1 | P a g e
SSH301 Res Design and Qual Methods
Week 2 - Sept. 16
● Research, Power and Inequality in the Social Sciences
○ Roadmap:
■ What have been the core tenets of social research in ‘the West’?
■ How do these tenets (re)produce relations of power and inequality?
■ How has social research been motivated by/contributed to
imperialism and colonialism?
■ How was power and inequality been embedded in different
streams of social research?
○ Revolutions and Social Research
■ Systemized and ‘scientific’ approaches to the social research
emerge in the wake of three social revolutions: The Enlightenment,
The French Revolution, The Industrial Revolution
■ Disrupts traditional ways of ‘knowing’ the world
■ Rene Decartes ‘cogito ergo sum’ - introduces mind/body dualism
(extended to human/nature)
● Ex. I think therefore i am
Francis Bacon extends this dualism: if humanity is distinct from
nature it is our obligation to master it
■
■ Evolution of social sciences stem from a desire to ‘master’ the
natural world
○ Core Tents of Western Social Research
■ Research is theory-free and value free
■ Research is based in incrementalism
■ Research aims towards a ‘total’ truth and assumes this can be
obtained
■ Research relies on a mind/body; human/nature dualism
■ Research that produces knowledge should be testable and
replicable
○ Theory and Value-Free Assumptions
■ Logical positivism assumes that it is possible to study social
phenomenon from an objective position
■ Suggests that the choices about what to study, what factors to
examine, who to study, and how to study are all natural
■ Assumes that the underlying knowledge that informs the research
is universal/uncontested
■ Assumes that the researcher, their identity, objective beliefs and
values do not interfere with the research
○ Incrementalism
3 | P a g e
■ Logical positivism assumes that all knowledge is a slow and steady
process of building upon/perfecting prior knowledge
■ Cannot account for how many ideas that were dominant in prior
periods are now considered incorrect
■ Locks us into particular sets of values, norms and perspectives.
What are some potential examples?
● Examples
■ Incrementalism also suggests that knowledge is building towards
some universal and total truth - this is not factual but particular
theoretical position
○ Logical Positivism, ‘Total’ Truth, and Dualism
■ The idea of a ‘total’ truth relies on the idea that there is one
singular truth to be uncovered - there is a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’
■ It suggests and relies on a Cartesian duality that emerges from the
Enlightenment (self/other; mind/body; reason/emotion; human/non-
human)
■ These dualisms emerge from a period in which it was thought that
human beings (or some) have a responsibility and unique capacity
to ‘master’ nature
○ Research Paradigms and Othering
■
Enlightenment philosophy suggested that the discovery and
production of knowledge, mastery over nature was a unique
human capacity and responsibility
■ Only one way of knowing/learning/communicating was legitimized
under this model
■ Relied on individualism, positivism, written history and research,
and ‘reason’ rooted in a scientific rationality
○ Indigenous Critiques of Incrementalism and Western History in
Research ■ Research which contributes to and is rooted in an
idea of
‘progressive history’ is colonial in that it:
● Totalizes
● Universalizes
● Assumes a chronology or ‘stages’ of development
● Posits itself as neutral and objective
○ Imperial Origins of Social Research
■ Encounters with ‘the other’ often first motivated by needs for
economic expansion - research was:
● Initially the product of casual, amatuer observation
(travelogues, for example) which were hardly value-neutral
or objective
5 | P a g e
● Actively recruited in order to ascertain how best to control
and direct local populations and environments towards
imperial needs (ie., anthropology)
● Used to justify atrocities committed against/harm done to
indigenous populations (ie., Darwinian natural selection)
○ Capitalism, COlonialism and Power in the Development of the Social
Sciences
■ Prior to capitalism we have feudalism
■ Traditional bonds of feudalism both ensured the rule and security
of lords, while embedding peasants in contracts of reciprocity
■ Capitalism and the rise of individualism leads to the dissolution of
traditional bonds and emergence of new forms of social unrest
■ Capitalism, primitive accumulation and the search for land, labour,
and raw materials (‘Gunboat’ and ‘Settler’ colonialism)
○ Sociology
■ Sociology emerges to answer the ;social question’ : to explain how
to maintain ‘order’ in the face of ‘social disintegration’
■ Comte (1830-50’s), Durheim (1890s) and others analyzed social
relations in isolation from political-economy
■ Later, Weber’s (1890’s-1900’s) work emphasizes individualism as
an advance on ‘traditional’ binds of community
■
○ Anthropology
“The science man” originally interested in historical cultures
■ Enlightenment and advent of capitalism bring new waves of
colonialism and ‘contact’ with different peoples and environments
■ Early anthropology often viewed other cultures as a part of
industrial Europe’s human ‘prehistory’: its mission was to define a
measure ‘civilization’ or it’s absence
■ The ‘absence’ of civilization provided ‘scientific’ justification for
colonial expansion
■ Establishes ‘barbarism’ vs. ‘civilization’ dualism
■ Jean-Jaques Rousseau (philosophy) - Noble savage - state of
nature
○ Geography
■ Mapping has been a key tool in colonialism: divides, names, and
determines ‘possession’ of land
■ Key in determining ‘us’ and ‘them’ through the drawing of borders
■ Mapping used to define settler vs. indigenous lands and to confine
indgenous peoples to reserves in Canada
■ The Pass System in 1887 developed to ‘police’ the territorial and
human boundaries of ‘civilization’ and ‘barbarism’ or ‘whiteness’
and ‘otherness’
7 | P a g e
○ Africa after the Berlin-Conference (1885)
■
Age of ‘high’ or ‘new’ imperialism in the late 19th century created
heightened competition for overseas ‘possessions’
■ By 1877 Europeans had mapped the entire continent recording
areas under colonial control and those uncolonized
■ Berlin Conference established ‘rules’ between colonial powers to
regulate trade and colonialism
○ Criminology
■ Early criminology drew upon and influences the development of
scientific racism
■ Ie., Ceasare Lombroso (often considered one of the founders of
criminology) published The Criminal Man in 1876
■ Attempted to identify inborn, biological characteristics of criminality
that is physically identifiable by characteristics such as ‘large jaw,
low and narrow forehead, and large ears’
■ Identified ;political’ criminals (anarchists) by ‘deformed ears,
inferior jaws, forehead depressions, and facial asymmetry’
○ Scientific Racism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics
■ Scientific racism tied to physical anthropology and emerges
alongside Enlightenment philosophy (begins with attempts to
classify different ‘races’ as different species)
Social Darwinism (Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin): all humans
are a single species, but different ‘races’ are better or worse at
adaptation (in general and in particular environments)
■ Eugenics: the attempt to produce population by limiting or
encouraging the reproduction of peoples with specific genetic
features
○ So What?
