CRJ 70100: Survey of Research Methods. Fall 2011
Tuesdays and Thursdays, 4:15-5:45 pm
Professor Amy Adamczyk
Room: 520.02
Email: AAdamczyk@jjay.cuny.edu
Office hours: Tuesdays 3:15-4:15
Professor Valli Rajah
Room: 520-39
Email: VRajah@jjay.cuny.edu
Office hours: Tuesdays 3:15-4:15
“ ‘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
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This course is an introduction to the methodology of social sciences. Over the course of a year
we will explore the five essential components of any research project. We will examine: a) the
foundations of the research enterprise; b) how to plan and prepare a study; c) various methods of
data collection and analysis; d) how to communicate our findings to others; and e) the ethical
considerations involved in research. In our first semester, we will cover four of these topics. We
begin with the question of why and how we do social research. Then we will discuss research
design and the systematic nature of data collection that leads to data that can be trusted. We will
then address professional standards for the conduct of ethical research. Finally, we will consider
how to write up and present our research findings so they are well-received and best understood.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:
 Generate criminological research questions that can be empirically answered
 Demonstrate the ability to design and write a research proposal
 Critically evaluate (in oral and written form) published social science research
 Craft research that is ethically sound and meets professional standards for social
scientists
 Present research questions, approach, and findings in a clear and professional manner.
Importantly: This course is most emphatically not intended as a substitute for the more
specialized methodological training that successful dissertations demand. However, to be a
discerning scholar implies being able to learn from work that you have not done and would not
yourself do, to recognize quality answers to substantive questions outside of your own niche of
specialization, and to discuss intelligently the implications of new discoveries for the field as a
whole. Therefore the focus of this course is on developing your insights into the implications of
methodological choices, improving your ability to critically think about diverse methodologies,
and strengthening your confidence to discuss, evaluate and learn from many types of work. This
course cannot and will not try to “teach you all you need to know” about methods, but aims
instead to increase your ability to continually practice (and so develop) informed judgment about
methodology.
1
COURSE READINGS:
Below are two text books that you may find it helpful to consult if you need relatively simplified
information on a given topic. Articles have been placed on blackboard.
Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2011). The Practice of Research in Criminology and
Criminal Justice (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th edition). London: Sage
Publications.
COURSE ASSIGNMENTS:
A. Content memos: Students will write and submit eight memos during the semester. Four
memos will focus on course content. Content memos should be no longer than three doublespaced, typed pages in Times New Roman 12 pt. font. The content memos are:
Memo 1: Foundations for your research study (topic; literature; role of theory)
Identify and analyze a phenomenon that can be studied using a combination of qualitative &
quantitative research techniques. Give a brief statement of the identified phenomenon and why it
is an important topic to study. Provide a background of the problem that includes a brief review
of the literature studied. Provide four to five references to existing qualitative and quantitative
studies on the topic. Discuss how theory will inform your investigation. (Be sure to address
how theory will differentially inform a qualitative or quantitative inquiry into your chosen topic.)
Memo 2: Planning the study (research questions & sampling)
With your project in mind, create research questions where qualitative and quantitative research
techniques can be used to find answers. Qualitative research questions must be answerable,
exploratory, and open-ended (able to be developed as the study is underway). Ideally they will
be written with a specific qualitative approach (case study; phenomenology; ethnography, etc.) in
mind. Qualitative research questions typically interpret a situation, set of behaviors, or a setting.
They also typically focus on participants’ perspectives. Any qualitative study will include 3 or 4
interrelated research questions. Some examples of qualitative research questions include: How
do members of the inner city communities experience grief? How do Vietnamese immigrants in
New York view domestic violence? Why do teenagers join gangs?
With quantitative methods you typically have either one overarching research question and 3-4
specific hypotheses, or you have 3-4 general research questions/aims related to the same topic.
Use a couple of research questions/aims when you are sure about the question, but less clear
about what you expect to find. This typically happens when you are studying something that is
relatively new. If previous research suggests some fairly clear relationships, specific hypotheses
(typically 3-4) may be proposed. This may be particularly likely to happen when you are testing
mediators/processes. Whatever you do, don’t present all three (i.e. research methods, aims, and
specific hypotheses), as it might get confusing. Below are some examples:
2
Research question: How does involvement in afterschool programs shape young men’s
delinquency?
