Qualitative Research Methodologies

KentStateUniversity

Professor: Erin O'Brien, Ph.D. POL-6/7091-001

Course Date and Time: Th 5:30-8:15 Fall 2006, SFH119

Office Hours: T 10-11, 3-5; Th 10-12 Office: Bowman 341

Office Phone: 330.672.8934 e-mail:

Course Description and Objectives. This course surveys the major research strategies open to students of politics and public policy, focusing on those that do not necessarily require the quantification of data. The course is broken up into five sections: (1) fundamental issues within qualitative and quantitative research; (2) research design; (3) data collection; (4) data analysis; and, (5) writing and publishing. This division provides seminar participants with the analytic skill sets necessary to design and carry forth sound research. It also exposes students to the multiple orientations and logics of social science that underlie qualitative research and empirical research more generally. This exposure offers ways of understanding social research that are potentially more helpful than the “qualitative/quantitative” categorization. My hope is that students leave this course with a solid grasp of the variety of research strategies available to them and confident in their ability to discuss fundamental issues endemic to the research process.

Course Requirements and Expectations. This is an advanced graduate seminar. By definition, this means that a substantial amount of material is covered each week. This is exacerbated in a methodology class where there are multiple takes on each issue and truly engaging these perspectives requires examples of methodology and research technique in practice. The reading load is therefore somewhat heavy, but I assure you that each reading was purposefully selected to advance your understanding of qualitative methodology. Critical and complete reading is thus a necessity. Beyond these general expectations, you must complete each of the following assignments to receive course credit:

  • Mid-term Examination: This examination is a take-home essay format and covers the first two sections of the course. The examination will be handed out October 5th and is due October 12th. Students will be asked to synthesize, reason with, and apply course concepts in much the same way that is expected for comprehensive exams. Close, analytic reading and application is required as is conversation across readings. A diversity of citations and themes is expected. The mid-term accounts for 30% of your final grade.
  • Discussion Leadership, Prompt Development and Engagement. The exact nature of this set of assignments will be determined following the first week of class. At a minimum, it will require seminar participants to select several weeks of interest, develop comprehensive style questions that emerge out of a synthetic read of the week’s assignment, and to systematically engage fellow seminar participant’s response to their question in class. The assignments will account for20% of your final grade.
  • Final Project: Prospectus. This assignment asks you to prepare a prospectus for a dissertation-size research project in light of course concepts and themes. The prospectus must be technically feasible and employ qualitative or mixed methods. All the normal elements of a prospectus are required: literature review driving to your research question(s); political and empirical relevance of these research question(s); research design; planned data collection and modes of data analysis; technical and ethical issues involved; timetable etc. Your prospectus should be empirically convincing to scholars across the discipline. This means explanations of why your research strategy is best equipped to answer the question(s) you pose are necessary. We will discuss the prospectus assignment in more detail as the semester progresses. Each seminar participant should schedule an individual consultation with me to discuss your research questions and strategy. The prospectus should be between 20-25 pages, double spaced, one-inch margins, Times New Roman Font. Attach a separate page to your prospectus that identifies two outside sources/programs that might fund your project. The prospectus accounts for 40% of your final grade and is due Monday December 11thbynoon in my office.
  • Professionalism and Participation: Learning is an interactive exercise that requires more than just your physical presence. This means that barring extraordinary circumstances you are expected to attend each seminar in full. It also means that what individual seminar participants put into our class sessions determines what each of us gets out of it. All of you have unique perspectives and substantive areas of interest and expertise. Please share them! Professionalism and participation require that you come to class prepared, ready to share your views, and willing to engage and learn from fellow seminar participants. I suggest coming to class each week with questions you want to pose, comments you think need to be made, or places you simply did not “get it.” Sharing these will be invaluable to seminar participants. Graduate learning is truly an empowering and fascinating process. I am excited about embarking on it with you.

Grading and Coursework:

Mid-term Paper 30%

Prompt Development and Leadership 20%

Final Project 40%

Professionalism and Participation 10%

OTHER ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Individual Advising: I am available during office hours, via e-mail, and by appointment. Please do not hesitate to contact me. I hold office hours because I want to help you learn and get to know my students. I got into this profession because I truly enjoy working with students, collaborating, and talking about research. This is difficult when you do not come by my office! If you are challenged by a particular concept, have some ideas you would like to run by me, want to talk more about something we have discussed, have some time to kill, or want to go over something else, come on by. I look forward to working with each of you!!

On e-mail: Do no send me anything over e-mail that you would not discuss with me in class or office hours. If you are unsure whether the issue is appropriate for e-mail, error on the side of coming by my office. I consider an issue broached over e-mail when I read it, not when it is originally sent. Do not be surprised to see e-mail from me in your “inbox.” If I think you contributed something really important in class, or if I think we need to meet, I will often e-mail you. I am also likely to e-mail the class as a whole when I come across something of interest to us. This requires that I have your correct e-mail address. Unless notified otherwise, I assume that the e-mail addresses provided to me by Kent are correct and will use them to contact you. Plan on checking your e-mail throughout the week for class communication. I hope that you will find the readings so engaging that you simply can not wait for class to begin discussing. E-mailing myself and the class is perfectly appropriate at these junctures. I hope we get into some interesting e-mail debates/discussions over the course of the semester.