■ Many of the founding ideals of our disciplines have been informed
by or developed through violent processes of exploitation and
subordination
■ As researchers it is important to critically reflect on our discipline
where do our theories come from? How has our discipline been
used to justify the oppression of others?
■ What core assumptions or practices need to be rethought?
■ How can our research be used to challenge/transform the
contemporary legacies of these violent histories?
Group Research Proposal a general area of research from which to develop a
proposal. Students will then be required to identify a research question, conduct a
literature review, propose a theoretical framework, detail and rationalize their
choice of methods, consider any ethical issues, and outline a plan of research
dissemin
■
Punitive vs. rehabilitative prison systems
Week 3 - Critical Research as Resistance
● Discussion
○ How has power played into the history and present of your own research
discipline ?
○ Do you see a tendency to pornographize pain? How might these forms of
research be reconceptualized to shift focus away from pain and towards
things like structural power, agency, renewal and refusal
● Roadmap
○ On designing anti-oppressive research
○ Recognizing community forms of knowledge: narrative, storytelling, and
voice
○ Trappings of ‘damaged-centred’ research
○ Knowing when and where to limit research
○ How might we transform researcher/researched power dynamics? How
can we produce ‘resistant’ research?
○ From the ivory tower, back to the community
● Anti-Oppressive Research as Process and Outcome
○ Potts and Brown (2005) argue that it is critical to consider not just the end
objectives of research, but our process in order to work towards socially
just research
○
○
“Good intentions are never enough to produce anti-oppressive processes
or outcomes” (Potts, and Brown, 2005)
Anti-oppressive research as: iterative, collaborative and participatory,
challenging the subject/object binary
● Question and Problem Development
○ Consider where your ‘questions’ are coming from: Who has determined
the ‘question’ as one which needs studying?
○ Recognize and renegotiate power involved in determining what is to be
studied and what is left out
○ Consider who is involved in shaping the topic/questions and how
structures of power often inform our decisions about the topic/question
development (i.e., is their funding for the topic? Is it ‘hot’? If so, by who’s
determination? Does an institution need this research? Why?)
○ Include the community in determining your question/problem and
recognize that it will change if it is coming from a place of anti-oppression
work
● Collaboration and Participation
○ Viewing the community as collaborators requires challenging our
understanding of our own role in the research process
●
○ The community is an expert - they have lived experience and intimately
know the problems and possibilities
○ Participation is not collaborative if the fundamental ownership and control
of the research and how it is conducted remains is not equitable
● Reconsidering the Subject/Object Relation
○ Research normally consists of an expert ‘subject’ analyzing the research
‘object’ upon which/whom experimentation and intervention will be
targeted
○ collaborative research ensures that the community has control over
determining the questions, designing the study (who is involved, what
stakeholders should be present/consulted, etc.), interpreting meaning and
putting research to use
○ Both sides, in this scenario, are active subjects - experts in their own lives
and producers of knowledge
● On Voice: the Perils and Promises of Narrative
○ Centering the stories and voices of the community you are conducting
research with holds a number of promises for anti- oppressive research ○
Can allow the community to provide an alternative version of events
○ Can legitimize non-documentary/academic forms of knowledge (ie.
experiential)
○
○
○ Can allow the community to determine and name the problems and
potential solutions at hand
○ Need to guard against slippage into ‘damage-centered’ research
The Problem with Damage-Centered Research
Damage-centered research operates from both conservative and critical
positions functions as a prerequisite for reparations –
Damage-centered research invites the researcher to ‘speak for’ the
subaltern “reproducing stories of oppression in its own voice”
○ When the only form of legitimate voice is ‘pain’, subaltern agency,
knowledge, and authorship over paths forward are erased
○ Tends to focus on individuals and events, erasing ongoing and structural
issues
● Mad Studies and the Critique of ‘Survivor Porn’
○ Costa, et al. critique the rise in popularity in ‘survivor stories’ used by
mental health service providers and researchers to raise
operating/research funds, build an organizational brand, etc.
○ Sees the act of ‘inclusion’ as the end itself – survivors are called upon to
relay stories of pain and individual success (through therapy, medication,
etc.) without meandering into structural issues and ongoing struggles
(poverty, racism, housing, disability, social service exclusion, etc.)