Aim: This research aims to identify the processes through which involvement in afterschool
programs is associated with delinquency.
Hypothesis: The relationship between young men being more involved with afterschool
programs and having lower levels of delinquency will, in part, be explained by them having less
unstructured free time.
Memo 3: Causality, Validity, and Reliability using quantitative data
For studies that rely on quantitative data causality, validity, and reliability are key concerns.
Describe these concerns as they relate to your specific research project and explain how you will
design your study to minimize these concerns.
Memo 4: Validity and reliability in the qualitative research
“Reliability” and “validity” relate well to the assumptions of the post-positivist paradigm.
Qualitative researchers, however, question the usefulness of these criteria for their work. Despite
skepticism, they have adapted the meaning of these terms to better fit the assumptions of
interpretivist and critical paradigms. Discuss how you will address credibility issues taking a
qualitative approach to your topic of study.
B. Critique memos: Each student will also write four memos critiquing other students’ content
memos. Your critiques should be constructive and specific. In each critique, you should discuss
the strengths and weakness of your peer’s memo. Include suggestions for improving the work.
Also, discuss any points of error, confusion or inconsistency. Finally, write at least 2 questions
for the author of the memo you evaluated. These questions should address areas of the memo
that you thought needed clarification, elaboration or revision. Memo critiques should be no
longer than one and a half, double-spaced, typed page. These memos are intended to help create
lively and focused discussion of each memo topic. They are also intended to help your
classmates improve their work.
Content and critique memos will be graded as follows:
Distinction (rare) = 5 points
High pass = 4 points
Pass = 3 points
Marginal = 2 points
No pass (but turned something in) = 1 point
Below are the dates when the memos and the memo critiques are due:
Date/time memo/critique is due
Topic
th
Saturday, September 17 (midnight): Memo 1 due via email (Foundations for your research
study) emailed to reviewer
th
Tuesday, September 20 (4:15 pm)
Critique due on Memo 1
Saturday, October 29th (midnight)
Memo 2 due via email (Planning the study)
st
Tuesday November 1 (4:15 pm)
Critique due on Memo 2
3
Saturday, November 5th (midnight)
Tuesday, November 8th (4:15 pm)
Saturday, November 12th (midnight)
Tuesday, November 15th (4:15 pm)
Memo 3 due via email (Causality, validity, and reliability
using quantitative data)
Critique due on Memo 3
Memo 4 due via email (Validity and reliability in the
qualitative research)
Critique due on Memo 4
C. IRB assignments
All students will have to complete two online Institutional Review Board modules. Information
about how to access these online modules will be given in class.
D. Article critique:
All students will have to critique a qualitative and a quantitative research article. Your critique
should provide a very brief – one paragraph for each article – summary of what you believe the
authors were attempting to do in each article before going on to consider specific elements of
each study in more detail. You should prioritize your comments to focus on what you believe to
be the most significant aspects of the authors’ methodological choices regarding research design.
We want you to focus your comments on the aspects of research that we have studied this
semester. These aspects may include: literature review, research question/aims/hypothesis
development, conceptualization, measurement, validity, reliability, sampling, and causality.
In your paper you may discuss, in various mixes, the following issues: (1) things you found
praiseworthy about what the researchers did; (2) things you thought the researchers might/should
have done differently or additionally that would have improved the study and their overall
manuscript; (3) choices you thought the authors were mistaken about; (4) discussion about how
the research was designed that you believe they should have discussed further; (5) choices that
enhance or detract from authors’ or others’ ability to replicate, extend or build on their research;
(6) the degree of confidence you have in the conclusions that the authors draw or the conclusions
that you think they should have drawn but did not draw.
Article evaluations will be graded based on how well they engage central issues but they cannot
be comprehensive, so PRIORITIZE. Remember you must address these concerns as they relate
to both quantitative and qualitative research. Evaluations need to be clearly written and
fundamentally grammatical but they are not intended to represent your most polished prose.
Article critiques should be 5-7 pages in length. The article critique is due on December 1st.
Below are the two articles you will have to critique:
Baly, Andrew R. 2010. “Leaving Abusive Relationships: Constructions of Self and Situation by
Abused Women.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25(12): 2297-2315.