Course Readings: The books listed below have been ordered for this class and are available at the bookstore. All other readings are contained in the course packet that has been created for this course. Course packets are available for purchase at Wordsmith in Kent. The address and phone number is: 402 E. Main Street, 330.677.9673. Call ahead and ask that they run packet number “30.” If you see Tim Bowman, please thank him for getting clean copies of the articles.

Howard Becker. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis,

Book, or Article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marc Bloch. 1953. The Historian’s Craft. New York: Vintage Books.

Robert Emerson, Rachel Fretz and Linda Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier. 2001. From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to

Historical Methods. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Ann Chih Lin. 2000. Reform in the Making.Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Herbert Rubin and Irene Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Robert Yin. 2003. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Plagiarism and Late Papers: The usual expectations for class work apply to this course. Late assignments will be penalized five points a day for each day they are late. If your work is late it is your responsibility to deliver a hardcopy to me in person. Extensions for the mid-term will be granted only under extraordinary circumstances and only if notice is given in advance. Cases of plagiarism or cheating will be pursued according to University rules. If you have any questions about what is appropriate, please feel free to consult with me in advance.

Disability: University policy 3342-3-18 requires that students with disabilities be provided reasonable accommodations to ensure their equal access to course content. If you have a documented disability and require accommodations, please contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester to make arrangements for necessary classroom adjustments. Please note, you must first verify your eligibility for these through Student Disability Services (contact 330.672.3391 or visit for more information on registration procedures). I would like to hear from anyone who has a disability that may require some modification of seating or other class requirements so that appropriate arrangements may be made.

Class Structure: Classes will be run in a seminar fashion. The success of this format depends on seminar participants coming to class prepared and ready to discuss the readings. A willingness to share and think critically is a necessity. Out of courtesy to seminar participants, please arrive to class punctually and turn off all cell phones. At most of our meetings, I will provide a brief lecture designed to draw out points of coherence in the readings, place them in the context of a broader intellectual and political history, and highlight some of the main theoretical issues and conceptual problems associated with the topic under consideration. During these lectures, I encourage you to ask for clarification, and to raise questions or alternative perspectives that you feel we should discuss at greater length. Beyond these brief lectures, our sessions will be open-ended discussion of the week’s topic. These discussions will rely heavily on the interests, viewpoints, and preparation of class members.

Syllabus Alternations: I reserve the right to alter the syllabus over the course of the semester.

SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Week 1. Introduction to the Course.

August 30.

  1. Commonalities and Differences Across Social Science

Week 2. Commonalities and Differences: Standpoint, Rhetoric and Potential Divides

September 7.

Should Methods Be Central?

  • Lawrence Mayer. 2002. “The Centrality of Epistemology in Methodology.” PS. 35(1): 121-25.
  • Gregory J. Kasza. 2005. “Quantitative Methods: Reflections on the Files of Recent Job Applicants.” In Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. YaleUniversity Press. 13 pages.

Qualitative v. Quantitative?; Qualitative and Quantitative? No Difference?

  • Karen McElrath. 2001. “Confessions of a Quantitative Criminologist.” ACJS Today. 24(4): 1-7.
  • David Collier, Jason Seawright, and Henry Brady. 2003. “Qualitative versus Quantitative: What Might This Distinction Mean?” Qualitative Methods. 1(1): 4-8.
  • Martyn Hammersley. 1992. “Deconstructing the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide.” What’s Wrong with Ethnography?New York: Routledge. 159-73.
  • Toby Epstein Jayaratne and Abigail Stewart. 1991. “Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies.” Beyond Methodology. IndianaUniversity Press. 85-106.

What Methods Can and Can’t Do

  • Cathy Cohen. 1999. “Invisible to the Centers for Disease Control.” The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 119-148.

Week 3. Orientations to Social Science: Positivist, Interpretivist, and Critical

September 14.

Positivist

  • Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press. 3-49.
  • Kathryn Edin. 1991. “Surviving the Welfare System: How AFDC Recipients Make Ends Meet in Chicago.” Social Problems. 38(4): 462-474.

Interpretivist

  • Clifford Geertz. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” The Interpretation of Cultures.New York: Basic Books. 3-32.
  • Carol Stack. 1974. “Swapping.” All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row. 32-44.

Critical

  • Dennis K. Mumby. 2004. “Discourse, Power, and Ideology: Unpacking the Critical Approach.” In D. Grant et al., eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 237-58.
  • Frances Fox Piven. Forthcoming. “From Public Sociology to Politicized Sociologists.”
  1. Research Design

Week 4. Case Studies.