●
○ The outcomes/objectives of such acts of narrative are often beyond the
community’s control (stories can be used in any way - doesn't have to help
agenda or desired outcomes of community but of only the researcher)
○ “No need to hear your voice when i can talk about you better than you can
speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your
pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new
way.” - Bell Hooks
● From Damage to Desire-Centered Narratives
○ Tuck and Yang propose an alternative to damage-centered narratives
which retains the benefits of narrative or story-telling but re-centers
agency
○ Desire-based research asks questions of communities, not about pain, but
about possibility and innovation (ie. in the face of ‘x’ problem, how do
communities also create and innovate?)
○ Desire-based research is not intended to replace stories of damage (to
fight it we still have to name it) but to actively include questions and stories
about the ‘not yet’ or ‘now what’
● From Damage-Centered to Refusal
○ Tuck and Yang discuss ‘refusal’ as productive: to refuse damage-centered
narratives, to draw a line on what must knowledge must be subjected to
academic research is a productive conversation
○
○
○ Example of the Erased Lynchings series by Ken Gonzales-Day – shifts
focus from damage and pain, and towards structures of power
○ The representation and regurgitation of pain has limits: when it no longer
serves to advance the interests and causes of the community/when it
contributes to the narrative of a community as broken, victim, etc.
Is Research Necessary
Tuck and Yang argue that one step towards a practice of research as
refusal or resistance is to understand that research has limits
The need to research/document all goes back to the Enlightenment
Cartesian dualism (as we saw connected to colonialism)
○ The academy now self-perpetuates this – we do research for the sake of
research, for career advancements, for the sake of degrees
○ Tuck and Yang argue that it is necessary to ask whether research is
actually necessary do we need to know? Why? For what purpose? –
● If Knowledge Exists/is Needed, Must it be ‘Academic’?
○ Scientific’ research is only one form of knowledge (ie. art, literature,
narrative, cultural practices are also forms of knowledge)
○ What would an ‘academic’ stamp add? For whom?
●
○ ‘Research’ may be helpful where the community has identified a need for
inclusion within the ‘scientific’ realm of knowledge legitimacy, and where a
need for resources (funding, administrative, technological, etc.) is
identified
○ ‘Research’ may be unhelpful where the community has not identified a
need/interest in ‘scientific’ stamps, or where the likelihood is for the
interests of ‘projects’ to supersede those of people
● Knowing the Limits of Research
○ Tuck and Yang suggest that research might not be the intervention
needed when:
1) The researcher already knows what they want their research
to say or do
2) The research is constructed to convince a group of
something they are closed to hearing
3) The research is meant to legitimize existing and recognized
community knowledge
4) The researcher wants to spin existing research say it in a –
different voice
5) There is too much at stake for the research to work against
the community/researcher’s position
○
○
● From the Ivory Tower and Back
○ Mad Studies scholar David Reville has argued that research, to be
transformative, must always return to the community. Speaking to the mad
community, Reville argues it is useful to:
1) Find a way into the academy (when and where deemed
useful)
2) Find your way around
3) Build alliances
4) Bring in (Mad/community) students and teachers
5) Find your way back into the community
(Reville, 2013: 179)
So What?
Research has been used as a powerful form of subordination and
oppression but it can also be a powerful tool to challenge such
Research as a form or resistance must take up questions of anti-
oppression in terms of process as well as outcomes
○ Considering process always requires interrogating our own positionality
and how our ‘epistemic privilege’ in itself will create power asymmetries
○ We cannot use research to challenge oppression if we don’t also
reconsider the power embedded in how we conduct research
●
○ “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
Week 4 - Research Ethics
● Historical Development of Research Ethics
○ The Nuremberg Code (1948)
■ Came after WWII
■ Voluntarily consent, produce research for outcomes of society (only
if there is no other way)
■ Human research has to be preceded on animals
■ Never to be conducted if death or injury is possible
■ Participants have to be able to withdraw consent at any time
○ The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972)
■ Observed lifespan of syphilis
■ No consent or full information
■ Information outcome did not precede results
○ Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
■ Global policy on ethics
■ Sets out norms in which most physicians must follow
○ The Belmont Report (1979)
■ National research act
■ Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice should be the core
principles
○ Tri Council Policy Statement (1998/2018)
■ Respect for Persons, concern for human welfare, and
justice ● Research Requiring Ethics Approval in Canada
○ In canada, research ethics boards (REBs) are required to review all
proposed research which involves ‘human subjects’ within their institution
○ Institutions and REBs required to adhere to the TCPS are all those that
are eligible to receive funding from one of the three major funding
agencies for the Tri-council ( ocial ciences and umanities h, S S H R Cesear
Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearCh, nstitute of Candian I Health
Research)
○ The TCPs does not assess privately funded research or community
funded research
○
Research involving humans includes: “those individuals whose data,
biological materials, or responses to interventions, stimuli or questions by
the researcher are relevant to answering the research question(s)” (TCPS
II)
● Research Exempt from REB Review
○ If your project is defined as research, it may not require REB review if:
■ The information relied on is publicly available through legislation or
regulation that is protected by law (i.e., birth and death registries,
court judgements public archives and statistic, FOI/ATIP)
■ The information is in the public domain and the individuals whose
information is being used have no reasonable expectation to
privacy (i.e., film, audio, digital recording, official publications, art
installations, literary events etc.) if the research is non-intrusive and
does not involve direct interaction between researcher and
individual
■ The information is based on observation of people in public spaces
(without information, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,
dissemination maintains anonymity)
■ The research is based exclusively on secondary use of anonymous
information, biological materials so long as results and
dissemination do not generate identifiable information
○
● Main Principles of Research Ethics
Respect for Persons
○ Concern for Human Welfare
○ Justice
● Doing Research in Canada
○ If doing research in a publicly funded institution (think universities and
hospitals) all research involving human subjects must be submitted to
your institutional Research Ethics Board
■ Ryersons REB
■ Does your project require ethics approval
■ Ryerson Senate Policy 51 on Research with Human Subjects
■ All of the above is governed by the TCPS2
● TCPS II: Ethics Overview
○ What are the potential benefits of participation?
