CCI 643: Qualitative C&I Research Methods II

Spring 2017

Class Location/Time Communications Building 264, Thursdays 12:00 – 3:00 PM

Instructor Dr. Michael J. Palenchar

Contact Information 476 Communications Building, 974-9082,

Office Hours Mondays 2:00-3:00 PM, Thursdays 9:00-11:00 AM, or by appointment

Catalog Description Advanced theory and application of qualitative research methods to communication and information research.

Course Description & Goals

This is a follow-up course to CCI 635: Qualitative C&I Research Methods I, an introductory qualitative methods course. Its overall goal is to increase students’ understanding of qualitative epistemology and methodology. Therefore, this advanced course will focus on developing proficiency in conducting qualitative research by deepening the theoretical and practical understandings of:

  • Paradigmatic differences, including their influence on research design, data collection, organization and analysis.
  • Qualitative methodologies (e.g., ethnography, case study, etc.).
  • Qualitative methods (e.g., participant observation, focus groups, document analysis).
  • Inductive and deductive data analysis approaches and strategies.
  • Issues specific to quality of qualitative inquiry such as credibility, rigor, transparency, ethics and reflexivity.

While the course cannot cover all aspects in sufficient depth for students to walk away as qualitative research experts, successful outcomes will also include:

  • Demonstrated ability to conduct and critically discuss, evaluate and present qualitative research
  • Completed conference-quality/academic journal research papers.

As a graduate seminar, this course is organized around a lecture/discussion format. It requires your regular informed participation, and your careful, critical reading of all material assigned for each week. In addition to your reading and participation in class discussion, there are various assignments for the course. Spelling and grammar are important in these assignments and severe deductions will occur for careless mistakes (if you need help with your writing, please hire an editor or seek help at the Writing Center on campus). In general, papers are to be analytical and probing. References you consult should be cited 6th edition APA style. The task is to examine the material in depth and to demonstrate your own independent thinking about the subject matter. To prepare each paper, it is necessary to have read, carefully and critically, all the material assigned not only for that week but for all previous weeks as well. We will spend some class time every day discussing your papers. In general, papers are to be analytical and probing. The task is to examine the material in depth and to demonstrate your own independent thinking about the subject matter.

Strategies

  • Use course readings and assignments that, to the extent possible, coordinate with students’ data collection, analysis and writing timelines.
  • Enlist students to help select readings and lead workshop-style discussions on topics and techniques related to the iterative research process and dilemmas that may emerge
  • Provide hands-on, practical training and tips in workshop-style classes – led by the instructor, students and even guests
  • Spotlight examples of published qualitative studies in their “before” and “after” stages – to highlight strategies for various research stages – including the submission and revision process
  • Guide students to complete by the end of the semester a finished conference-quality research paper that uses qualitative methods (either individual or class-based)
  • Host a mini-conference where students present and discuss posters to share their research with their peers and guests (will depend on conference paper assignment we choose)

Course Format & Required Texts

Considerable readings and materials will be assigned throughout the semester that will be made available via UT Course Reserves, UT library databases, web or Blackboard

Books (Available at the UT Bookstore)

Required

  • American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication Manual (6th edition).
  • McCracken, Grant. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Goffman, Erving. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Morgan, David L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Jorgensen, Danny L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Additional Recommended Books:

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Clifford, James., & Marcus, George E. (Eds). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press.
  • Gubrium, Jaber F., & Holstein, James A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. Oxford University Press.
  • Plummer, Ken. (2001). Documents to life 2: An invitation to a critical humanism. Sage.
  • Meloy, Judith M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I., & Shaw, Linda L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.

CCI Diversity Statement: CCI recognizes and values diversity. Exposing students to diverse people, ideas and cultures increases opportunities for intellectual inquiry, encourages critical thinking, and enhances communication and information competence. When all viewpoints are heard, thoughtfully considered, and respectfully responded to, everyone benefits. Diversity and fairness unite us with the wider professional and global community.
Disability Accommodation Statement: Any student who feels s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact with one of your instructors privately to discuss your specific needs. Please contact the Office of Disability Services at 865-974-6087 in 2227 Dunford Hall to coordinate reasonable accommodations for students with documented disabilities.

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

This course adheres to the university’s Academic Standards of Conduct and Honor Statement, as presented in the student handbook Hilltopics.

“An essential feature of the University of Tennessee is a commitment to maintaining an atmosphere of intellectual integrity and academic honesty. As a student of the University, I pledge that I will neither knowingly give nor receive any inappropriate assistance in academic work, thus affirming my own personal commitment to honor and integrity.”

All students are expected to be honorable and to observe standards of conduct appropriate to a community of students and scholars. All work in this course should be the student’s original work. Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course, dismissal from the program and dismissal from the University. Since dishonesty harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. Scholastic dishonesty includes plagiarizing, which according to Merriam-Webster is “[using] the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas.” Therefore, handing in work that contains material written by someone else, whether it is a current or former student or a secondary source, and presenting it as your own efforts is a clear instance of plagiarism.