Henning, Kris and Jennifer Connor-Smith. 2011. “Why Doesn’t He Leave? Relationship
Continuity and Satisfaction among Male Domestic Violence Offenders.” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 26(7): 1366–1387
4
E. Final paper
The course will culminate in a formal plan for future research that relies on mixed methods. In
this paper, you will focus on topics that we have covered this semester. The paper should
include the following elements: 1) statement of the problem, including research questions, aims,
and/or hypotheses; 3) literature review (brief account of what is known and what is missing); 3)
outline of the theoretical perspectives informing your research & how theory specifically informs
your design; 4) detailed account of the selected research approach including specific sampling
strategies, sample size, inclusion criteria, participants’ recruitment strategies; 5) criteria that you
will use to ensure trustworthiness (i.e. conceptualization, validity, reliability) of the project; 6)
discussion of how you will address the issue of causality; and 7) ethical concerns related to your
project. You will need to justify your plan using the readings from the course.
Each student will present his or her proposal at the end of the semester. Be prepared to give a
brief “defense” of your proposal (15 minutes) and also be prepared to offer feedback on the
proposals of your colleagues. The proposal should be no more than fifteen, double-spaced pages
in length. The final paper is due on December 13th.
EVALUATION
Class attendance and participation (10%)
Four memos (5% each for a total 20%)
Four critiques of other students’ memos (3% each for a total of 12%)
Two IRB assignments (2.5% each for a total of 5%)
One article critique (20%)
Final paper (33%)
All grades will be posted on Blackboard.
COURSE ADMINSTRATION/ CLASSROOM POLICIES:
Class participation: A seminar requires thoughtful participation by everyone. The professors’
role is to facilitate, guide, offer clarification and expertise. Frequent thoughtful participation can
raise your course grade above what is merited by your written work. Frequent absences and/or a
lack of participation may result in your grade being lowered below what you would receive
based solely on your written work.
Submission of late papers: Timely submission of your work is expected. However,
emergencies do occur. Therefore, if you notify us IN ADVANCE of an assignment’s due date
(not immediately before the class that it is due), we will consider your request for an extension.
In-class computer use: We do allow you to have laptops in the classroom so you can take notes.
However, you should be fully engaged in the discussions and not surfing the internet or checking
your email. There are two professors and a TA in this class. Hence, we can easily see if you are
online, which will result in a lower class participation grade.
Email: To correspond with students we will be using the university email system. Every student
has an account, which you can merge with other accounts (i.e. aol, yahoo). We will not be able
to honor requests to contact students through other email accounts.
Eating in the classroom: You are welcome to drink beverages in the classroom, but please do
not bring food (e.g. hamburgers), especially hot food that everyone can smell. If you bring in hot
food, we will ask you to get rid of the food or leave the classroom.
5
Some general points about written assignments: All written work is to be typed or computerprinted in 12-point font, double-spaced, spell-checked and proofread. Please provide full
citations for all articles referenced. Students are expected to retain a copy of their written work
until AFTER they receive their final grades at the end of the semester.
Academic honesty: In this course we will conform to the John Jay College plagiarism policy.
Please see student handbook for further details.
Class alterations: We reserve the right to make alterations to class content and requirements as
the semester progresses.
6
Date
Tuesday, August 30th
Thursday, September 1
Topic
Introduction
Qualitative research
and interpretive
approaches in
criminal justice
inquiry
Schedule and readings
Instructor
Readings
Rajah/Adamczyk
Rajah
Tewksbury, Richard. 2009. “Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods:
Understanding Why Qualitative Methods are Superior for Criminology
and Criminal Justice.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical
Criminology 1 (1): 23-37.
Tewksbury, Richard; Dabney, Dean and Heith Copes. 2010. “The
Prominence of Qualitative Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Scholarship.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 21 (4): 391-411.
Tuesday, September 6th
Quantitative
research and
deductive
approaches
Adamczyk
Becker, H.S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R.
Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human
development (pp.53-72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bruce DiCristina. 1997. The Quantitative Emphasis in Criminal Justice
Education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, Pp. 181199.
John L. Worrall. 2000. In Defense of the “Quantoids”: More on the
Reasons for the Quantitative Emphasis in Criminal Justice Education and
Research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, Pp. 353361.