○ What are the potential risks? What is the magnitude of harm and its
probability?
○ Consent must be voluntary, informed, and ongoing (different forms of
consent may be necessary in particular spaces)
○ Fairness and Equity
○ Privacy and Confidentiality
○ Conflicts of Interest
○
○ Research involving First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples
● Risks and Benefits
Participants should be made aware of any direct benefit they can expect
from participation, though more often than not the benefit is social rather
than individual
○ Risks are inevitable given that research is about the ‘unknown’
○ REB’s asses risk as a function of of harm and its magnitude probability
○ Magnitude: is a range that runs from minimal to substantial, and may be
interpreted differently by participants and researches. REB’s are obliged
to consider from the perspective of the participant/community
○ Probability: assessed based on researchers past experience doing
similar studies, existing publications that relay rates of relevant harm, etc.
● Consent
○ Consent must be obtained freely, on the basis of full information and can
be withdrawn at any point (along with their data and biological materials)
○ Consent is ongoing (esp. disclosure of changes to risks, incidental
findings, tec.)
○ “Authorized Third Parties” may provide consent for those who lack the
capacity to make the decision for themselves - such consent is decided in
reference to consideration of a concern for welfare and justice
○ Responsibility for consent lies with Principle Investigator (PI)
○
○ Must consider issues of: undue influence, coercion, incentives, access to
information
○ Provide ample opportunity for participants to ask questions
Use plain language, provide interpretation services
● Article 37A: Alterations to Consent/Exceptions from Full Disclosure
○ In some cases, the researcher can appeal to the REB that obtaining
consent/full disclosure would interfere with the research objective. To be
considered for exception, the researcher must show:
■ The research involves no more than minimal risk to participants
■ The alteration to consent requirements is unlikely to adversely
affect the welfare of participants
■ The research question is impossible or impracticable to carry out if
prior consent is required
■ The exact nature of the alteration is defined
● MKUltra, Milgram studies
● Fairness and Equity
○ Research should strive to include participants from communities normally
excluded by research
○ Research should provide space for the inclusion of those lacking capacity
to consent if that research cannot be done without the participation of the
○
individual , the research poses minimal risk, and the research has the
potential to benefit the individual/group
○ Research should be disseminated in a timely manner
○ Participants should not bear disproportionate burden of risk
■ Ex. women and heart attacks vs men
● Privacy and Confidentiality
○ Consider what risks might arise is participants’ identities are associated
with the collection, use and disclosure of their data
○ Is the research identifiable? Research might be directly identifiable,
indirectly identifiable, coded, anonymized or anonymous
○ Confidentiality is easiest when research is anonymous/anonymized but
this might not be possible - researchers then have an obligation to
safeguard identities to protect confidentiality
● Conflicts of Interest
○ Refers to situations in which your duties and responsibilities as a
researcher may be in conflict with your duties and responsibilities as an
individual or institutional affiliate
○ Types of conflict of interest include:
■ Institutional Conflict
■ REB Member Conflict
■ Researcher Conflict
● Research Involving First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples
○ In light of respect for different worldviews, cultures, and identities the
principles of TCPS II are extended/adjusted to ensure ethical research
with indigenous communities
○ Ethics must address the community and natural environment in addition
to the individual (recognizing the centrality of collective rightd for
individual welfare)
○ Research should enhance autonomy of indigenous peoples and their
cultures, languages and identities
○ Attention to justice/injustice as understood within the community is
necessary (i.e., misappropriation of sacred stories, songs, artefacts, etc.)
○ All research with the potential to affect the welfare of the community must
seek the engagement of the community, the nature and extent of which is
to be determined by community and researcher
○ Research on lands under indigenous jurisdiction must engage with
community elders/leaders and respect their authority
○ Communities are recognized as organizations with representative input on
REBs
○ Researchers should consider the range of interests that may present in a
given territory or organizational community
○ Should critically examine institutions exercising authority over indigenous
groups
○ Should respect community customs and codes of practice
○ Should advise REB on plans for community engagement/dissemination
● Ethical Considerations in Every Phase of Research
○
○
Develop your question in conversation with the community and be flexible
to change throughout your research
○ Fieldwork: respectfully contact community leader to explain your desire
for access, the nature of your research, etc. Understand how best to
observe without intruding and build trust, and leave the field with respect
and dignity
○ Interviews/Transcription: Consent must be adjusted to the needs of the
community which might require oral rather than written consent, consent
that respects the need for anonymity, or the centrality of community over
individuality. Verbal consent in combination with a form detailing the
research may be supplement
○ ‘Listen’ to the data rather than twist it to fit your narrative
○ Write up your findings clearly, request community feedback and have a
plan for community dissemination
● So what?
