone
else’s (a writer’s) key terms and methods, commits his time to her examples, tries to think
in her language, imagines that this strange work is important, compelling, at least for the
moment.
David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky, “Ways of Reading” (2002).
The passage above encapsulates the spirit and goal of the course: to learn to read—and
think--both WITH and AGAINST the grain. Therefore, each week’s exercise is divided
into two sections:
1. Logic of Inquiry. These questions ask you to read WITH the grain: in other
words, to accept at face value the author’s intentions and authority. This involves
a close examination of the logic that pertains to each step in the research process:
 rationale for conducting the study
 research question and objectives
 review of the relevant literature
 the development of an analytical framework
 methods deployed to acquire evidence
 findings
 interpretation and analysis of the raw evidence
 conclusions (which often explore the implications of the findings for
public policy)
2. Critical Issues. These questions ask you to read AGAINST the grain, to critically
examine the author’s knowledge claims and her or his authority and neutrality.
This involves reading “behind the text” and asking critical questions:
 What are the subjectivities, biases, or ideological underpinnings of a
particular study?
 Where is the researcher “coming from” in terms of his or her values or
politics?
 Are the measures valid (in other words, do they measure what they purport
to measure)?
 Are the conclusions fully warranted by the evidence?
 How might critics, approaching the study from a different standpoint,
reach a different set of conclusions?
 What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the study
under examination?
The overarching goal of the course is to develop skills as an independent and
critical reader. Only then are you in a position to assess whether you accept or
reject an author’s knowledge claims or favor a different interpretation.
5
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Epistemology. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “epistemology
is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology
is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient
conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its
limits?”
Throughout the course we will be subjecting the knowledge claims of researchers to close
examination. In doing so, the course seeks to cultivate a certain “epistemological
cynicism,” in the sense that we constantly ask whether or not the knowledge claims
withstand close scrutiny.
LOGIC OF INQUIRY. This focuses on the elements of research and the logic that
permeates the research process, from the framing of research questions, to the
collection and analysis of data, to the interpretation of the findings, and to
assessment of the ramifications of the findings with respect to theory, research, or
public policy.
Research Problem: What is the question or issue around which there is uncertainty or
doubt and that will be addressed by the research?
Research Question: What is the central or primary research question that defines the
study? Put another way, what does the researcher want to “find out”?
Research Design: What methods does the researcher deploy in an attempt to come up
with answers to the primary research question? What is the population or social setting
under examination? How and why was it chosen?
Rhetorical Frame: How does the author introduce and justify the research problem?
What is the larger historical or social context that helps to “frame” the study?
Significance of the Research. Why is the research significant? In other words, why is
the answer to the research question worth knowing?
The QMFC Grid. This is the “logical scaffolding” for virtually any study, whether it
employs quantitative or qualitative methods. It challenges you to identify, in succinct
language, the major elements of the research:




Q: What is the primary research question?
M: What methods are deployed in an attempt to answer this question?
F: What are the major research findings?
C: What conclusion does the study come to? What are the larger implications of
the study for theory (our conceptual understanding of the problem under
examination)? For research (the direction of future research)? Or for public policy
(the possible public policy interventions)?
Microscopic versus Macroscopic Approaches. This pertains to different “levels of
analysis.” A microscopic approach focuses on individual manifestations of a particular
6
phenomenon. A macroscopic approach treats the phenomenon as a societal problem, and
focuses on systemic factors that produce or sustain a particular phenomenon.
For example, unemployment can be treated as an attribute of discrete individuals, and we
can look at the individual correlates of unemployment, such as lack of education or of job
skills. On the other hand, we can treat unemployment as an attribute of larger social
aggregates or of the economy at a particular point in time. For example, unemployment
might be seen as a product of deindustrialization or of economic cycles. In this instance,
the unit of analysis is not the individual but factors associated with major social
institutions. Thus, the thrust of macroscopic analysis is that we have to “change the
system, not the individual.”
CRITICAL ISSUES. Here we “read behind the text” by exploring the subtle and
elusive factors that influence the interpretation and analysis of raw data. We also
read “beyond the text,” by exploring factors related to the social production of
research and the political uses of research.
