course syllabus ssc 271g: intermediate qualitative ... · intermediate qualitative research methods...

1

Course Syllabus SSC 271G: Intermediate Qualitative Research Methods

Tuesdays, 13:30-16:30, VeCo2 Instructor: Olesya Tkacheva, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

Number of ECTS credits: 6 Contact Details: Tel: 02 614 81 79 E-mail: [email protected] Office hours: VeCo -1.65, Wed, noon-13:00 and by appointment

Table of Content

Description and Prerequisites ..................................................................................................... 2

Learning Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2

Overview Table: Link between MLO, CLO, Teaching Methods, Assignments and Feedback .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Business Studies Majors ........................................................................................................................... 3 Communication Majors ............................................................................................................................. 6 International Affairs Majors .................................................................................................................... 8 International and European Law Majors ......................................................................................... 11

Main Course Material ................................................................................................................... 14

Course Assessment: Assignments Overview and Grading Scale ................................... 14

Description of Assignments, Activities and Deadlines ..................................................... 15 35%: in-class mid-term (on October 7) ............................................................................................ 15 35%: Portfolio (due on Dec 5 in class).............................................................................................. 15 Homework Assignments (about 500 words each, due on Sep 4, 26, Oct 17) ...................... 17

Rubrics: Transparent Criteria for Assessment .................................................................... 18 Rubrics for the Mid-Term Exam .......................................................................................................... 18 Rubrics for HW 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Rubrics for HW 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Rubrics for HW 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Policies for Attendance, Later Work, Academic Honesty, Turnitin .............................. 26

Additional Course Policies .......................................................................................................... 26

Course Schedule – Overview ...................................................................................................... 28

Detailed Session-by-Session Description of Course .......................................................... 29 Part I: What is Qualitative Research for? ........................................................................................ 29 Part II: What Data do We Need for Qualitative Inquiry? ............................................................. 31 Part III: How Can We Analyse Qualitative Data? ............................................................................ 34

2

Description and Prerequisites Course Description: This course will give an overview of key qualitative methodologies relevant for Business, Communications, International Affairs, and International and European Law majors. The students will learn how to frame a research question, to collect and analyze qualitative data in order to address an important policy or social science issue. Teamwork and interactive exercises will prepare students to pursue an independent research project. Course Prerequisites: HUM 101G

Learning Objectives Introducing students to qualitative research methods and providing a foundation for conducting an independent qualitative inquiry.

A. In terms of knowledge: 1. Recognition of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of qualitative research as

applied to business studies, communications, international affairs, and international and European law;

2. Deep understanding of alternative traditions of qualitative research; 3. Awareness of ethical implications of social science research.

B. In terms of skills: 1. Formulate a valid social science research question; 2. Identify and collect qualitative data to answer the research question; 3. Conduct face-to-face interviews; 4. Analyze a wide variety of qualitative data using a software package; 5. Induce from qualitative data explanations of a social science phenomenon and

articulate them clearly.

C. In terms of attitudes: 1. Greater commitment to ethical standards for conducting social science research; 2. Increased objectivity in evaluating social science research, including student own

research; 3. Greater appreciation for the diversity of methodological approaches 4. Greater independence and confidence when conducting own research project.

3

Overview Table: Link between MLO, CLO, Teaching Methods, Assignments and Feedback Number of assignments used in this course: 5 Number of Feedback occasions in this course: 12 Number and Types of Teaching Methods: 5

Business Studies Majors

Major Learning Objectives

Course Learning objectives addressing the Major Objectives (choose the most important ones that your course actually addresses)

Methods used to Teach Course Objectives

Methods (and numbers/types of assignments) used to test these learning objectives

Type, Timing and Numbers of Feedback given to Student

The bachelor knows and is able to apply common qualitative and quantitative research methods and is able to apply these in the field of business studies

A1: recognition of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of qualitative research as applied to business studies

lectures include plenty of examples from business studies and organizational theory, required textbook focuses on research methods for business majors

HW 1 (see rubrics 1, 2, 3) tests student ability to locate and present cutting edge applications of qualitative methods for business and organizational research

Summative written assessment from the instructor within 10 days of submission

4

A2: understanding of alternative traditions of qualitative research

Assigned readings and lectures emphasize the diversity of epistemological and ontological approaches; podcasts feature presentations by a distinguished faculty at top-notch universities and provide alternative view on the same topic; a guest-speaker presentation focuses on the application of qualitative methods to organizational decision- making

HW 2 (see rubrics 1, 2, 3) tests the ability to provide practical illustration of the use of specific approach; Midterm (see rubrics 1, 2) tests for knowledge and ability to apply an approach to a new context

Written feedback from the instructor within 10 days of submission

B1: formulate a research question

Lectures contain examples from scholarly articles and student research papers to illustrate alternative ways to formulate a research question; teamwork during Activity 2 & 3 enables students to apply readings to develop their own research questions

Observation of students during Activity 2 & 3 +Portfolio (rubrics 1a -1c)

Formative feedback in-class and office hours, written feedback within 10 days of submission

B2: identify and collect qualitative data to answer the research question

readings and lectures provide examples of alternative sampling techniques and emphasize the diversity of qualitative data; guest-speaker presentation exposes to additional types of qualitative data, Activity 4 teaches synergy between data and a research question

Observation of student work during Activities 4 & 5 and Portfolio (rubrics 2a-3d)

Formative feedback in-class from peers and the instructor, feedback during office hours, summative written feedback within 10 days of submission

B3: conduct face-to-face interviews

Podcasts illustrate cutting-edge interviewing techniques, lectures and readings emphasize skills critical for interviewing business elite, jigsaw puzzle exercise fosters further understanding, and in-class mock peer interviews (Activity 5) provide practice

In-class observation of mock-interviews, HW3 (rubrics 1 and 2 and Portfolio (rubrics 3a-3d)

Formative feedback in-class from peers and the instructor, written feedback within 10 days of submission

5

B4: Analyze a wide variety of qualitative data using a software package

In-class activities provide hands-on experience coding data using computer software; lectures and readings introduce students to different approaches to coding

Observation of students during of Activity 7 which facilitates learning of Dedoose software and Activity 8, which provides opportunity for peer feedback, Portfolio (rubrics 4a-4d,)

written summative assessment within 10 days of submission

B5: Induce from qualitative data explanations of a social science phenomenon and to articulate them effectively

Activity 6 provides hands-on opportunities for revising students’ work; Activity 8 introduces students to the writing standards in the leading business journals.