○ Formal ethics procedures have developed in response to the past harms
dine in the name of research in order to ensure responsible research
which respects human dignity and autonomy
○ Research conducted in publicly funded bodies in Canada must be
assessed by the institutional REB which is guided by the TCPS II
Ethical research beings before and extends beyond the boundaries of the
TCPS II
○
Week 5 - Developing and Defining your Problematic
● The Qualitative Turn
○ Social science research, up until the mid 20th century, dominated by
positivism, though there were pockets of qualitative research
○ 1960’s -80’s see rise in academic acceptance for qualitative research
○ Thomas Kuhn, (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution
● Core Principles of Qualitative Research
○ “Sympathetic understanding” guides most qualitative research: rejects
objective positionality of researcher and calls for empathy and ‘seeing’
from the perspective of the community
○ “Definition of the situation” suggests that our perception of reality, in fact,
shapes our lived experiences/reality
● How does our theory impact our methodology and vice versa?
○ Theoretical assumptions underlying qualitative theory include a general
belief that perspective is importance and reality is (to greater or lesser
degrees) socially constituted
○ Induction guides theory which develops through our observations rather
than in advance
○
○
○
Theory may guide our initial entry/question but these assumptions may
shift or be added to in order to accomodate what we find in the field
Emergent design
● Why do we use theory?
○ Human social phenomenon is complex - theory helps to guide our attention
○ Theory gives us a means to interpret the connections between various
social phenomena
○ Theory may help us to figure out who and/or what aspect of a particular
phenomenon is central to answering our question
○ Theory may also inform the kinds of ‘results’ or changes we hope to
contribute towards in our research
● Basic Theoretical Dispositions
○ Grand theory: Tends to be universal in assumed scope, macro, structuralist
(playing down individual human agency)
○ Mid-range theory: Societal in scope, but does not tend to universalism.
Regional/national/cultural structures operate with some autonomy within
the broader global system
○
○
○ Micro-level theory: focuses on the primacy of individual agency in
determining, interpreting and shaping reality
○ Not exhaustive list of examples:
● Rational Choice Theory
Analyzes social phenomena as the outcome of individual behaviour
Assumes that individuals are ‘rational’ actors who seek to maximize their
own benefit/interest
○ When making decisions all actors do so on the basis of a full and ‘rational’
consideration of existing information, an assessment of potential risks, costs,
benefits etc.
● Postmodernism
○ Theoretical and philosophical tradition that rejects objectivity, universalisms
and metanarratives
○ As the name suggests, it tends to reject the foundational principles of
modernism - ie. the Enlightenment philosophical tradition
○ Focus on reality as constituted through ideological values and knowledge
claims
○ Pluralism over structuralism
○ Fragmentation over centralization
○
○
○
○ Often focused on language and symbolism
■ Postmodernism exclusionary - dominated by white men - language
is inaccessible
● Postcolonial Theory
It is impossible to understand our world without beginning from
colonialism and imperialism
Concerned with the impact of colonialism on a range of aspects of social
life across the globe
○
○
Often emphasize agency, knowledge and voice of the colonized (i.e.,
rejecting victimization, meta-narratives, unitary and universal history)
○ Colonialism provides the economic base to modern world - our modern
world in constituted by colonialism
● Symbolic interactionism
○ Meaning emerges through shared understanding generated in the
process of communication (rejects objective meaning)
○ Our identities are also formed through interaction - and this is a driver for
meaning making
○ Primacy of human agency in determining meaning, motivation, and
behaviour
○ How do people give meaning to themselves or things around them based
on interaction - how people make sense of the world
● Structural Functionalism
○ Society is an organic totality
○ All parts/groups/actors play an essential role in maintaining the ‘whole’ of
society
○ Stability + Unity
Human body analogy - society operates the same way as a human body
has a number of parts that is there for a reason (is necessary) but these
○
○
○
parts are not all equal (e.g., heart's function is more important than
eyebrow function, but both still have importance)
Inequality is necessary for society to function
○ Generally concerned with understanding how to achieve/maintain stability
of a given social order
○ Everyone has to share common beliefs and objectives for a stable society
to function
● Marxism
○ Focus on as driving human history conflict
○ Fundamentally concerned with how modes of production are social and
create relations of power and inequality
○ Class relations and capitalist social relations are the central point of
analysis
○ Contemporary Marxist theory addresses the changing nature of class
structure/relations and the relationship between class and race, gender,
sexuality, disability, saneism, etc.
○ Expose inequality and drive change towards equality
● Critical Race Theory
○ Begins from a critique of as the key underlying white supremacy
conflict/power relation that structures social life
○
Legal norms and political power are key in the creation and maintenance
of racial categories/supremacy
Seek to understand and show how racism is a structural condition of our
legal and political institutions
Often attentive to the necessity of intersectional analysis
● Gender-Oriented Theories
○ Significant range, though all focus on gender/patriarchy as a key source of
conflict
○ Variants Include:
■ Liberal/Pluralist:
● Structures of society are fine except for lack of women, seeking inclusion
● Not challenging the system - wanting access to it
■ Social Reproduction Theory/Dual Systems Theory:
● Revolution, getting rid of the system
● Gender inequality is interwoven in capitalism
● Dual system - first patriarchy then capitalism - each topic can be discussed
separately
● Social reproduction - you can't have capitalism without patriarchy -
uncompensated labour to create working class
(women raising children)
○
○
○
● Class inequality = gender inequality
■ Queer Theory:
● Deconstructed - trying to break down cis, hetero norms in society
● How current sex ed curriculum is hetero-normative - it assumes
heteronormativity
● Queer couples may not be providing that free labour (typical partiarchal
systems)
Week
● Interviews and Focus Groups
○ The Standardized Interview
■ Also known as the survey
■ Attempts to limit bias/external influence by regulating the
conditions of the survey, it’s wording, the tone of the
interviewer, etc.
■ Answer variation is controlled either by asking you to agree or
disagree with a statement or choose from a list of
predetermined answers (close-ended or forced choice
questions)
■ What are the limitations of this approach for a qualitative
researcher?