APA Ethics Code Standard 8.11, Plagiarism: This course also adheres to the American Psychological Association’s ethics code regarding plagiarism and self-plagiarism (pp. 15-16, APA Publication Manual, 6th edition). “Just as researchers do not present the work of others as their own (plagiarism), they do not present their own previously published work as new scholarship (self-plagiarism)” (p. 16). This includes work completed for a previous class or any other circumstance including work, conference paper, book chapter, book or personal reasons, and any material under review for presentation or publication. If you have questions about this, see the instructor right away.

POLICIES:

  • This course adheres to the university’s Academic Standards of Conduct and Honor Statement, as presented in the student handbook Hilltopics. All students are expected to be honorable and to observe standards of conduct appropriate to a community of students and scholars.
  • This course adheres to the university’s policy regarding the use and release of student records that are governed by Public Law 93-380, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Tennessee Public Records Act (FERPA), which charges the university and its employees with protecting the confidentiality of the educational records or its prospective, current and former students.
  • Students must meet pre-requisite and co-requisite requirements for this course. Students are required to ensure their proper registration for the course.
  • Students are expected to attend all classes, arrive on time and participate in class discussion. Since this is a doctoral seminar, students are especially expected to attend all classes.
  • In general, students will not be allowed to make up missed work. Exceptions to this policy will be limited to documented exceptional circumstances (i.e., travel authorized by the university, documented emergencies). Important dates have been announced in advance in the syllabus so that students can schedule other activities around these deadlines. Exceptions will be rare and at the discretion of the instructors.
  • Syllabus is subject to change, as instructors deem appropriate and necessary.
  • All discussions will be ruled by mutual respect for people and their opinions.

Lead Discussant/Respondent: Each student will lead class discussion for several assigned readings throughout the semester, as well as be a synthesis respondent at the end of class periods. This is not a formal presentation. The objective of this assignment is for each student to lead a critical discussion of reading assignments, reviewing the main topic of the paper, methodology analysis, critique of results and discussion sections, as well as analyzing the writing style and academic outlet of the assigned piece. This can include elements such as background of the author(s), submission policy of the journals, editorial board of the journal, benefits to the body of knowledge, commonalities with other assigned readings that day, research stream of the authors, university affiliations, etc. The synthesis respondent will provide a concise synthesis of all the readings that day or related to the topic over several days.

GRADE

Each doctoral student will negotiate with the professor what assignments they will complete this semester and the value of those assignments that are best suited for each students’ course of study toward completion of a dissertation. If an agreement cannot be reached, the professor will assign assignments and related grade values for those assignments as indicated below.

University of Tennessee’s Grading Scale for Graduate Level Courses:

A Superior performance

B+ Better than satisfactory performance

BSatisfactory performance

C+Less than satisfactory performance

CPerformance well below the standard expected of graduate students

DClearly unsatisfactory performance and cannot be used to satisfy degree requirements

FExtremely unsatisfactory performance and cannot be used to satisfy degree

Requirements

Assignments

  • Participation, Lead Discussant, Misc. Assignments & Exercises (10%)
  • Final Exam – Dissertation Comprehensive Qualitative Research Question (10%)
  • Completed, Primary Research Piece (40%)

This paper must include qualitative primary research conducted this semester or a previous semester (including IRB approval) utilizing the methods covered in class and should address the purpose/goal of the research, research questions, data gathering and analysis, findings and discussion. If you have developed a proposal in another graduate class, this would be a great time to complete that paper for this assignment. Final submission should be academic conference or journal ready.

  • Research Paper (partial completion) or Qualitative Dissertation Proposal (40%)

Do sufficient reading, fieldwork, to write a qualitative based, interpretive humanism orientation research proposal and partially to fully complete paper. You can also choose the option of putting together your qualitative dissertation proposal.

Class Schedule

Week 1: January 12: Introduction

Week 2: January 19: Overview

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (CR)
  • Jackson, R. L., Drummond, D. K., & Camara, S. (2007). What is qualitative research? Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 21-28.
  • Be prepared to discuss your two paper assignments for this semester. Please have your purpose statement and research questions drafted for each project.

Week 3: January 26: Presentation of Self

  • Goffman, Erving. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Be prepared to discuss in detail the first graded project for the class, which is something each of you has already started. Remember, the goal is having it finished for submission to a major conference or major journal. When we leave class on Thursday our goal is for each of you to have an attainable plan for finishing (sooner in the semester rather than later) and submitting, and building the first analysis weeks around helping you each accomplish it.

