Qualitative Methods
RMDL 632
Fall 2009
Brenda Solomon, Ph.D., M.S.W.
bsolomon@uvm.edu
This course will survey qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis commonly used in the social sciences. Students will be given an opportunity to become familiar with several philosophical and interpretive frameworks. Students will develop a small research project using one of the approaches to inquiry discussed in the course.
Course Objectives
At the completion of this course, students will be able to:
• Discuss and explain the utility of qualitative research
• Compare and contrast methodological approaches presented in the course
• Carry out a small study using one of the approaches studied in the course
• Demonstrate skills in qualitative data collection, interpretation and analysis
Required Texts
Please note: All readings EXCEPT the Creswell text and the Biklen and Casella text will be available through electronic reserve. You should make arrangements to acquire a copy of the following:
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-1607-3
Biklen, Sari Knopp and Casella, Ronnie. (2007.). A practical guide to the qualitative dissertation. NY: Teachers College Press. ISBN 978-0-8077-4760-5
Evaluation
Grading is based on the following: Class participation: 40%; Project: 60%
Assignment 1
You are responsible for reading all articles and chapters assigned for each session. You should come to class prepared with comments and questions about the readings, making references to specific excerpts. You will be evaluated on the specificity and depth of your comments, questions, and analysis along with your ability to connect your remarks to related areas of your graduate study.
Assignment 2
In my experience, forming research questions and fine-tuning ideas about methodology, design, and analysis is a process that requires a lot of folders, articles, books and scribbled notes. By the time it all comes together as a (more or less) coherent piece, there are volumes of articles, books, and drafts of manuscripts to account for. In short, it is an organizational nightmare. That said, we are going to give it all a try. One way for the instructor and members of the class to discuss the particulars of data collection “in the field” is to carry out a study in common -- whereby all members of the class experience the same data collection opportunity at once. The context for this opportunity, simply involves watching movie clips. You will be viewing 8 film clips of family dinner scenes, one clip per session to be viewed after each meeting time. Your work related to observation, data collection and data analysis will be carried out and accounted for in 4 segments using the following format and at the specified due dates:
1st part of assignment
You (along side your classmates) will write up fieldnotes for each movie clip/dinner scene, along with asides, commentaries, and in-process memos. Furthermore, you will form sketches and episodes from the data (clip). Between each session for the first 4 sessions, you will swap your fieldnotes with a member of the class and comment on similarities and differences between your writing style, content, and personal and analytical remarks. You will begin to code the fieldnotes and remark on your position as a participant-observer. (This portion of your work is to be accomplished after each session, 1-4.)
2nd part of assignment
You will write a preliminary or first memo addressing six areas: 1) challenges in the field, 2) analytical hunches, preliminary interest, and areas of inquiry that may be formed from data collection thus far, 3) methodological insights and the methodological shape or direction of your notes, hunches, interests 4) personal reactions, 5) any other general observations you think may be important to note about your project. (Due Session 5.)
3rd part of assignment
You will continue to observe and write up fieldnotes for another 4 clips. You will code all of your fieldnotes. Also, at some point during this second half of your fieldnote writing, you will conduct an interview with one of the other members of the class (using approved consent forms and following ICSW IRB guidelines). For this interview you will develop an interview protocol related to a thematic area emerging from your data. (This portion of your work is to be accomplished after each session 5-8 [re: fieldnotes and coding] and by session 8 [re: interview]).
4th and final part of assignment
You will write a second and final memo addressing the following six areas: 1) a description of data gathering, 2) a description of coding procedures, 3) a description of categories and thematic areas emerging from your data (use excerpts from clips and interview), 4) explain the utility of your chosen methodological approach to this particular inquiry 5) note methodological insights, issues, and concerns that will serve as areas for further attention in future data collection opportunities, 6) discuss sources of meaning making you will draw from or expect will be important to your emerging analysis of data (These may be theoretical [i.e., psychoanalytic theory, Marxism], methodological [ie. institutional ethnography, discourse analysis, grounded theory, phenomenological], or what is often referred to as metatheories [i.e., social constructionism, intersectional analysis of oppressions]) and what some call interpretive communities (see Creswell) [i.e., postmodernist, critical theory, critical race theory, feminist, queer theory, disability theory.]) (Due 1 week after final session, Jan. 26.)
You will be evaluated on your ability to respond to each segment of the project with consideration for the richness and complexity of your work, the clarity of your writing, and your ability to make meaning and interpret data using the language of qualitative methodology.
Attendance
You are expected to attend each class. Participation can only be graded if you attend class. Absences will be factored into course grade.
Course Readings by Session
Philosophical & Interpretive Frameworks/What We Know and How We Know/Validity and Reliability (Session 1)
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Philosophical, paradigm, and interpretive frameworks (Chapter 2).
Naples, N.A. (2003). Epistemology, feminist methodology, and the politics of method (Chapter 2). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research. NY: Routledge.