In-Depth Interviews
○
■ Focus on interviewees explanations and experiences, definitions of
the situation and feelings
■ Can allow the interviewee to determine where the ‘story’
begins/ends (or maybe it doesn’t)
■ Allows for more flexibility in defining and redefining the research
problem
■ Allows for more flexibility in changing strategy when something
doesn’t work
■ Can also occur more sporadically, as the field dictates
○ Styles of In-Depth Interviewing
■ Semi-Structured: Interview is guided by predetermined questions
and prompts, though they are open-ended
■ Unstructured: Often has one opening question or prompt, and the
remainder of the interview is determined by the interviewee. The
interviewer will typically follow up with questions and prompts that
are developed on the spot, in response to the material delivered by
the interviewee
■ – Spontaneous interviews accord more with the latter this makes
the unstructured interview well suited to fieldwork
○ The Active Interview
■ Interviews are social processes that don't simply reveal
knowledge but create it
■ Active interviewing involves the researcher being self aware of the
interview process itself as a source of data
■ How your interviewee reacts to you, communicates with you, their
body language, choice of tone, etc. are all also sources of
knowledge
■ Active listening is also necessary so that the researcher can be
open to these verbal and non verbal cues that contextualize the
words spoken
○ Your ‘Sample’
■ In qualitative research it is rarely random and that’s ok – we aren’t
trying to generate ‘objective’ and ‘quantitative’ data
■ Our choices are always subjective - we are choosing to interview
a group based on certain qualities they have which we hope will
provide some insight
■ We should choose to interview the people we are studying (ie.
nothing about us without us)
■ – Our choices will likely change as we get deeper into the study
new ideas will emerge and direct us to different populations
○
■ Snowball Sampling: getting participants to refer/recommend other
people who fit in that sample (voluntary)
Interview Guides
■ Open-ended questions and probes
■
■
Flow (make sure its logical, ideally move from broad to more
narrow)
Limit volume of questions (the point is to let them tell their story)
■ Ask for feedback/any additional thoughts
○ Avoid the following
■ Accusatory wording (i.e., why vs. how)
■ Leading questions - (i.e., don't you think…)
■ Loaded questions - contain assumptions that may impose a
particular position or admission on the interviewee
■ Double-barreled questions - asks two separate questions but
accepts or frames as acceptable only one answer
○ Field Notes and Transcription
■ Field notes are your general impressions/ideas from the interview
and should be written up immediately
■ These notes provide context for the words you recorded
■ Transcription is the written document of your interview - you will
have to listen to your interview and type it out so that you have a
hard-copy
■ The hard copy can more easily be used for coding (associating
certain part of research into labels to relate to themes) later - i.e.,
○
flagging important material and associating it with a particular
theme so that you can later compare different interviews, etc.
○ Transcription Options
■ Do it yourself:
● Pros - allows you to become more familiar with your
research material, allows you to pick up on more nuance,
create as accurate of a record as possible
● Cons - time consuming, tedious
■ Hire a professional
● Pros - time saving
● Cons - lack of context, expensive, you still need to review
them
○ Focus Groups
■ Moderated group discussions
■ Allow for an observational and interactional dimension in addition to
interviewing
■ You are able to observe how members in the community negotiate
different experiences amongst themselves how they reconcile –
their different views
■
■
■
■ You are often also privy to problems/ideas/strategies that only
really emerge once you get a bunch of people with similar
experiences talking
Talking Circles
Indigenous tradition and method used frequently when doing
research with indigenous peoples
Grounded in cultural beliefs around community
■ Useful in avoiding aggressive or dominating voices
■ Designated object is passed around and each person has the
opportunity to contribute or pass
○ Challenges of Focus Groups
■ Keeping the discussion focused and on topic, while allowing for
enough flexibility to be open to issues/ideas you hadn’t thought of
■ Intragroup power dynamics (class, gender, race, sexuality, education,
age, impact dynamics of who speaks, who is heard)
■ Potential for ‘herd mentality’ where the group follows cues set by
dominant voices
■ Managing dominant voices/enabling a space that is safe for all to
participate
■ Managing privacy concerns
○
○ Choosing a Moderator
■ Consider whether you should be leading the focus group or if you
should hire a professional moderator
If significant power differential exists between you and the group it
might be useful to hire a moderator
■
■
■
■ Moderator’s should have a degree of cultural knowledge relevant to
the group
■ Moderator’s should keep discussion focused with as little
intervention as possible
■ Moderator’s may also like to have a secondary observer to record
field notes
○ Conducting a Focus Group
■ Creating a comfortable environment is key
■ Allow for some time at the beginning to let participants get
water/coffee (these should be provided) and get comfortable
■ Ice breakers are helpful if participants do not know each other
■ Begin by identifying the ways in which participants share something
in common/introducing the topic and purpose of the focus group
■ Because confidentiality is more difficult, moderator’s should outline
the limits of self-disclosure before beginning
■ Open-ended questions should function as a guide, not a script
○ Analyzing Focus Group Data
■ Recording and transcribing
■ Field notes (again, the focus group itself is a site of data generation
–the verbal and non-verbal dynamics between participants is rich
material, and detailed notes should be taken)
Post-adjournment notes (immediate impressions if you were not
the one conducting field notes)
Coding
○ A Note on Object and Art-Based Methods
■ Involves having subjects choose or create symbolic
representations of their experience/world views, etc.