September 21.

Typologies, Uses, and Selection Strategies for Generalization

  • Robert Yin. 2004. Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1-53.
  • Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1994. “Grounded Theory: Methodology.” In Denzin and Lincoln, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. 273-85.
  • Anton Kuzel. 1999. “Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry.” In Doing Qualitative Research. Benjamin Crabtree and William Miller eds. London: Sage. 33-45.

Examples

  • Thomas J. Sugrue. 1995. “Crabgrass-roots Politics: Race, Rights, and the Reaction Against Liberalism in the Urban North.” Journal of American History. 82(2): 551-78.
  • Herbert Kaufman. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior.Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press. 3-22.

Week 5. Comparative Case Studies: Generally and Across Nations

September 28.

Why Compare? What to Compare? Comparing for . . .

  • Charles Ragin. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press. 19-53.
  • Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. PrincetonUniversity Press. 75-149,208-230.
  • Peter A. Hall. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research” In J. Mahoney and D. Reuschemeyer, eds. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press. 373-404.

Examples

  • Ann Chih Lin. 2000. Reform in the Making.Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. 3-14, 160-85.
  • David Laitin. 1999. "National Revivals and Violence," in Bowen and Petersen, Critical Comparisons in Politics and Culture. 21-60.
  • Erin O’Brien. 2005. “’They Have to Take the Longway to the Shortcut Too:’ Identity Politics and Out-Group Solidarity.” (Not In Packet)

Week 6. Historical Analysis: Uses, N’s, Comparability, and Cutoffs

October 5.

Solo and Comparative Historical Case Study Analysis

  • Marc Bloch. 1953. The Historian’s Craft. New York: Vintage. Introduction, 3-47.
  • Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. James Mahoney and Dietrick Rueschemeyer eds. Cambridge. 305-336.
  • Alisdiar MacIntyre. 1979. “Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?” in Against the Self-Images of the Age: Essays in Ideology and Philosophy. New York: Schocken Books. 260-279.
  • Paul Pierson. 2003. “Big, Slow-Moving, and . . . Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer eds. CambridgeUniversity Press. 177-207.

Example

  • Robert Putnam. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. 3-16, 121-85.

**Mid-term handed out**

  1. Data Collection

Week 7. Entering the Field: Identity, Ethics, and other General Issues

October 12.

Entering and Negotiating the Field: Access, Identity, Roles, and Tradeoffs

  • Danny Jorgensen. 1989. Participant Observation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 40-52, 69-81.
  • Patrick Coy. 2001. "Shared Risks and Research Dilemmas on a Peace Brigades International Team in Sri Lanka." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 30:575-606.
  • Ann Chih Lin. 2000. "Appendix 2: On Being Who You Are: Credibility, Bias, and Good Research" In Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison. PrincetonUniversity Press. 186-194.

Ethics, IRBS, and Politics

  • Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman. 1994. “Ethical Issues in Analysis.” Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 288-97.
  • Luad Humphreys. 1970. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine. 16-44, 167-173.
  • KentState IRB Handbook: (review this website)

**Mid-term due**

Week 8. Being in the Field: Roles and Writing

October 19.

Goals and Membership Roles

  • Richard Fenno. “The Political Scientist as Participant Observer” in Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley. 55-94.
  • Patricia Adler and Peter Adler. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 32-78. (start at “membership roles in field research” subheading)

Writing Fieldnotes

  • Robert Emerson, Rachel Fretz and Linda Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. read start with “implications” subheading: 11-38; skim: 66-141.

Examples

  • Elliot Liebow. 1993. Tell Them Who I Am: The Lives of Homeless Women. New York: Penguin Press. vii-xviii, 51-79.
  • Michael N. Barnett. 1997. “The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda.” Cultural Anthropology. 12(4): 551-78.

Week 9. Interviews.

October 26.

Interviews: Typologies, Goals, Realities, and Constructing an Interview Schedule (oh my!)

  • Herbert Rubin and Irene Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 1-14, 42-48, 65-92, 145-225.
  • Robert Peabody et al. 1990. “Interviewing Political Elites.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 23: 451-455.
  • Joe Soss. 2006. “Talking Our Way to Meaningful Explanations: A Practice-Centered Approach to In-Depth Interviews for Interpretive Research.” In D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Shea, eds. Interpretation and Method. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Examples

  • Dennis Chong. 1993. "How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties." AmericanJournal of Political Science. 37: 867-899.
  • Ann Chi Lin. 2000. Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. 3-14, 60-97.

Week 10. Focus Groups: Focusing to What End?

November 2.

Focus Groups: Uses and Challenges

  • David Morgan and Richard Krueger. 1993. “When to Use Focus Groups and Why.” In D.L. Morgan ed. Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 3-19.
  • David Morgan. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. NewburyPark: Sage Publications. 7-30.

Examples