Thursday, September 8th
Getting oriented to
social science
inquiry
Peter Mann. 1968. Methods of Sociological Enquiry. Schocken Books:
New York (Chapter 2).
Rajah/Adamczyk Emile Durkheim, “What is a Social Fact,” and “Rules for the Explanation
of Social Facts,” In The Rules of the Sociological Method, (Ed. by
Steven Lukes; trans. by W.D. Halls). New York: Free Press. (A)
C. Wright Mills, 1959. “On Intellectual Craftsmanship,” appendix to
The Sociological Imagination, (pp. 195-226) Oxford U. Press. (R)
7
Tuesday, September 13th
Theory and research
Thursday, September 15th Situating yourself in
the literature
Tuesday, September 20th
Thursday, September
22nd
Discussion of
foundations for your
research study
Deductive
approaches to
research
Rajah/Adamczyk Charles Tilly. 2004. "Observations of Social Processes and Their Formal
Representations." Sociological Theory 22:595-602. (A)
Adamczyk
Blumer, Herbert. 1954. “What’s wrong with social theory? American
Sociological Review 19 (1): 3-10 (R)
Firebaugh, G. 2008. Seven Rules for Social Research Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press (Chapter 1).
Becker, Howard. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and
Finish Your Thesis, Book or Article. University of Chicago Press.
(Chapter 1). (Available electronically through John Jay’s library
system).
Rajah/Adamczyk Memo 1 is due Saturday, September 17th (midnight)
Critique of memo 1 will be discussed in class and is due at 4:15 pm.
Adamczyk
Gary Kleck, Jongyeon Tark, Jon J. Bellows. 2006. “What methods are
most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice?”
Journal of Criminal Justice, 34: 147-152.
Peter Mann. 1968. Methods of Sociological Enquiry. Schocken Books:
New York (Chapter 3).
Tuesday, September 27th
Qualitative research
design
Rajah
Michael Wood and Christine Welch. 2010. “Are ‘Qualitative’ and
‘Quantitative’ Useful Terms for Describing Research?” Methodological
Innovations Online 5: 56-71.
Maxwell, Joseph, 2008. “Designing a qualitative study.” In L Bickman
and DJ Rog (Eds.), The handbook of applied social research methods,
second edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications
Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. (1994). Competing Paradigms in
Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Edited by
8
Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, pp. 105-117. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Cresswell, John. 2007. “Five approaches to qualitative inquiry.” Pp.
53-83 in Qualitative Inquiry& research design: Choosing among Five
approaches. Sage Publications.
Thursday, September 29th No Class: University
scheduled closing
Tuesday, October 4th
No Class: Classes
follow a Friday
schedule
th
Thursday, October 6
Quantitative
Adamczyk
research design/
causation
Bachman, Ronet and Russell K. Schutt. The Practice of Research in
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Only Pp 146-156)
Hedstrom, Peter and Ylikoski, Petri. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the
Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 36, pp. 49-67.
Tuesday, October 11th
Qualitative research
design
Rajah
Adital Ben-Ari and Enosh, Guy. 2011. Processes of Reflectivity,
Knowledge Construction in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Social
Work 10 (2): 152-171.
Sudhir Venkatesh. 2002. `Doin' the Hustle': Constructing the
Ethnographer in the American Ghetto. Ethnography 3 (1): 91-111.
Thursday, October 13th
Conceptualization & Adamczyk
measurement in
quantitative research
Jeff Ferrell. 1997. “Criminological Verstehen: Inside the immediacy of
crime.” Justice Quarterly. 14 (1): 3-23.
Gibbs, Jack P. 1989. “Conceptualization of Terrorism.” American
Sociological Review 54 (3) 329-40.
Ball, Richard A, Curry, G David. 1995. “The logic of definition in
criminology: Purposes and methods for defining ‘gangs’”. Criminology,
33, 225-245.
9
Tuesday, October 18th
Thursday, October 20th
Conceptualization & Rajah
measurement in
qualitative research
Quantitative
sampling
Adamczyk
Mark Bevir and Asaf Kedar 2008. “Concept Formation in Political
Science: An Anti-Naturalist Critique of Qualitative Methodology.”