■ Often followed by moderated focus groups or interviews to
elaborate
■ Useful in tapping into those aspects of experience that can be
difficult to name or speak about
○ Groupwork: in your groups think through the following
■ Will your proposal use interviews or focus groups (or neither or
both)? Why or why not?
■ Will they be semi-structured or unstructured?
■ What potential challenges do you foresee in either the recruitment
process or in conducting interviews/focus groups? How might you
best prepare?
■
■
■
■ Begin to brainstorm the overarching issues you want your research
community to help you with. What are they?
Try drafting some prompts or questions, avoiding some of the
major problems in question development identified.
Week 7 - Nov. 4
● Decolonizing Methods
○ TCPS 2 Chapter Nine
■ Sets out 22 articles specifying ethical guidelines for research with
Indigenous peoples
■ Requirement for community engagement (9.1 and 9.2, 9.11, 9.12,
9.13, 9.14, 9.17, 9.18)
■ Respect for and recognition of traditional authority, values, cultural
beliefs (9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 9.15)
■ Respect for and recognition of diversity (9.6)
■ Technical issues regarding biological information (9.19, 9.20)
■ Review requirements (9.6, 9.21, 9.22)
○ Ethics Beyond the TCP2
■ Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) Principles
■ Utility, Self-Voicing, Access, and Inter-Relationality Research
Framework (USAI)
■ Inuit Ethical Principles
■ Mi’Kmaw Ethics Watch
■ Consider the group you are working with and find out if they have
established their own protocols
○ Self-Location
Self-location is critical in conducting indigenous research, but also
part of broader indigenous epistemology
For many indigenous peoples, the self is not separate from the
larger history, environment and community
■ Who are we? Where are we from? Who are our ancestors?
■ Answering these questions are key in building trusting and
reciprocal relationships
■ Allows for us to understand the position/world-views from which we
all speak Lavalee, 2009, Kovach, 2010
○ Some Considerations Before Beginning Your Design
■ Meet with elders and advisors from the community for input and,
later, permission
■ Follow culturally appropriate protocols for exchanging knowledge
■ Build relationships from the beginning
■
■
■
■ Never take on the research if you plan on a ‘fly-in/fly-out’ relation
with the community
■ Be prepared to come back and assist after the research is
completed
○ Elders
Any research with indigenous populations should begin by
consulting and asking the permission of community elders
■
Reserve Communities: normally you will speak with band council
and designated elders who will perform an advisory function
■ Urban/Non-Reserve Communities: while there is no band council,
there are recognized elders
■ Toronto – Taam Kaadinakiijik Council (Native Canadian Centre of
Toronto) is a council of elders and traditional peoples that provides
guidance for the community and should be approached by potential
researchers
○ Gifts
■ In some (not all) indigenous communities on Turtle Island, tobacco
is considered a sacred plant
■ In exchange for sharing knowledge, guidance, and advice, tobacco
is often placed in bundles of cloth and given as a gift to elders
■ Tobacco may also be presented to participants as a form of respect
■ Reciprocity underpins this form of gifting: by accepting tobacco
gifts, the recipient is also committing themselves to complete the
task asked of them
■ For the Algonquin, Ojibway, and Cree Nations one might also offer
sage or sweetgrass which is used in smudging ceremonies
Lavallee, 2009
○ Conversational Method: Margaret Kovach
■
Margaret Kovach (Plains Cree and Salteaux ancestry) argues the
conversational method is in keeping with the importance of the oral
tradition
■ Conversational method as umbrella term for storytelling, yarning,
talk story, re-membering, circle talks
■ Conversation is crucial in respecting the communal over individual
basis of identity and knowledge production
■ Specific operation of the conversational method depends on local
custom, values, beliefs
○ How is the Conversational Method Different From a Focus Group
■ Kovach argues the conversational method as indigenous method
differs in the following:
a. It is always grounded in a particular tribal
epistemology
b. It is always relational and reciprocal
c. It is always action-oriented
d. The protocol is intentional and attached to specific
custom
e. It is informal and flexible
f. It is collaborative and reflexive
Kovach, 2010
○ Preparation for Conversational Research
■ Reciprocity begins with preparation (not the conversation)
■ Interpersonal relations and familiarity with and among the
community must start early
■ Discussions about how the research will give back to the
community must prefigure (rather than follow) the conversation
■ Pre-conversation discussion should flag any potential for
emotionally triggering topics
■ Researchers should be knowledgeable about community support
resources
○ Storytelling
■ Responses are orally transmitted and narratively described
■ Co-creation of knowledge/narrative is centred – the act of telling
the story is as important as the story told
■ Argued by Wright et al. (2012) that storytelling allows for
incorporation of non-human elements that are crucial to indigenous
life worlds (ie. animals, environmental forces)
■ Storytelling as mode of dissemination also
○ Yarning Circles
■ A form of storytelling/conversational method rooted in Aboriginal
cultures of, what is today, Western Australia and the Torres Strait
■
Islanders
Involves the building of reciprocal and trusting relationships
■ Circular nature of discussion highlights the community process of
building and contributing to knowledge production
■ Generally has participants seated in a circle where topics are
introduced and all participants contribute, building upon one
another’s ideas
Bessarab and Ng’andu, 2010
○ Talking/Sharing Circles
■ Similar in style and objective to ‘yarning’ but grounded in the
cultures of Turtle Island, often used as a form of healing
■ All participants are viewed as intellectual, spiritual and emotional
equals
■ May begin with cleansing ceremony involving smudging
■ Begin with explanation of general purpose and review
confidentiality and voluntary participation
■ Do not take notes – audiotape with consent
■ Questions are open-ended
■ May involve passing a token or stick that is culturally relevant to
designate the speaker
Lavallee, L., 2009
○ Anishinabe Symbol-Based Research
■ Arts-based approach to research linked to Participatory Action
Research and influenced by Photovoice developed by Dr. Lynn
Lavallee (Ryerson)
■ In many indigenous cultures symbols/art are thought to contain the
energy of the creator and are spiritually significant and potent
methods of communication
■ Often asks participants to create a symbol that represents their
feelings/experiences regarding a particular topic (ie. your research
area)
■ Often preceded and followed by talking circles
Lavallee, 2005
○ Guest Speaker
■ Dr. Rebecca J. Hall: Assistant Professor (Global Development
Studies) Queen’s University
● Political Economy of Extraction
● Mary McEwan Memorial Award for Feminist Research
● Governor’s General Gold Medal for Diamonds are Forever: a
decolonizing feminist approach to diamond mining in
■
Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
Week 8- Participatory Methods and Community-Based Research
Ethnography Throughout the Ages
● Colonialism and travelogues
● Untrained observers
● Pure observation
● Observer bias
● Salvage Ethnography
“Complete participant”
Researcher role is unknown to the community
Establishes oneself as a full member
Privy to unmediated behaviour
Ethical considerations around covert research
‘Participant Observer’-as-
-Role as researcher is known to the community
-researcher develops relationships in the community through participation in daily life.
