Qualitative Methods in Communication

University of Illinois at Chicago

      COMM 580 Call No. 14984

      Spring 2005, Wednesdays, 3:30 – 6 p.m., BSB 1169

Kevin G. Barnhurst, Ph.D., Professor & Interim Head, Department of Communication

      Office, BSB 1148A. Hours, Wednesdays, 1:30 – 2:30 p.m. or by appointment

      (312) 413-3231 E-mail <kgbcomm(a)uic.edu> Web Site http://www.uic.edu/~kgbcomm

description

This introduction to qualitative methods focuses on communication but has broad application to other social sciences. The course will touch on archival methods used in history and on the problems with interpreting narratives and documents, areas familiar to most students, but will concentrate on a less familiar area: fieldwork. The course involves hands-on experience, with the theoretical literature on qualitative fieldwork in the background, because the only way to learn fieldwork is by doing it.

Purposes

Gain familiarity with the main issues involved in qualitative research practice and analysis through reading and discussion.

Experience in depth at least one technique of qualitative field work, and learn about others through interactions with students doing it themselves.

Produce information useful for a community group to improve its work and to succeed in reaching its goals.

Readings

The reading for the seminar is light, given the heavy reliance on experience. Seminar sessions will be discussions about experiences in the field, informed by (usually) one think piece on a qualitative method. A larger bibliography is available for investigating specific methods in depth. A packet of required readings is available from Comet Press, 812 W. Van Buren. The in-depth readings are available on electronic library reserves: http://uic.docutek.com/coursepage.asp?cid=352 (qualitative).

Assignments

Complete two independent assignments, one to train for working with human subjects in the field and one to learn qualitative analysis software for interpreting field results.

Fieldwork

Each student must complete a phase of fieldwork each week, including making complete field notes, and report to the seminar at its meeting. Travel to the field site will take place always in pairs or groups. No student will go to, spend time at, or return from the site alone, no exceptions. Funds are available to cover the cost of research materials and supplies, copying, and travel to and from the site (with a valid receipt). All results, including field notes, become part of a project archive that the community group will maintain. The outcome of the course will be a process or instrument that the group can employ on its own to assess its progress and success in reaching its goals after the seminar ends.

Research Report

Each seminar member will write a report, in standard social science format (Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion), based on fieldwork for the seminar. The report is due the week before the presentation to the community group. All members will also collate individual results into a project report with responses to feedback from the community group, which is due the last week of classes.

Evaluations

Each member of the seminar will make three presentations for a grade, two to the class (first on an assigned method, and then on preliminary fieldwork results, just before Spring Break), and one to the community group (in the penultimate week of classes). Two practical assignments prepare you for field work and for analysis of results. Other assessments include the individual research report, the contribution to the Project Report (the last week of class), and the final exam.

 

The take-home exam is due during finals week. It includes several short essay questions on the topics of the seminar readings, discussions, and experiences. The exam is comprehensive and presents issues or problems addressed in the course, leaving open several options to answer based on the student’s assigned method(s) and areas of interest and strength.

 

Course grades follow this formula: Participation (attendance, preparation on readings, contribution to group work, and involvement in class discussions), 20 percent; Assignments, 2 percent (human subjects), 3 percent (qualitative software); Fieldwork (field attendance, weekly progress reports, and field notes), 20 percent; Presentations, 3 percent (method), 5 percent (preliminary results), and 2 percent (group results); Reports, 20 percent (individual research) and 10 percent (project collation); and Final exam, 15 percent.

 

courtesies

Deadlines. Because the seminar involves work with a community group, no late assignments will be accepted. If you have an illness or emergency, please meet with me as soon as possible to provide documentation and discuss a suitable adjustment in your assignments.

Attendance. Absences, tardiness, and leaving early from class or scheduled fieldwork appointments count against your grade. Missing more than three days of class or fieldwork, or arriving late to or departing early more than six times, or a combination of absences and partial absences, will result in a failing grade. Missing or arriving late for an appointment to travel to the field or to meet with a community group member weighs the same as attendance at seminar meetings.

Exclusivity. Reports must be original work you complete for this course only. Turning in work that is the same or substantially the same as that completed for another course is a form of academic dishonesty and will result in a failing grade on the assignment.

Honesty. You must do your own work. Cite the ideas of others thoroughly and consistently, and provide page numbers for quotations. Students found to have plagiarized the work of others (used their words without giving proper credit), including material from the internet, will receive a failing grade for the course. Department policy is to report all incidents of academic misconduct to the Student Judicial Affairs office. Read “Guidelines Regarding Academic Integrity” at the following URL: http://www.uic.edu/depts/sja/

Accommodation. If you must miss class due to religious holidays or observances, please notify me well ahead of time to make arrangements that will not disadvantage you in the course. Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access or participation in this course must register with the Office of Disability Services at (312) 413-2103 or –0123 (TTY).

calendar

The following calendar indicates the activities planned for and assignments due at each meeting of the course. All dates are tentative and may be adjusted at any time.