In-class Q&A sessions during Activity 2, 6, 8, Portfolio (rubrics 5a-5c)

Formative feedback from the instructor during in-class exercises, written summative assessment within 10 days of submission

The bachelor is able to combine ethical and business-oriented judgments in the analysis of business problems and takes these ethical considerations explicitly into account in the solutions proposed for business problems

C1: Greater commitment to ethical standards for conducting social science research

Readings and lectures contain real life examples and consequences of violating ethical standards for social science research

Portfolio (rubric 2c) and midterm exam (rubric 4)

Written summative assessment from the instructor within 10 days of submission

6

Communication Majors






Knowing and applying the most common qualitative and quantitative methods research in communication science.

A1: recognition of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of qualitative research as applied to communication science

lectures include plenty of examples from communication and media studies

HW 1 (see rubrics 1, 2, 3) tests student ability to locate and present cutting edge applications of qualitative methods for communication and media studies



Assigned readings and lectures emphasize the diversity of epistemological and ontological approaches; podcasts feature presentations by a distinguished faculty at top-notch universities and provide alternative view on the same topic



7










Podcasts illustrate cutting-edge interviewing techniques, lectures and readings emphasize skills critical for interviewing diverse types of participants, jigsaw puzzle exercise fosters further understanding, and in-class mock peer interviews (Activity 5) provide practice





Observation of students during of Activity 7 which facilitates learning of Dedoose software and Activity 8, which provides opportunity for peer feedback, Portfolio (rubrics 4a-4d)


8


Activity 6 provides hands-on opportunities for revising students’ work; Activity 8 introduces students to the writing standards in the leading journals for communications and media studies



Identify the ethical dimension of a comm. problem and to acknowledge different point of view

C1: Greater commitment to ethical standards for conducting social science research;




International Affairs Majors






The bachelor knows and is able to apply common qualitative and quantitative research methods and is able to apply these in the field of international affairs





9

















10









The bachelor is able to include ethical judgments in his analysis of current problems in international affairs and assesses the impact of these ethical judgments on the solutions proposed for current international affairs





11

International and European Law Majors






Enhance the student’s ability to use the appropriate research methods and tools









12











In-class observation of mock-interviews, HW3 (rubrics 1 and 2) and Portfolio (rubrics 3a-3d)






13





Stimulate an awareness of the normative dimension of international and European legal policies and of related ethical, social and operational problems and dilemmas





14

Main Course Material Required textbook: For Business Studies majors:

Alan Bryman and Emma Bell, Business Research Methods, 4th Edition (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015).

For all other majors: Alan Bryman, Social Science Research Methods, 5th Edition (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014).

All other required readings are available on Pointcarre . References books

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2017).

Flick, Uwe, ed., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2013).

Saldaña, Johnny, The SAGE Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd Edition (London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016).

Fielding, Nigel G., Raymond M Lee, Grant Blank , eds., The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods (Los Angeles: CA, Sage, 2008).

Myers, Michael David, Qualitative Research in Business and Management. 2nd Edition (London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2013).

Thomas, Door R. and Lindl Bryan C. Taylor, Qualitative Communication Research Methods (London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2011).

Additional Sources: Qualitative Methods Journals International Journal of Qualitative Methods Qualitative Research Qualitative Health Research Forum: Qualitative Social Research (open source) at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/index

Course Assessment: Assignments Overview and Grading Scale Course Assessment

Mid-term examination (Oct 7, in class): 35% Portfolio (due on Dec 5 in class): 35% Homework assignments (due on Sep 5, 26 & Oct 17): 30% (10% each) TOTAL 100%

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/index

15

Grading Scale of Vesalius College Vesalius College grading policy, in line with the Flemish Educational norms, is now as stated follows:

Letter grade Scale of 20 Scale of 100

A 17.0-20.0 85-100

A- 16.1-16.9 81-84

B+ 15.3-16.0 77-80

B 14.5-15.2 73-76

B- 13.7-14.4 69-72

C+ 13.1-13.6 66-68

C 12.3-13.0 62-65

C- 11.5-12.2 58-61

D+ 10.7-11.4 54-57

D 10.0-10.6 50-53

F 0-9.9 0-49

Description of Assignments, Activities and Deadlines

35%: in-class mid-term (on October 7)

The exam will consist of definition and short-essay questions that will test student understanding of concepts and research approaches covered in readings and in class. It is a closed-book exam. Definition question will test students’ understanding of specific terms and concepts. Short-essay questions will ask students to propose a solution to a methodological issue, while paying attention to the context in which a particular research is taking place.

35%: Portfolio (due on Dec 5 in class)

A portfolio should document the mastery of qualitative research methods. The students are required to bring preliminary drafts of assignments to class on the specified dates to receive feedback from their peers. Only final drafts of the assignments submitted in the portfolio will be graded. Portfolio must be submitted in a binder and should comprise of the following:

Research question (350-500 words, first draft is due on Sep 19 in class for peer feedback)

In this assignment students should demonstrate their understanding of the differences between questions that can be answered using a qualitative approach and which ones cannot. This assignment should integrate strategies recommended in the Week 3 readings. It should also explain why this is an important question by drawing connection

16

either to the exiting gaps in the literature or to a mismatch between public policy and a social problem. Ideally, the research question should comprise of a puzzle for which answer is not obvious.

Data collection protocol (750-1000 words, first draft is due on Oct 3 in class for peer feedback)

For this assignment, students are asked to assume that they have unlimited time and resources and identify data collection strategy that suits best their research question from the previous assignment, including a description of population they want to include in the study, type of data they will need, and the strategies for recruiting their participants. If appropriate, more than one type of data or populations should be discussed. Special attention should be paid to ethical issues when recruiting the population, threats to external validity, and other issues discussed in the assigned readings.

Mock Interviews (Questionnaires are due on Oct 24 in class for peer feedback, transcripts on Nov 14 for coding in class)

Students are required to conduct two mock face-to-face interviews: one with a classmate the other with a friend, peer, or a family member. These interviews should be taped and transcribed for further data analysis. These interviews are critical for passing this course because neither analysis nor theoretical section can be completed without these data. The interviews should be conducted in English, last for about 30-45 minutes and should demonstrate mastery of interviewing skills covered in readings. If interviews are conducted in language other than English, the transcripts must be translated into English. Students are required to bring interview protocols (in English) to class for mock interviews on October 24. Interview transcripts (in English) are due on Nov 14 for coding in Dedoose.