Value-Free Social Research. This “doctrine” that social science should be value-free is
associated with Max Weber, one of the founders of sociology. In his famous essay on
“Science as a Vocation,” Weber wrote that “the task of the teacher is to serve the students
with his knowledge and scientific exposure and not to imprint upon them his personal
political views." Thus, Weber enjoined social scientists to adhere to the highest standards
of objectivity. However, whether objectivity is attainable or even desirable is a hotly
contested issue that will come up time and again in the course.
Bias in Social Research. The term “bias” does not refer only to prejudice against one
group or another. More generally, it refers to notions of good and bad, right and wrong,
just and unjust, which social scientists bring to their craft.
Most social scientists acknowledge that value-free social science is worth striving for,
even though it may not be possible to totally put aside one’s personal viewpoint and
ideological preferences. Others take a more radical position, and reject objectivity as “a
preposterous fallacy,” to quote Edward Carr who is on our first week’s reading. A radical
view of epistemology is that truth exists only within a framework of value. This idea is
not easy to grasp and will be much discussed during the semester.
Note though that the point is not to expose “bias,” since it is assumed that bias exists
everywhere, but rather to identify where authors are “coming from” in terms of their
ideological position and/or moral judgments with respect to the subject under
examination. Only by bringing this to light are you prepared to fully grasp what is being
said, and to make your own determination—no doubt predicated on your own ideological
bent and moral priorities—on whether you agree or disagree with the position that has
been advanced in the reading.
Unpacking Assumptions. You will be asked to “unpack” the hidden or embedded
assumptions that lurk even behind the language we deploy. Consider, for example, “the
war on terror.” What is being argued here? What are the premises of the argument, or the
hidden assumptions that are embedded in this terminology? As another example, take the
title of an article that we will be reading later in the semester: What Can Be Done To
7
Reduce Teenage and Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies? What are the embedded assumptions
in this construction?
The idea that value assumptions are embedded in language is another difficult idea to
grasp, and an even more difficult principle to apply, especially when authors hide behind
the façade of objectivity. This issue will come up in each of the weekly exercises, and we
have the entire semester to sort this out.
Standpoint Epistemology. The idea here is that there is no such thing as “objectivity,”
but rather that the social world, including even “hard facts,” will look differently and will
be invested with different meaning, depending upon the “position” or “standpoint” of
those who collect and/or interpret the facts.
Devil’s Advocate.
John Stuart Mill, the 19th century British philosopher, wrote: “The suppressed opinion
might be false. Even here, though, there are advantages to letting it be aired as long and as
fully as anyone wishes to air it. Even when the prevailing opinion it counters is true, it should
never fear the challenge of a devil's advocate. Such a challenge can only be healthy for it.”
In this spirit, from time to time throughout the course, you will be asked to assess the
knowledge claims put forward by a researcher from the point of view of somebody who
occupies an opposite position. The point of this is to defend one interpretation against the
viewpoint of one’s intellectual or ideological adversaries, bringing to light the underlying
assumptions in both cases.
The Research Process.

Funding. A study does not appear like the Ten Commandments as a matter of
divine ordination. Much, if not most, social research is costly and depends on
subsidies received from foundations, governmental agencies, or other sources.
Thus, it is relevant, indeed crucial, to ask: Who funded the research? What do we
know about the funding source, in terms of its politics or interests? Does this have
a contaminating effect or cast a shadow of doubt on the research? Or, depending
on the source, does it confer the study with legitimacy and credibility or not?

Biography of the researcher(s). Edward Carr admonishes us to “know the
historian before you read the history.” What can we learn (via some sleuthing on
Goggle) about the researcher/author—her or his affiliations or ideological bent—
that might bear on the text under examination? Note: we have to be careful not to
commit the ad hominem fallacy (i.e., making judgments on the basis of the person
who is advancing a knowledge claim, rather than on the basis of the rectitude of
the knowledge claim itself). Even so, knowing the biography of the
researcher/author may help to bring to light some of the subjectivities in the text.