 

Unit I. Concepts in Qualitative Research

Jan. 12. Paradigms: Naturalism and Ethnomethod, Grounded, Case, Institution, and Action Theory

 

Jan. 19. Methods: Document Analysis, Observation, Interviews & Focus Groups

Readings

Rosaldo, Renato. “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.” Culture & Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis, pp. 1–21. Boston : Beacon Press, 1993.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel Fretz, and Linda Shaw. “Pursuing Members’ Meanings.” Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, pp 108-141. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

 

Jan. 26. Ethics, Protecting Participants

Readings

Shea, Christopher. “Don't Talk to the Humans: The Crackdown on Social Science Research.” Lingua Franca 10.6 (September 2000): 27–34.

University of Illinois Ethics Officer. “University Code of Conduct” [on line]. Available: http://ethics.uillinois.edu/Code-of-Conduct.htm

Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. “III. University Policy; Definition of Academic Misconduct,” Policy & Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research & Publication [on line]. Available: http://www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/policies/ai_document.asp#III

Office for the Protection of Human Subjects. “Informed Consent” [on line]. Available: http://www.research.uic.edu/protocolreview/irb/policies/0237.pdf

Due: Assignment 1. Turn in a copy of an up-to-date certificate showing you have completed training in human subject protections. If you’re not yet certified (usually the case), you can take the initial training on line. If your certificate is expired, renew it by doing continuing education. Follow the appropriate links: http://www.research.uic.edu/protocolreview/irb/education/index.shtml

 

Unit II. Qualitative Research Practice

Feb. 2. Meeting with the Group

Reading

Sanders, Clinton R. “Rope Burns: Impediments to the Achievement of Basic Comfort Early in the Field Research Experience.” In Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative Approaches to Social Research, pp. 158–70. Ed. William B. Shaffir, Robert A. Stebbins & Allan Turowetz. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.

 

Feb. 9. Document Analysis

Reading

Van Bukleo, Sandra. “My Own ‘Desperate Deeds and Desperate Motives’: How the Project Evolved.” In The Research Process in Political Science, pp. 206–221. Ed. P. Shively. Itsaca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1984.

 

Feb. 16. Observation

Reading

Orwell, George. “Shooting an Elephant.” A Collection of Essays by George Orwell, pp. 154–62. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957.

 

Feb. 23. Participant Observation

Reading

Eliasoph, Nina. “The Mysterious Shrinking Circle of Concern” and “Method.” Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life, pp. 1–22, 269–79. Cambridge Cultural Social Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

 

March 2. Interviews

Reading

Rosengarten, Theodore. “Preface.” All God’s Dangers: The Life of Nate Shaw, pp. xiii–xxv. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.

 

March 9. Focus Groups

Reading

Merton, Robert K., Marjorie Fiske, and Patricia L. Kendall. “Introduction to the Second Edition” and “The Group Interview.” In The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures, 2 ed., pp. xiii–xxxiii, 135–69. 1949. New York: Free Press, 1990.

 

March 16. Presentations

Initial presentation of research outcomes.

 

March 23. No class, spring break.

 

Unit III. Qualitative Analysis & Reporting

March 30. Problems of Interpretation

Reading

Darnton, Robert. “Workers Revolt: The Great Cat Massacre of the Rue Saint-Séverin.” The Great Cat Massacre, pp. 75–104. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Due: Assignment 2. Turn in a print-out of your analysis of assigned field-work documents from the software package.

 

April 5. Feminism

Reading

Hsiung, Ping-chun. “Between Bosses and Workers: The Dilemma of a Keen Observer and a Vocal Feminist.” In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, pp. 122–37. Ed. Diane L. Wolf. Boulder: Westview, 1996.

 

April 13. The Visual

Reading

O’Brien, Tim. “The Things They Carried.” In The American Short Story, pp. 688–704. Ed. Richard Ford. London: Granta Books, 1992.

Due: Report 1. Individual Research Results Paper

 

April 20. Presentation to the Community Group

 

April 27. Final Report.

Due: Report 2. Collated Project Summary & Results

 

May 4. Final Exam

further reference

Qualitative Paradigms

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, pp. 3–49. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, pp. 1–30. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1978.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. “Introduction” and “Relief, Labor, and Civil Disorder: An Overview.” Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, pp. xv–xix, 3–42. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.

Field Research Models

Gamson, William. 1992. Talking Politics, pp. 1–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer, pp. 3–10, 66–198, 233–40. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Ethics, Protecting Participants

Allen, Charlotte. “Spies Like Us: When Sociologists Deceive their Subjects.” Lingua Franca, November 1997, pp. 31–39.