Week 4: February 2: Critical Evaluation of Qualitative Research

  • Freedman, D. H. (2010, December 10). Why scientific studies are so often wrong: The streetlight effect. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Watters, E. (2013, March/April). We aren’t the world. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read Chapter 4: Criteria for Evaluation, pp. 297-312.
  • Boman, J., & Jevne, R. (2000). Pearls, pith, and provocation: Ethical evaluation in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 10(4), 547-554.
  • Ryan, P. (2006). Researching Irish gay male lives: Reflections on disclosure and intellectual autobiography in the production of personal narratives. Qualitative Research, 6, 151-168.
  • Supa, D. W. (2009). The origins of empirical vs. critical epistemology in American communication. American Communication Journal, 11(3).
  • CCI RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM THIS WEEK!

Week 5: February 9: Analysis Workshop

  • Bring in 1-2 transcripts/documents that you will be analyzing from your own work/assignment for this class/dissertation
  • Send me the method section of this work you will be analyzing - or at least the approach you tend to take if you are still learning/figuring it out
  • Find an article that uses very similar method with the method that you are using in your work and bring to class

Week 6: February 16: Analysis Workshop

  • Bring in 1-2 transcripts/documents that you will be analyzing from your own work/assignment for this class/dissertation
  • Send me the method section of this work you will be analyzing - or at least the approach you tend to take if you are still learning/figuring it out
  • Find an article that uses very similar method with the method that you are using in your work and bring to class

Week 7: February 23: Phenomenology, Dissertation, Research Software, and Analysis Development

  • Guest Speaker, Doctoral Candidate Laura Lemon

Week 8: March 2: Mixed Methods

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing mixed methods research. Chapter one from Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (This is attached, it's the publisher's clean copy in production.
  • Wisdom, J., & Creswell, J. W. (2013, February). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2013. AHRQ Publication No. 13-0028-EF. (get PDF online)
  • Mertens D. M., Bazeley P., Bowleg L., Fielding N., Maxwell J., Molina-Azorin J. F., Niglas K. (2016). The future of mixed methods: A five year projection to 2020. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) Google Scholar (Links to an external site.)
  • Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2017, Volume 11, Issue 1
  • The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade
  • “The Future of Mixed Methods: A Five Year Projection to 2020”
  • Narrowing the Divide
  • Mixed Methods in Search of a Problem
  • Reflexive Methodological Pluralism
  • Small Area Census Approach to Measure the Township Informal Economy in South Africa
  • Mixed Methods Research in the Study of Political and Social Violence and Conflict
  • A Nested Analysis of Electoral Donations
  • Underreporting Discrimination Among Arab Americans and Muslim American Community College Students
  • Changes in Social Networks and HIV Risk Behaviors Among Homeless Adults Transitioning Into Permanent Supportive Housing

Week 9: March 9: Critical Theory

  • Guest Speaker, Associate Professor Erin Whiteside
  • Polson, E. (2011). Belonging to the network society: Social media and the production of a new global middle class. Communication, Culture & Critique, 4, 144-163.
  • Kotchemidova, C. (2005). Why we say "cheese": Producing the smile in the Snapshot photography. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(1), 2-25.
  • Whiteside, E., Hardin, J., DeCarvalho, L. J., Carillo, N. M., & Smith, A. N. (2013). "I am not a cow": Challenging narratives of empowerment in teen girls sports fiction. Sociology of Sport, 30, 415-434.

Week 10: March 16: Spring Break (no class)

Week 11: March 23: Research Papers/Dissertation Workshops

  • Students meet individually with professor to discuss their two papers, dissertation proposals, conference presentations, etc. as needed: 30-60 minutes each.

Week 12: March 30: Focus Groups

  • Morgan, David L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • University of Wisconsin – Office of Quality Improvement. (2007). Focus groups: A guide to learning the needs of those we serve. Madison, WI.

Week 13: April 6: Participant Observation

  • Jorgensen, Danny L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Family Health International. Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide (Module 2 – Participant Observation).

Week 14: April 13: Long Interviews & Semi-Structured Interview Guide Development

  • McCracken, Grant. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Dalton, E. D. (2014). Communication, control, and time: The lived experience of uncertainty in adolescent pregnancy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

Week 15: April 20: Interview Guides (cont.), Grounded Theory & Narrative Theory

 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

 Poe, P. Z. (2012). Direct-to-consumer drug advertising and “health media filters”: A qualitative study of older adult women’s responses to DTC ads. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20, 185-199.

 Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monograph, 51(1), 1-22.

 Burns, J. E. (2015). Recruiting prospective students with stories: How personal stories influence the process of choosing a university. Communication Quarterly, 63(1), 99-118.

Week 16: April 27: Beyond the Classroom/Paper presentations

  • Preparing conference presentations, converting conference papers to journal articles, and grant writing
  • Final Paper Presentations – Classroom academic conference with presenters and respondents

PAPERS DUE NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 5TH, MIDNIGHT.