Data Analysis (first draft is due on Nov 27 at noon via e-mail to your peer for feedback in class)

In this assignment students will be required to code their transcripts using approaches discussed in the assigned readings. The students will be required to submit a (1) codebook with short definitions of relevant categories used for line-by-line coding; (2) longer memos for the thematic codes; (3) visualisation of these codes (i.e. code tree, word cloud, etc.).

Key Takeaways (2500-3000 words, first draft is due on Nov 27 at noon via e-mail to your peer for feedback in class)

This report should offer an explanation for the phenomenon posed in your research question and back your explanation using data from your interviews. The explanation should emerge from categories you developed while coding your data. The report should read as a theory section of a qualitative article and should focus on developing a coherent narrative that provides insight into the phenomena in question. This narrative should connect the dots between categories that emerged from your data and the research question.

Quality Assessment Statement (1000 words, first draft is due on Nov 27 at noon via e-mail to your peer for feedback in class). You should also reflect on the validity of the proposed explanation and discuss its applicability to populations not included in your study. You will be evaluated on both the quality of your writing and analysis.

17

Homework Assignments (about 500 words each, due on Sep 5, 26, Oct 17)

The goal of these assignments is to connect research methodologies discussed in readings to the literature in the field. Homeworks will be graded on both the quality of writing and accuracy of representation of the relevant readings. 10% HW1: Synthesis of an Article (due on Sep 4) This assignment is based on the article you selected in Activity 1 for Week 1.

1. Write a one-page synthesis the article that you selected last class. Make sure the article is based on qualitative data. Please include the following information: the research question it addresses, type of data it is based on and key results. Comment briefly on whether you find the conclusions convincing and why. This synthesis should read as a short essay with each paragraph starting with a topic sentence and transitions across paragraphs.

2. Use the software package you downloaded to create a bibliography of sources you found during Activity 1 to generate a bibliography. Select one of the following formats for bibliography: Harvard, Chicago, or APA format. Submit a hardcopy to the instructor.

3. Attach the article to the HW1 and submit a hard copy to the instructor in class and also post the HW on Turnitin.

10% HW 2: Research in Practice (due on Sep 26) This assignment tests your understanding of the six approaches to research discussed last class. Find an article on the topic that you selected for HW 1 that uses one of the approaches covered last week. Write a summary of that article and evaluate critically the author’s choice of the approach and findings. Attach the summary and the article and turn in a hard copy in class. Post HW2 on Turnitin.

10% HW3: Jigsaw Puzzle (due on Oct 17)

The instructor will assign one of the articles selected for the jigsaw puzzle from week 8 readings. Read the assigned reading closely and prepare a hand-out or ppt slides summarizing key points. Come prepared to present major points to your classmates. The students will work in groups to compare interviewing approaches suitable for different populations. Turn in the hand-out to the instructor at the end of the class.

18

Rubrics: Transparent Criteria for Assessment

Rubrics for the Mid-Term Exam

Three Definition Questions (5 points each) Criterion/Marker

5 points max for each marker

Excellent / Very good (A/A-)

≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D)

80-50 points

Fail (F)

≤ 49 points

5-4,5 4-2,5 2-0 1. Understanding of concepts

Provides a succinct definition backed by relevant examples and readings

Understands the concept but references to the readings are sporadic or inaccurate

Misinterprets the concept or provides irrelevant examples

Rubrics for the Essay question Criterion/Marker Each marker is 15 points max

Excellent / Very good (A/A-)

≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D)

80-50 points

Fail (F)

≤ 49 points

20-16,5 16-10 9,5-0 1. Understanding of readings

Demonstrates in-depth understanding of assigned readings and refers to appropriate authors when developing an answer

Relevant authors are mentioned as appropriate, but there are some actual errors

The answer is left in blank, refers to incorrect readings, misrepresents the authors points

2. Understanding of a specific research methodology

Capable of applying a specific methodology to a new context

Understands methodology in question, but the discussion of how to apply it to a specific context is muddled or contains errors

Misrepresents the methodology and/or does not see its relevance to the specific context

3. Familiarity with the diversity of qualitative data

Capable of recommending a diversity of data to tackle a specific research question and recommend appropriate data collection strategy

Understands diversity of qualitative data but makes occasional errors when linking them back to the research question

Recommends only one type of data, but fails to articulate its relevance to the specific research question, cannot develop a sound data collection strategy

4. Adherence to ethical standards

Provides in-depth analysis of risks and benefits to the participants and is capable of proposing strategy to mitigate them

Demonstrates familiarity with ethical issues, but occasionally omits steps to mitigate them, or fails to develop an exhaustive list of risks and benefits

The discussion of ethical standards is lacking or superficial, incorrect application of risk/benefit analysis

5. Ability to evaluate alternative approaches to qualitative research

Demonstrates thorough understanding of six approaches to qualitative research and is capable on evaluating their tradeoffs as applied to specific context

Can identify and describe the relevant approach but the link between the approach and the context is muddled or unclear

Superficial discussion of the relevant approaches, misrepresentation or the lack of discussion of the tradeoffs related to each approach

Total ( /75 points)

19

Rubrics for HW 1

Criterion Excellent / Very good

(A/A-) ≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to

D) 80-50 points

Fail (F) ≤ 49 points

10-8,5 8-5 4,5-0 1. Ability to differentiate qualitative studies from other type of inquiry (10 points)

Article is based on a qualitative methodology

Article is based on a mixed-methods methodology

The selected article is not based on qualitative data or no article submitted

10-8,5 8-5 4,5-0 2. Ability to locate cutting –edge qualitative literature on the topic of interest (10 points)

A recently published scholarly article from a leading journal in the field that uses qualitative methodology

An article is dated or is published in an obscure journal

The article is not a peer-reviewed or not based on qualitative data

30-24,5 24-15 14,5-0 3. Ability to synthesize the argument (30 points)

Goes far beyond summarizing and paraphrasing by identifying author’s perspective, relevance to other studies on this topic, and assessing the originality of argument

Provides accurate and concise summary of key points raised by the author; identifies assumptions that lead to specific conclusions

Misrepresents author’s argument or provides a sketchy account.