Brainard, Jeffrey. “The Wrong Rules for Social Science?” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 2001. http://oz.plymouth.edu/~wjt/HCI/chronicle1.htm

Davidian, Blanche. “The Performance of Patriotism: Infiltration and Identity at the End of the World.” Theater 27.1 (1996): 7–28.

Ellis, Carolyn. “Emotional and Ethical Quagmires in Returning to the Field.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24.1 (April 1995): 68–98. PDF.

Millgram, Stanley. “Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority.” Human Relations 18.1 (February 1965): 57–75.

Pierce, Jennifer. “Articulating the Self in Field Research.” In Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms, pp. 189–214. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

Document Analysis

Lustick, Ian S. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90.3 (1996): 605–18.

Pierson, Paul. “Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes.” Studies in American Political Development 14 (Spring 2000): 72–92.

Robertson, Craig. “The Archive, Disciplinarity, and Governing: Cultural Studies and the Writing of History.” Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies 4.4 (November 2004): 450-71.

Steedman, Carolyn. “Something She Called a Fever: Michelet, Derrida, and Dust.” American Historical Review 106.4 (October 2001): 1159-80.

Observation

Karp, David A. “Observing Behavior in Public Places: Problems and Strategies.” In Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative Approaches to Social Research, pp. 82–97. Ed. William B. Shaffir, Robert A. Stebbins & Allan Turowetz. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.

Tamale, Sylvia. “ ‘Doing Gender’ in the House.” When Hens Begin to Crow: Gender and Parliamentary Politics in Uganda, pp. 119–31. Boulder: Westview, 1999.

Participant Observation

Cook, Ian. “Participant Observation.” In Methods in Human Geography, pp. 127–49. Ed. Robin Flowerdew & David Martin. London: Longman, 1997.

Rowler, Lorraine. “The Four Square Laundry: Participant Observation in a War Zone.” The Geographical Review, January–April 2001, pp. 414–22. HTML.

Eliasoph, Nina. “ ‘Close to Home’: The Work of Avoiding Politics.” Theory & Society 26.5 (October 1997): 605–47.

Fenno, Richard F. Jr, “Observation, Context, and Sequence in the Study of Politics,” APSR 80, 1 (March 1986): 3–15).

Interviews

Lofland, John, and Lyn H. Lofland. “Data Logging in Intensive Interviewing” and “Field Notes.” Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, pp. 53–68. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1984.

Riecken, Henry. “The Unidentified Interviewer.” In Sociological Methods, pp. 204–9. Ed. Norman K. Denzin. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

Spradley, James P. “Language and Fieldwork” and “Informants.” The Ethnographic Interview, pp. 17–39 (chapters 2–3). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979.

Whyte, William Foote. “Interviewing in Field Research.” In Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual, pp. 111–22. Ed. Robert G. Burgess. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982.

Focus Groups

Greenbaum, Thomas L. “Focus Groups: An Overview.” The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group Research, pp. 1–17. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1988.

Krueger, Richard A. “Focus Groups.” Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2 ed., pp. 16–38. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1994.

Morgan, David L. “Conducting and Analyzing Focus Groups.” Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, pp. 53–71. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1988.

Case Studies

Van Evera, Stephen. “What are Case Studies? How Should They be Performed?” Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science, pp. 49–88. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Problems of Interpretation

Crang, Mike. “Analyzing Qualitative Materials.” In Methods in Human Geography, pp. 183–96. Ed. Robin Flowerdew & David Martin. London: Longman, 1997.

Levi, Margaret. “Producing an Analytic Narrative.” In Critical Comparisons in Politics and Culture, pp. 152–72. Ed. John R. Bowen & Roger Petersen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Feminist Studies

DeVault, Marjorie. “Talking and Listening from Women’s Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing and Analysis.” Social Problems 37.1 (February 1990): 96–116.

Monaghan, Lee F. “Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk: An Ethnography of Urban Male Heterosexualities.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31.4 (August 2002): 440–77.

Riessman, Catherine Kohler. “When Gender Is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women.” Gender and Society 1.2 (June 1987): 172–207.

Wolf, Margery. “Afterword: Musings from an Old Gray Wolf.” “ In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, pp. 215–21. Ed. Diane L. Wolf. Boulder: Westview, 1996.

Visual Studies

Higonnet, Anne. “Introduction.” Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood, pp. 6–14. New York, Thames and Hudson, 1998.

Rose, Gillian. “Researching Visual Materials: Towards a Critical Visual Methodology.” Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, pp. 5–32. London: Sage, 2001.

Webb, Eugene J., Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest. “Physical Traces: Erosion and Accretion.” Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences, pp. 35–53. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.