Perspectives on Politics. 6: 503-517
Becker, Howard, 1958. “Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant
Observation.” American Sociological Review 23(6): 562-660.
Maxfield, Michael G. and Early R. Babbie. 2012. Basics of Research
Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, 3rd Edition. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth. (Only Pp. 132-153).
Maryse Marpsat and Nicolas Razafindratsima. 2010. “Survey Methods
for Hard-to-Reach Populations: Introduction to the Special Issue.”
Methodological Innovations Online 5: 3-16.
Choose one of the following to read:
Martine Quaglia and Geraldine Vivier. 2010. “Construction and Field
Applications of an Indirect Sampling Method (Time-location sampling):
An Example of Surveys Carried out on Homeless Persons and Drug
Users in France.” Methodological Innovations Online 5: 17-25.
Tuesday, October 25th
Qualitative sampling Rajah
Lisa G. Johnston and Keith Sabin. “Sampling Hard-to Reach Populations
with Respondent Driven Sampling.” Methodological Innovations Online
5: 38-48.
Coyne, Imelda. 1997. Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposive and
Theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries. Journal of
Advanced Nursing Research. 26: 623-630.
Abrams, L. S. (2010). “Sampling ‘Hard to Reach Populations’ in
Qualitative Research: The Case of Incarcerated Youth.” Qualitative
Social Work, 9(4), 1-15.
10
Thursday, October 27th
Tuesday, November 1st
Thursday, November 3rd
Tuesday, November 8th
Thursday, November 10th
Tuesday, November 15th
Thursday, November 17th
Tuesday, November 22nd
Validity and
reliability in
quantitative research
Discussion of memo
on planning a study
Validity in
qualitative research
Discussion of memo
on validity and
reliability in
quantitative research
Making claims and
writing up
Discussion of memo
on validity and
reliability in the
qualitative research
No Class: IRB
module I (ASC)
No Class: IRB
Adamczyk
Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Stanley Presser. 2003. "The science of asking
questions." Annual Review of Sociology 9: 65-88.
Pager, Devah and Lincoln Quillian. 2004. “Walking the Talk? What
Employers Say Versus What They Do.”
American Sociological Review .70 (3):355-81
Rajah/Adamczyk Memo 2 is due on Saturday, October 29th (midnight).
Critique of memo 2 will be discussed in class and is due at 4:15 pm.
Rajah
Guba, Egon, G. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of
naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, Vol.
29, No. 2 (Summer): 75-91.
Adamczyk
Rajah/
Adamczyk
Rajah
Seale, Clive. 1999. “Quality in qualitative research.” Qualitative Inquiry
5 (4): 465-478.
Memo 3 is due on Saturday, November 5th (midnight).
Critique of memo 3 will be discussed in class and is due at 4:15 pm.
Belgrave, L.L., Zablotsky, D., Guadagno, M.A. (2002). How do we talk
to each other? Writing qualitative research for quantitative readers.
Qualitative Health Research 12(10): 1427-1439. (R)
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. 2008.
The Craft of Research Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Chapters 7
to 11 and Chapters 12 to 14) (available online through the JJ library
system). (A)
Memo 4 is due on Saturday, November 12th (midnight).
Critique of memo 4 will be discussed in class and is due at 4:15 pm.
Completion of IRB Module 1 is due at 4:15 pm.
11
Thursday, November 24
th
Tuesday, November 29th
module II
No Class:
Thanksgiving Day
Ethics
Thursday, December 1st
Presentations
Tuesday, December 6th
Presentations
th
Thursday, December 8
Presentations
Tuesday, December 13th
Presentations
Total of 28 classes (excluding holidays)
Completion of IRB Module 2 is due at 4:15 pm (do it before dinner).
Rajah
Vanderstaay, S.L. (2005). One hundred dollars and a dead man: Ethical
decision making
in ethnographic fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 34 (4),
37-409
Klaus Hoeyer, Lisa Dahlager, Niels Lynoe. 2005. "Conflicting notions
of research ethics: The mutually challenging traditions of social scientists
and medical researchers." Social Science & Medicine 61: 1741–1749.
Rajah/Adamczyk Article critique is due at 4:15 pm.
Rajah/Adamczyk
Rajah/Adamczyk
Rajah/Adamczyk Final papers are due at 4:15 pm.
12