20-16,5 16-10 9,5-0 4. Writing skills (20 points)

Uses correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling, each paragraph starts with a topic sentence and contains one main point, transitions are used as appropriate across the paragraphs

Well organized and clearly written, but contains minor errors

Poorly written and disorganized, contains plenty of typos or uses incorrect grammar

20-16,5 16-10 9,5-0 5. Managing sources with a software package (20 points)

The list of sources is correctly formatted and was created using an appropriate software

There are some issues with formatting, but overall the list looks fine

the bibliography is missing or was created manually

10-8,5 8-5 4-0 6. Familiarity with appropriate citation formats (10 points)

Either APA, Harvard, or Chicago format is used

More than one format is used, or a hybrid version

Incorrect citation format is used and/or a bibliography is missing

Total: /100

20

Rubrics for HW 2

Criterion

Excellent / Very good (A/A-) ≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to

D) 80-50 points


(25 points per each marker)

25-20,5 20-12 11,5-0

1. Synthesizes the relevant approaches to qualitative research

Demonstrates in-depth understanding of theoretical underpinnings for chosen approach and the role of the researcher

Accurately conveys key elements of the chosen approach, but contains some factual errors

Misrepresents the approach or provides only superficial treatment of the approach

2. Explains how the selected article exemplifies the specific approach

Draws a clear link between the readings covered in class and the chosen article

The relationship between the approach and the article is not clear or the discussion of the link is muddled

The article is not relevant to the chosen approach, no article is submitted, misrepresents the main points of the article

3. Assesses the limitations of the conclusions based on the chosen approach

Provides original insights into the strengths and limitations of the chosen approach and implications it may have for the author’s conclusion

Highlights some of the limitations of the specific approach and finding, but does not elaborate on them

The discussion of strengths and weaknesses is inaccurate or misrepresents the chosen approach

4. Writing skills Uses correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling, each paragraph starts with a topic sentence and contains one main point, transitions are used as appropriate across the paragraphs

Well organized and clearly written, but contains minor errors

Poorly written and disorganized, contains plenty of typos or uses incorrect grammar

Total: /100

21

Rubrics for HW 3

Criterion Excellent / Very good (A/A-)

≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average

(B+ to D) 80-50 points


25 points per marker 25-20,5 20-12 11,5-0 1. Understands the differences between interviewing styles discussed in the readings

Points made by the author are accurately summarised; enough details are provided to understand the logic of the argument

Makes minor mistakes or omissions when presenting authors’ point of view; excessively detailed

Omits important points or misrepresents the author’s argument

2. Identifies challenges when interviewing vulnerable populations

Clearly identifies challenges to interviewing certain types of respondents and outlines ways of overcoming them

Identifies some of the challenges to interviewing certain types of respondents but foes not address the ways to overcome them

Mismatch between the types of population and the challenges when interviewing certain respondents

3. Provides relevant examples

Provides relevant examples to illustrate the abstract points made by the author

Occasionally uses examples, some examples are not relevant

No examples provided

4. Effectively presents the argument

Uses ppt printouts with tables, flow charts and diagrams to illustrate key points

Most presentation consists of text, does not use ppt effectively

does not provide any visual aids to presents author’s key points

Total: /100

22

Rubrics for Portfolio Criterion Description Point

s Comments (or directly in paper)

I. Introduction and Research Question / Statement / Puzzle ( /6 points)

1a. Choice of topic and its significance /2 1b. Context of topic within the academic debate, identifying briefly the gaps in the literature that this paper is addressing

/2

1c. Clear research question appropriate for qualitative inquiry /2 II. Data collection protocol ( /9 points)

2a. Appropriateness of the chosen population for the research question /3 2b. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of data collection approach /3

2c. Discussion of ethical issues /3

III. Mock interviews ( /20 points)

3a. Appropriateness of a questionnaire /5

3b.Completeness of transcripts /5

3c.Mastery of interviewing techniques /5

3d. Progress /5

IV. Data Analysis ( /32 points)

4a.Appropriateness of line-by-line codes /8

4b.Development of thematic codes /8

4c. Clarity of codebook /8

4d. Appropriate use of data visualization /8

V. Key takeaways ( /24 points)

5a. Quality of analysis /8

5b. Originality of argument /8

5c. Cohesiveness of narrative /8

VI. Quality Assessment ( /6 points)

6a. Reflection on the role of researcher /2

6b. Threats to internal and external validity /2

6c. Replicability /2

VII: Formal Aspects ( /3 points)

7a. Correct use of language - correct spelling, grammar, and English expression /3

Overall Comments and Final Grade (Letter grade and out of 100)

23

EXPLANATION OF POINT VALUES FOR EACH MARKER

Criterion/Marker Excellent / Very good (A/A-)

≥ 81 points

Good / Average / Below Average (B+ to D) 80-50 points

Fail (F)

≤ 49 points

I. Introduction and Research Question / Statement / Puzzle (6 points maximum) 2 points for each marker

2

1,5

1 – 0

1a. Choice of Topic The author provides a clear and convincing explanation of the choice of topic and highlights its significance

The author provides an explanation which is, however, not fully convincing

No or very weak explanation provided

1b. Context of Academic Debate

The author explains clearly and convincingly the wider academic context (wider topic) related to the research question and puzzle. Gaps in the literature are briefly identified.

The author explains in general terms how the individual paper relates to the wider academic

debate and touches on gaps

No or very weak explanation provided

1c. Clear Research Question

The author provides a clear and meaningful research question. The research question is focused enough to enable an in-depth analysis and is relevant and ambitious enough to allow for

original and critical engagement with empirical developments, theories and author debates. The question is informed by the required readings and the student provides a clear explanation

why this question is suitable for a qualitative inquiry.

The author provides a research question, but it lacks clarity, conciseness, not ambitious

enough (self-evident research question), but the student explains clearly why this question

is still suitable for a qualitative inquiry.

Poorly worded research question and/or there is no explanation of

why this question is appropriate for a qualitative

inquiry.

II. Data Collection Protocol (9 points) 3 points per marker

3-2,5

2-1,5

1– 0

2a. Discussion of appropriateness of the chosen population

Clearly identifies the population and the site for the proposed inquiry and articulates well why they both are

suitable for answering the research question

The rational for the choice of the specific population is unclear, nor is the site for the study is properly discussed

There is a clear mismatch between the research question

and the proposed population and site.