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Standards of validation and evaluation (Chapter 10).
Haraway, D. (1997.) The presence of vision. In Katie Conboy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury (Eds.) Writing on the body: Female embodiment and feminist theory. NY: Columbia University Press.
On Beginning a Qualitative Study (Session 2)
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Designing a qualitative study (Chapter 3).
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Five qualitative approaches to inquiry (Chapter 4).
Biklen, Sari Knopp and Casella, Ronnie. (2007.) What makes a good dissertation?,
(Chapter 2), The qualitative proposal (Chapter 5), The chapters (Chapter 6). A practical guide to the qualitative dissertation. NY: Teachers College Press.
Data Collection/Fieldnotes (Session 3)
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Data collection (Chapter 7).
Campbell, Marie and Frances Gregor. (2002.) Collecting data for an institutional ethnography (Chapter 4). Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Aurora, Ont: Garamond Press.
Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I. and Shaw, Linda L. (1995.) Writing up fieldnotes II: Creating scenes on the page. (Chapter 4). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The U of Chicago Press.
Data Analysis and Representation/Coding and Memoing (Session 4)
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Data analysis and representation (Chapter 8).
DeVault, M. L. (1999.) Institutiional ethnography (Chapter 6). Liberating Method. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Campbell, Marie and Frances Gregor. (2002.) Analyzing data in institutional ethnography (Chapter 5). Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Aurora, Ont: Garamond Press.
Emerson, Robert M., Fretz, Rachel I. and Shaw, Linda L. (1995). Processing fieldnotes: Coding and memoing (Chapter 6). Wrtiting Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The U of Chicago Press.
Narrative and Biographical Studies (Session 5)
Refer to Creswell (2007.) Five different qualitative studies (Chapter 5) and Creswell (2007.) Writing a qualitative study (Chapter 9).
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Appendix B: Angrosino, Michael V. On the bus with Vonnie Lee.
Ronai, Carol Rambo (1996.) My mother is mentally retarded (pp. 109-131). In C. Ellis, & A. P. Bochner (Eds.) Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing. Walnut Greek, A: AltaMira.
Orr, Jackie. (1990). Theory on the market: panic, incorporating. Social Problems, 37, 4.
*Ellis, C. and Berger, L. (2003). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. Ch. 9 in Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein (eds.) Postmodern Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Phenomenology and Grounded Theory Studies (Session 6)
Refer to Creswell (2007.) Five different qualitative studies (Chapter 5) and Creswell (2007.) Writing a qualitative study (Chapter 9).
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Appendix C: Anderson, Elizabeth H. & Spencer, Margaret Hull. Cognitive representations of AIDS.
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Appendix D: Morrow, Susan L. & Smith, Mary Lee. Constructions of survival and coping by women who have survived childhood sexual abuse.
Seccombe, K., James, D., & Walters, K. B. (1998.) “They think you ain’t much of nothing”: The social construction of the welfare mother. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (4), 849-865.
Pandit, Naresh R. (1996.) The Creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 2 (4), December. Accessed at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
Ethnographies (Session 7)
Refer to Creswell (2007.) Five different qualitative studies (Chapter 5) and Creswell (2007.) Writing a qualitative study (Chapter 9).
Smith, George. (1998.) The ideology of “Fag”: The school experience of gay students. The Sociological Quarterly, 39 (2), 309-335.
Esteroff, Susan. (1981.) Medications (Chapter 5). Making It Crazy. Berkeley: U of California Press.
De Montigny, Gerald A.J. (1995.) Ideological practice (Chapter 2). Social Working: An Ethnography of Front-Line Practice. Toronto: U of Toronto Press.
Smith, D.E. (1990.) K is mentally ill (Chapter 2). Texts, Facts, and Femininity. NY: Routledge.
*Solomon, B. (2006.) “Go it alone” poverty in a small city: pockets of poor housing, the scrutiny of “busybodies,” and difficulty accessing support. J of Poverty, 10(4), 27-50.
Case Studies and Discourse Analysis (Session 8)
Refer to Creswell (2007.) Five different qualitative studies (Chapter 5) and Creswell (2007.) Writing a qualitative study (Chapter 9).
Creswell, John W. (2007.) Appendix F: Asmussen, Kelly J. & Creswell, John W. Campus Response to a student gunman.
Tolleson, J. (1996.) Subject 4: The case of Carl (pp. 179-193) and Summary of cross-case findings (pp. 219-235). The Transformative Power of Violence. Unpublished Dissertation, Smith College, Northampton, MA.
Adams, T. (2000.) The discursive construction of identity by community
psychiatric nurses and family members caring for people with dementia
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 791-798.
Wood, Julia T. (1994). Saying it makes it so: The discursive construction of sexual harassment. In Shereen G. Bingham (ed.) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
*Solomon, B. (2005.) Traditional and rights-informed talk about violence: High school educators’ discursive production of student violence. Youth & Society, 37(3), 251-286.