Venue. This refers to the place of publication. Much scholarly research is
published in academic journals and books that, at least ostensibly, observe the
strictures of value neutrality. Other readings we encounter through the semester
were published in journals or venues that unabashedly reflect a particular political
bent, whether conservative, liberal, or radical.
8
Schedule of Readings and Exercises
Sept 8. Introductory class. Reading With and Against the Grain.
Sept 15. The Problem of Objectivity (Exercise 1). Note: please put the exercise
number on your answer sheet.
Edward H. Carr. Excerpt from What is History (1965).
Howard Becker. “Whose Side Are We On?” (1966).
Bruce Lambert. “At 50, Levittown Contends With Its Legacy of Bias,” NY Times (1977).
Sept 22. Macroscopic Analysis I (Ex. 2)
C. Wright Mills, “‘Personal Troubles of Milieu' and ‘Public Issues of Social Structure,'”
from The Sociological Imagination (1959).
Barry Bluestone. “The Inequality Express,” The American Prospect (1994).
Sept 29. Macroscopic Analysis II (Ex. 3)
Edna Bonacich & Richard Appelbaum, “The Return of the Sweatshop,” from Behind the
Label: Inequality in the Los Angeles Apparel Industry (2000).
Oct 6. Quantitative Research I. Uses and Misuses of Polls (Ex. 4)
Joel Best, “Sources of Bad Statistics” from Damned Lies and Statistics (2001).
Steven A. Camarota, “An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration.”
David Leonhardt, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.”
David Cay Johnston, “Breaking News: Tax Revenues Plummeted.”
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “The gender wage gap is a myth,” Wall Street Journal (7/26/12).
“In Job-Placement Rates, Fuzzy Data,” Chronicle of Higher Education (7/16/12).
“Perry Misleads on Jobs,” www.factcheck.org (9/2/14)
“Misassigning Blame for Immigration Crisis,” www.factcheck.org (9/2/14)
Oct. 13. Columbus Day—no class.
Oct. 20. Quantitative Research II: Demography (Ex. 5)
Susan Bianchi & Lynne Casper, “American Families,” Population Bulletin (2000).
Oct 27. Quantitative Research III. Survey Research I: Research Design (Ex. 6)
Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2007,” Monitoring the
Future (2011).
9
Nov. 3. Quantitative Research IV. Survey Research II: Data Analysis (Ex. 7)
Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2007,” Monitoring the
Future (2011).
Nov. 10. Qualitative Research I: Intensive Interviewing (Ex. 8)
Waldorf, Reinarman, & Murphy: Cocaine Changes: The Experience of Using and
Quitting (1991).
Nov. 17 Qualitative Research II. Intensive Interviewing (Ex. 9)
Michael Atkinson. “Pretty in Ink: Conformity, Resistance, and Negotiation in Women’s
Tattooing,” Sex Roles (2002).
Nov 24. Qualitative Research II: Participant Observation (Ex. 10)
Greta Foff Paules, Excerpt from Dishing It Out: Power and Resistance among Waitresses
in a New Jersey Restaurant (1991).
Dec 1. Community Studies (Ex. 11)
Sharon Zukin et al. “New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and
Gentrification in New York City” (2009).
Dec. 8. Policy Analysis (Ex. 12)
Isabel Sawhill, “What Can Be Done to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Out of Wedlock
Births: A Policy Brief,” Brookings Institution (2001).
Steven Cohen: “Managing Workfare: The Case of the Work Experience Program in the
New York City Parks Department” (2008).
Dec. 15. Evaluation Research (Ex. 13)
Douglass Abbott et al, “The Influence of a Big Brothers Program on the Adjustment of
Boys in Single-Parent Families,” Journal of Psychology (1997).
Grossman and Tierney, “Does Mentoring Work? An Impact Study of the Big
Brothers/Big Sisters Program,” Evaluation Review (1998).
YOUR COMPLETE PORTFOLIO OF EXERCISES IS DUE AT THE LAST
CLASS ON DEC15. THE DEADLINE FOR THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL IS
DECEMBER 23 AND SHOULD BE SENT TO ME VIA EMAIL:
ssteinberg1@gc.cuny.edu