2b. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of data collection approach

States clearly the best sampling procedure and also recognizes the potential limitations of the proposed data collection strategy, including potential challenges to recruiting respondents, the choice of the sampling procedure is informed by the assigned readings

States clearly the best sampling procedure but fails to recognize either the potential limitations of the proposed data collection

strategy or potential challenges to recruiting respondent, the sampling

approach is not informed by the assigned readings

There is no discussion of sampling procedure or incorrect

approach is proposed

2c. Discussion of ethical issues

Contains a statement of an informed consent, discuses potential risks to the subjects and develops and adheres to procedures to minimize those risks, including steps to

protect anonymity and confidentiality

Contains a statement of an informed consent but the discussion of potential risks or data safeguarding procedures is superficial

Informed consent statement is missing, risks to the participants are either misrepresented or not discussed, ethical procedures are

24


≥ 81 points


Fail (F)

≤ 49 points

violated III. Mock Interviews (20 points) 5 points per descriptor

5-4 3,5-2,5 2 – 0

3a. Appropriateness of a questionnaire

Interview questions are relevant to the research question and clearly stated in the format appropriate for a semi-structured interview (as discussed in the readings)

The student chooses a method, but it lacks proper justification and is only partially relevant / or not fully explained

No or irrelevant methods – no or weak explanation/justification

3b.Completeness of transcripts

Transcripts are available for both interviews, translated into English if appropriate, and contain a verbatim record of the interviews, clearly differentiate between an interviewer and a respondent, tapes or mp 3 files are provided for both interviews

3c.Mastery of interviewing techniques

Demonstrates mastery of interviewing techniques discussed in assigned readings and podcasts, i.e. each question is clearly stated and transitions from each question are seamless and resemble a conversation rather than an interrogation, follow up questions are used as appropriate, the interviewer skillfully redirects the conversation back to the topic of the interview, the question wording is unchanged across the interviews

The student selects and presents some data, but not always the most suitable

No or poorly selected/presented data

3d. Progress Compared to the first interview, the second interview clearly demonstrates that the student has made a significant progress mastering interviewing techniques

There is evidence of some progress, however, the same mistakes are repeated in both interviews

Lack of progress and/or the second interview is inferior than

the first one IV. Data Analysis (32 points), 8 points max for each marker

8 – 6,5 6 – 4 3,5 – 0

4a.Appropriateness of line-by-line codes

Demonstrates mastery of coding techniques discussed in the relevant readings, i.e. codes are grounded in the data, serve as “conceptual handles” for collected data, are consistently applied across all transcripts, applied to each line or a sentence, and are based on action oriented language

Line-by-line codes occasionally lack conceptual clarity, but in most cases applied consistently and still provide useful frame for grouping the data

Codes are applied in ad-hoc manner, lack conceptual clarity, or

not grounded in the data

4b.Development of thematic codes

Thematic codes follow logically from line-by-line codes, provide a sufficient diversity of conceptual categories, and are also relevant to the research question

Thematic codes are mostly relevant to the line-by-line codes, but occasionally seem to be too rigid or redundant

Thematic codes are not derived from line-by-line codes

4c. Clarity of codebook Provides clear definitions for both line-by-line codes and thematic codes, provides examples for each code

Some of the definitions in the code book are hard to follow or unclear, examples are missing from some of the definitions

Code boon is sketchy, definitions are poorly worded or hard to

understand, examples are missing in most cases

4d. Appropriate use of data visualization

Codes are grouped either in a code tree, a word cloud, or other appropriate ways to capture the relations between them

An attempt was made to visualize the codes, but the relationship between the codes is not

No visualization, or completely inappropriate visualization

25


≥ 81 points


Fail (F)

≤ 49 points

straightforward from the picture approach was used

V. Key Takeaways (24 points) 8 points max for each marker

8 – 6,5 6– 3,5 3 – 0

5a. Quality of analysis The theoretical statements are induced from the codes, backed by quotations from the transcripts, and address clearly the research question.

Arguments are occasionally substantiated with the help of the analytical categories developed during coding, statements are not always linked back to the main research question.

Arguments are mostly unsubstantiated by data or do not address the research question.

5b. Originality of argument

Provides an original and insightful explanation of the phenomena in question, makes an original contribution to the existing literature, by developing a novel concept, suggesting a new causal mechanism, collecting data from new a new population, or identifying a new fruitful line for research.

Contains some arguments and conceptual categories that go “beyond the obvious”.

Paraphrases what was said during the interviews or in the literature.

5c. Cohesiveness of narrative

The overall narrative is closely linked to the developed categories and is presented in a logical manner.

Argumentation line is not always clear or coherent – theoretical statements and examples are not always linked back to the main research question

Unclear / absent line of argumentation – fragments that are not linked back to the research question

VI. Quality Assessment (6 points) 2 points for each marker

2 1,5 1- 0

6a. Reflection on the role of researcher

The section provides clear explanation of how researcher’s background could have biased the coding process or developing of the theory

Some evaluation of potential biases in the analysis, but more critical engagement is clearly needed

No self-reflection or the discussion is completely irrelevant

6b. Threats to internal and external validity

Discusses any potential threats to internal and external validity due to the selection of specific respondents or specific features of data analysis

The discussion of the threats to external and internal validity is superficial, conflates the two terms or does not apply the terminology correctly.

No discussion of threats to internal or external validity

6c. Replicability Discusses potential challenges with replicability of the study. The discussion is superficial or contains mistakes in how the term is used.

No discussion of threats to internal or external validity

VII: Formal Aspects (3 points)

3-2,5 2-1,5 1-0

7a. Language and spelling

Correct use of language - correct spelling, grammar, and English expression

Use of language with occasional flaws in spelling, grammar and expression

Very flawed use of language with many spelling and grammar mistakes

26

Policies for Attendance, Later Work, Academic Honesty, Turnitin Attendance Policy

Because the College is committed to providing students with high-quality classes and ample opportunity for teacher-student interaction, it is imperative that students regularly attend class. As such, Vesalius College has a strict attendance policy.

Participation in class meetings is mandatory, except in case of a medical emergency (e.g. sickness). Students will need to provide evidence for missing class (doctor’s note). If evidence is provided, the missed class is considered as an excused class. If no evidence is provided, the missed class is counted as an absence.

Participation implies that students are on time: as a general rule, the College advises that students should be punctual in this regard, but it is up to the professor to decide whether to count late arrivals as absences, or not. In this course, arriving more than 15 minutes late counts as an absence for one 1,5 hour class session.

If students are absent for too many classes for a single course, they receive a penalty on their overall grade for that course.

• If students are absent for five 1,5 hour class sessions of a course, they receive a penalty of 5 points on their overall grade for that course. Note that a tree-hour class counts as two 1.5 hour class sessions.

• For each additional absence (over five) for a 1,5 hour class session, an additional penalty of 1 point is applied to the course grade.

Example 1: at the end of the semester, a student has a course grade of 75/100. Over the course of the semester, he missed 4 sessions of 1,5 hours for the course. No penalty is applied.

Example 2: at the end of the semester, a student has an overall grade of 75/100. Over the course of the semester, he missed 5 sessions of 1,5 hours for the course. He receives a penalty of 5 points, and his final course grade is 70/100.

Example 3: at the end of the semester, a student has an overall grade of 75/100. Over the course of the semester, he missed 7 sessions of 1,5 hours for the course. He receives a penalty of 7 points, and his final course grade is 68/100.

Additional Course Policies Late assignments

Late assignments will not be accepted unless there are serious legitimate and documented reasons. Provision of a signed medical note is required, and notice must be given prior to the deadline. The grade of “0” will be given for each missed assignment.

Academic Honesty Statement

Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course.

Academic honesty is not only an ethical issue but also the foundation of scholarship. Cheating and plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) are, therefore, serious breaches of

27

academic integrity.

Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in writing to the Associate Dean and submitted to the Student Conduct Committee for disciplinary action.

If you refer to someone else’s work or your past work appropriate references and citations must be provided. Grammar, spelling and punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to correct before handing in assignments.

Please consult the Section “Avoiding Plagiarism” in the College Catalogue for further guidance.

Turnitin

All written graded assignments must be submitted via the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin. You will receive from your professor a unique password and access code for your Class.

28

Course Schedule – Overview Week # & Date

Topic Required Readings & Assignments

Part I: What is Qualitative Research for?

1: Aug 29 Introduction: The nature of qualitative research

Bryman, Ch. 2* and Curry, Module 1; Activity 1: locating and citing sources; bring a laptop to class

2: Sep 5 Research designs and traditions of qualitative inquiry

Bryman, Ch. 17, Creswell & Poth (2017), Ch. 2, pp. 15-40, Curry, Module 6; HW 1: summarizing an article is due

3: Sep 12 Crafting a research question

Bryman (2014), pp. 78-84, & Maxell (2013), Ch. 4, pp. 73-83; Activity 2: research question workshop; Bring a laptop to class

4: Sep 19 Six approaches to qualitative inquiry

Cresswell & Poth, Ch. 4, pp. 65-100 & Huand (2010), pp. 93-109; Activity 3: peer feedback on research questions, bring four copies to class

Part II: What Data do We Need for a Qualitative Inquiry?

5: Sep 26 Sampling, Case Selection & Ethical Considerations & Review for the mid-term

Bryman, Ch. 6&18, pp. 120-146, 407-420, & Ragin (1992), pp. 1-17 & 217-226; HW 2: research in practice is due

6: Oct 3 Documents as a source of data: Guest speaker Professor Emeritus Michael Palo

Bryman Ch. 23, pp. 545-567 & Koops & Palo, Ch. 1. Activity 4: peer feedback on data collection protocols, bring four copies to class

7: Oct 10 In-class mid-term

8: Oct 17 The art of interviewing Bryman, Ch. 20, pp. 465-498, Curry, Module 3 & a reading for a jigsaw puzzle HW 3: Jigsaw puzzle is due

9: Oct 24 Focus groups Bryman Ch. 21, pp. 500-523, Bryman & Bell, pp. 670-73, Reid & Reid, pp. 131-62, & Curry, Module 4 Activity 5: mock interviews, bring two copies of interview protocols to class

Fall Break: Oct 30-Nov 3

10: Nov 7 Language in qualitative research

Bryman, Ch. 22, pp. 525-543, Wodak, pp. 1-29. Activity 6: writing workshop, bring a laptop to class

Part III: Analysing Qualitative Data

11: Nov 14 Grounded theory & computer assisted coding

Bryman, Ch. 24, pp. 569-599, Charmaz, Ch. 5&6, pp. 109-161 Activity 7: Learning Dedoose, bring interview transcripts and a laptop to class

12: Nov 21 Writing-up Qualitative Analysis

Bryman, pp. 661-68, OR Bryman & Bell, pp. 691-697, 705-09, Cresswell & Poth, Ch. 8&9, pp. 181-225, Pratt, pp. 856-62. Activity 8: Exploring guidelines for journal articles, download and bring four copies to class

13: Nov 28 Quality standards for qualitative research

Bryman, Ch. 28, pp. 661-686, Maxwell, Ch. 6, pp. 121-138, Cresswell & Poth, Ch. 10, pp. 253-86. Activity 9: peer feedback on analysis and write up, e-mail by Nov 27 noon & bring two copies to class

14: Dec 5 Qualitative research in practice: Guest Speaker Giulia Tercovich

No readings assigned; Portfolios are due in class

15: Dec 12 No Final Exam

29

NOTE:* Business majors should read instead a corresponding chapter in Bryman and Bell (2015), i.e. Bryman, Ch. 2 corresponds to Bryman and Bell, Ch. 2.

Detailed Session-by-Session Description of Course

Part I: What is Qualitative Research for?

Week 1 (Aug 29): Introduction Required readings and podcasts:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 2 OR Bryman and Bell (2015) Ch. 2 AND Curry, Leslie, “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: What is Qualitative Research (Module 1),” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbdN_sLWl88

Guiding questions: 1. What makes social science a science? 2. What makes qualitative inquiry scientific? 3. What are the key steps of qualitative inquiry? 4. What role does theory play in qualitative research?

Further readings: Brady, Henry & David Collier, eds, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2nd Edition. (New York: Rowman & Littlefiled Publishers: 2010). Yanow, Dvora & Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. 2nd Edition (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2014).

Activity 1: Locating and Citing Sources Bring a laptop to class Write down a topic or an issue that you feel passionate about.

• Right down keywords associated with this topic and conduct search using BOTH Google Scholar as well as the VUB library online databases at https://www.vub.ac.be/BIBLIO/ubwebsite_database_alpha_en.html.

• Identify two major journals in your field that publish qualitative studies. Select a recently published article on the chosen topic that uses qualitative data from those journals and read it for HW 1.

• Explore the following citation managing software packages: o EndNote at https://projectne.thomsonreuters.com/#/login?app=endnote o Zotero at https://www.zotero.org o Mendeley at https://www.mendeley.com

For a snapshot comparison of these software packages see http://libguides.mit.edu/references

• Create an account for one of them and import the search results (3-5 articles from Google Scholar and 3-5 articles from an online database from both Google Scholar and the VUB library. Save them for HW 1.

Week 2 (Sep 5): Conceptual Lenses for Qualitative Inquiry Required readings and podcasts:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 17 OR Bryman and Bell (2015) Ch. 17 AND

https://projectne.thomsonreuters.com/#/login?app=endnote

https://www.zotero.org/

30

Creswell & Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Los Angeles, CA; SAGE 2017), Ch. 2, pp. 15-40. Leslie Curry, “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Scientific Rigor (Module 6)” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m0LVHK8a94

Guiding questions: 1. What is the difference between inductive and deductive approaches? 2. What are the key difference among five approaches to research discussed by

Cresswell and Poth? 3. Why philosophy is important for qualitative research? 4. What are the key pitfalls of qualitative research? 5. What are the sources of bias in qualitative inquiry?

Further readings: Patton, Michael Quinn, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 3rd Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002). Hunt, Matthew R., “‘Active Waiting’: Habits and the Practice of Conducting Qualitative Research,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 9(1): 69-76.

Homework 1: Synthesis of an Article is due Week 3 (Sep 12): Crafting a Research Question Required readings and podcasts:

Bryman (2014), pp. 78-84 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), 87-94 AND Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb & Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research. 4th Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), Prologue and Ch. 3, & 4, pp. 27-64. Maxwell, Joseph A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd Edition (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2013), Ch. 4, pp. 73-83. Curry, Leslie, “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Developing a Qualitative Research Question (Module 2),” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0HxMpJsm0I

Further readings and podcasts: Piore, Michael J., “Qualitative Research: Does it Fit in Economics?” European Management Review 3 (1): 17-23, at https://economics.mit.edu/files/1125. Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, “Writing a Good Research Question,” at https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/question.

Activity 2: Research Question Workshop (Bring a laptop to class) Download excerpts posted on Pointcarre. Students will work in groups to improve the framing of a research question and correct grammar and sentence structure, as appropriate.

Week 4 (Sep 19): Six Approaches to Qualitative Inquiry

Required readings: Creswell, John W. and Cheryl N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2016) Ch.3, Ch. 4.

https://economics.mit.edu/files/1125

https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/question

31

Huang, Hilary Bradbury, “What is good action research?: Why the resurgent interest?,” Action Research 8 (1): 93-109.

Guiding questions: 1. What are the key differences among five approaches discussed by Creswell and

Poth? 2. How does action research differ from the five others? 3. What role does researcher play in each of these approaches? 4. What are the potential limitations of each of these approaches? 5. What type of data are these approaches based on?

Further readings: McCaslin, Mark L., & Karen Wilson Scott, “The Five-Question Method For Framing A Qualitative Research Study,” The Qualitative Report 8(3): 447-461 at http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss3/6. Special issue on “The State of the Art of Qualitative Research in Europe,” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 26 (3) at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/1. Ospina, Sonia Jennifer Dodge, Erica Gabrielle Foldy and Amparo Hofmann-Pinilla, “Taking the Action Turn: Lessons from Bringing Participation to Qualitative Research,” in Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury, eds., The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. 2nd Edition. (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2007), pp. 420-434.

Activity 3: Peer Feedback on Research Question Bring to class four copies of a tentative research question and a tentative flow diagram (graph) of your conceptual framework. Frame the question using the format proposed by Booth et al on pages 48 and 61 from week 3 readings. Students will work in small gropus to refine the question. See also “Further Description of the activities and Grading Criteria” for aditional guidance.

Part II: What Data do We Need for Qualitative Inquiry?

Week 5 (Sept 26): Sampling, Case Selection & Ethical Considerations

Required readings:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 6 & 18, pp. 407-420 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 6 & 18, pp. 427-440. AND Ragin, Charles C. Introduction and Ch. 10 in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (ed), What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Guiding questions:

1. What are the differences between theoretical, snowball, and generic purpose sampling?

2. How many data points are sufficient for qualitative research? 3. What is a “case”? 4. What are alternative approaches to case selection? 5. Why is informed consent important? 6. What is “no harm principle”? 7. What is the difference between confidentiality and anonymity? 8. Who are the “vulnerable” subjects and what are additional steps are researchers

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss3/6

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/1

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/1

32

are expected to take to protect them? Further readings:

Shively, W. Philips, “Case Selection: Insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry,” Symposium on Rethinking Social Inquiry. Political Analysis 14(3): 344-347. Rohlfing, Ingo, and Peter Starke. "Building on Solid Ground: Robust Case Selection in Multi-Method Research." Swiss Political Science Review 19(4): 492-512.

HW 2: Research in Practice is due

Week 6 (Oct 3): Documents as a Source of Data

Guest speaker: Professor Emeritus Michael Palo

Required readings:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 23 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 23 AND Michael Palo and Joachim Koops, “Methods of Historical Analysis and Their Exercise,” in Joachim Koops and Michael Palo, Interdisciplinary Approaches to International Relations (Forthcoming)

Guiding questions:

1. What type of documents can be used as source of data for qualitative inquiry? 2. What type of biases can arise when a certain type of documents is used for

analysis? 3. What are the criteria for evaluating documents as source of data? 4. How does historical analysis differ from other types of research based on

documents? Further readings:

Bowen, Glenn A., “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method,” Qualitative Research Journal 9(2):27-40.

Activity 4: Peer feedback on data collection protocols

Prepare a one-page summary or your data collection strategy and bring four copies to class. See “Further Description of the activities and Grading Criteria,” for detailed explanation of the assignment.

Week 7 (Oct 10): In-Class Mid-term

Week 8 (Oct 17): The Art of Interviewing and Feedback on Mid-term

Required readings and podcasts:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 20 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 20 AND Bryman and Bell (2015), pp. 673-675. Curry, Leslie “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Interviews,” (Module 3) at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PhcglOGFg8 AND One of the following articles for the jigsaw puzzle exercise:

Welch, Catherine, Rebecca Marschan-Piekkari, Heli Penttinen, Marja Tahvanainen, “Corporate Elites as Informants in Qualitative International Business Research,” International Business Review 11 (2002) 611–628.

Harvey, William S., “Strategies for Conducting Elite Interviews,” Qualitative

33

Research 11(4): 431-441.

Kawabata, Makie and Denise Gastaldo, “The Less Said, the Better: Interpreting Silence in Qualitative Research,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2015: 1–9.

Liamputtong, Pranee, Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive Research Methods (Los Angeles, CA; Sage, 2007), Ch. 5 & 7.

Guiding questions:

1. What are the differences between structured and semi-structured interviews? 2. What are the key advantages of interviews and what are the pit-falls? 3. What ethical considerations arise when collecting interview data? 4. What skills are critical for conducting effective interviews? 5. How should a research interpret a non-verbal cues and salience in interviews? 6. How may identity of the researcher influence the interview? 7. How may identity of a respondent affect the interview?

Further readings:

Meho, Lokman I., “E-Mail Interviewing in Qualitative Research: A Methodological Discussion,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Vol. 57, no. 10 (2006): 1284–1295, at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20416/epdf

Rubin, Herbert J., Irene S. Rubin, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2011).

HW 3: Jigsaw Puzzle is due

Week 9 (Oct 17): Focus Groups

Required readings and podcasts:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 21 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 21 AND Bryman and Bell (2015), pp. 670-673.

Reid, Donna J. and Fraser J.M. Reid, “Online focus groups: An in-depth Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Conventional Focus Group Discussions,” International Journal of Market Research 47(2): 131-162. Curry, Leslie “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Focus Groups,” (Module 4) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAPz14yjd4.

Guiding questions:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of focus groups compared as compared to interviews?

2. What ethical considerations should be considered when conducting a focus group? 3. How many participants should be included and how they should be recruited? 4. How do online focus groups compare to face-to-face ones?

Further readings:

Carey, Martha Ann and Jo-Ellen Asbury, Focus Group Research (New York, NY Routledge, 2016).

Krueger, Richard A. and Mary Anne Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20416/epdf

34

Applied Research (Los Angeles, CA, Sage, 2015).

Kidd, Pamela S. and Mark B. Parshall, “Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research,” Qualitative Health Research 10 (3): 293 – 308.

Activity 5: Mock Interviews

Bring a draft of your interview protocol. You will work with a peer to improve the wording of your questions and practice asking them.

Have a wonderful break and good luck with interviews!

Week 10 (Nov 7): Language in Qualitative Research

Required readings:

Bryman (2014), Ch. 22 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 22 AND

Wodak, Ruth, “Introduction: Discourse Studies – Important Concepts and Terms,” in Ruth Wodak and Michal Krzyzanowski, eds., Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008), pp. 1-29.

Guiding questions:

1. What are the key differences among six types of text analysis discussed by Bryman?

2. What are the main shortcomings of each approach? 3. What types of qualitative data are required for each of these approaches?

Further readings:

Doty, Roxanne Lynn, “Foreign Policy as Social Construction,” International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297–320.

Milliken, Jennifer, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research Methods,” European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225–254.

Rapley, Tim, Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis. 1st Edition (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2008).

Unger J, Wodak R, Khosravi Nik M. “Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media Data,” in David Silverman, ed., Qualitative Research, 4th Edition (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016).

Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer, Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2015).

Activity 6: Writing Workshop (Bring a laptop to class)

Download excerpts posted on pointcarre. Students will work in groups to improve the sentence structure and correct grammar.

Part III: How Can We Analyse Qualitative Data? Week 11 (Nov 14): Grounded Theory & Computer Assisted Coding Required readings:

35

Bryman (2014), Ch. 24 OR Bryman and Bell (2015), Ch. 24 Charmaz, Kathy, Constructing Grounded Theory, (London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2013), Ch. 5&6

Guiding questions:

1. What is a “grounded theory”? 2. What is the difference between line-by-line and purposeful coding? 3. Why does the choice of coding strategy matter for developing a theory? 4. What role do categories play in grounded theory? 5. What are the sources of biases during coding? 6. What steps can be taken to improve the quality of coding?

Further readings and podcasts:

Glaser, Barney G & Strauss, Anselm L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967). Saldaña, Johnny, The SAGE Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd Edition (London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016). Dedoose Videos at http://www.dedoose.com/resources/videos.

Activity 7: Learning to use Dedoose

Open an account at dedoose.com at least 24-hours before the class, and make sure you can log-into the site. The first month is free of charge. Bring a computer and a soft copy of interview transcripts. We will start coding them in class.

Week 12 (Nov 21): Writing-Up a Qualitative Inquiry

Required readings: Bryman (2014), Ch. 28 only pp. 661-668, 672-75 OR Bryman and Bell (2015) Ch. 29, only pp. 691-697, 705-09 AND Creswell, John W. and Cheryl N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th Edition (Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2018), Ch. 8 & 9. Pratt, Michael G., “From the Editors: For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research,” Academy of Management Journal 52(5): 856-62.

Guiding questions: 1. Why does presentation matter for social science research? 2. What are the most common challenges that research face when starting to write

up their findings? 3. What are the ways of overcoming them?

Further readings: Charmaz, Kathy Constructing Grounded Theory, (London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 2013), Ch. 11, pp. 285-318. Tong, Allison, Peter Sainsbury, and Jonathan Craig, "Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups," International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19(6): 349-357.

Activity 8: Exploring Guidelines for Journal Articles

http://www.dedoose.com/resources/videos

36

Before the class, go to the website of the journal(s) that you identified during in-class Activity 1. Go to the author’s section and try to locate guidelines for authors who seek to publish a qualitative work. For samples what to look for, see “Guidelines for Qualitative Methods” at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/social-science-and-medicine/0277-9536/guide-for-authors. Print out four copies of those guidelines. Students will work in class in small groups to compare standards across disciplines and journals.

Week 13 (Nov 28): Quality Standards for Qualitative Studies

Required readings: Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design, Ch. 6, pp. 121-138 AND Creswell and Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Ch. 10, pp. 253-86.

Guiding questions: 1. What is validity? 2. What are the threats to validity? 3. What steps can researcher take to mitigate the threats to validity? 4. What is reflexivity?

Further readings: Barbour, Rosaline S., "Checklists for Improving Rigour in Qualitative Research: a Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog?" BMJ: British Medical Journal 322, no. 7294 (2001): 1115-17. Dodge, Jennifer, Sonia M. Ospina and Erica Foldy, “Integrating Rigor and Relevance in Public Administration Scholarship: The Contribution of Narrative Inquiry,” Public Administration Review 65(3): 286-300. Gibbert, Michael, Winfried Ruigrok, and Barbara Wicki, "What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?" Strategic Management Journal 29 (13): 1465-74. Mays, Nicholas, and Catherine Pope, "Qualitative Research in Health Care: Assessing Quality in Qualitative Research," BMJ: British Medical Journal 320 (7226): 50-52.

Activity 8: Peer Feedback on Analysis and Write-Up

Email a copy of your analysis and the write-up to your peer at least 24 hours before the class and bring two hard copies. Read your peer’s analysis and write-up before coming to class. Be prepared to comment on it in class

Week 14 (Dec 5): Qualitative Research in Practice: Guest speaker: Giulia Terkovich

No required readings

Portfolios are due on Dec 5 in class and via Turnitin

Week 15 (Dec 12): No final for this class

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/social-science-and-medicine/0277-9536/guide-for-authors

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/social-science-and-medicine/0277-9536/guide-for-authors