-Researcher will often ‘fit’ into the community in some manner
-Most common method
‘Observer Participant’-as-
- The researcher is known to the community
- The researcher does not ‘fit’ in an identifiable way
- Researcher may participate, but only when such is meaningful and unobtrusive
- Where clear distinction between researcher and community exists, often only
option
‘Complete Observer’
-Researcher is unknown
-No interaction with community
-often covert research or anonymous observation in public spaces
-generally not practiced
Initially this was thought to be the best way to do the research as it was assumed
that this was the most objective
Generally not practiced today because it raises a number of avoidable ethical
concerns
In fact involves a great deal of observer bias you are simply observing from your own –
positionality and therefore imposing your own beliefs/values etc. on the interpretation
Again recall that qualitative research is never about objective truth but
understanding perspectives
Autoethnography
-The use of sustained and systematic self-reflection and analysis to understand
personal experiences as they relate to broader phenomenon
-Derived from the postmodern shift in the 1980s
-How does experience influence research process?
-Process and outcome are bound
-May also be combined with interview and archival research
Virtual Ethnography
-The internet, social media, chatrooms, discussion boards, comment sections as ‘field’
-May limit obstacles to accessing sites
-Does not necessarily remove ‘gatekeeper’ issues
-Likely combined with interviews, content analysis and archival/documentary methods
-Problems around user deception, ethics, informed consent, lack of non-verbal context,
and lurking
Even with active consent, it can be easy for the community to forget about your
presence and expose themselves in ways they might not otherwise actively and
enthusiastically agree to
Certain spatial barriers to access can be mitigated but online communities will
continue to have a range of rules, gatekeepers, language and values that may or may
not inhibit access
Lurking verges on pure observer status and with that, arises a range of ethical
and analytical concerns without some level of participation, interpretation rather than –
user/community explanations will take precedence.
User deception this may be an issue but at the same time, we all have our –
‘front stage ‘and ‘back stage’ selves – we present ourselves for our audience, and this
will always be the case in situations of research so how different online deception is
from our day-to-day deceptions is a question.
‘The Field’
-Begin with knowing your own capacities/limitations
-Site should exhibit your research interest clearly
-Comparable to those studied previously/not over-studied
-Minimal gatekeeping obstacles
-You should be more valuable than burdensome to the community
Types of Observations
Descriptive this is the kind of observation where the mundane is crucial describe – –
everything because you don’t know what is important
Focused - you have done some interviews and have some ideas about what is
important based on your participants’ feedback – you are focused
Selective Your observations are structured around specific activities/actors, often with –
the goal of understanding how these activities/actors are distinguishable from others.
Other methods of organizing observations
-Physical environment
-Participants
-Activities and Interactions
-Verbal and non-verbal communications
3 how long, how often, planned or unplanned, who is involved, what is the meaning, –
etc.
4- never paraphrase
Data Collection
● Record your observations
● Impressions should be clearly distinguished from actual observation
● Observation is active
● Jottings and note-taking
● Interviews and archival research often form complements
➔ Always be sure to record your actual observations without imputing
meaning/value judgement or interpretation
➔ When observing, note that this is a deliberate activity and you should be also
paying attention to relationships between behaviours, members, etc.
➔ You will also want to observe/be aware of the mundane ie. when we ask –
people question they often filter out much of the routine stuff they do, without
knowing it might be informative.
➔ Always ask questions ng. – don’t feel silly, never assume you know somethi
During your first days or weeks in the field this will be especially important after –
some time you may be expected to have learned certain things
➔ Write everything down as soon as possible while it might not be advisable to –
write notes in front of people, find reasons/excused to get away as soon as is
reasonable so that you can record your observations.
Week 8 Part II
● Key Questions
○ Why do scholars choose to do community engaged research?
○ What are some complexities to consider with community engaged
research?
○ What are some indications this might be a good fit for your interests abd
research project?
● Where did they go wrong?
○ Jane is a graduate student. Jane and her supervisor Dr. Nutrition are
doing a study of campus food options to examine the availability of
‘healthy’ food choices
○ Andrew is a cook and Jennifer is a manager at campus food services.
○ Jane approaches Jennifer and Andrew for help with her study
○ Jennifer and Andrew aren’t sure exactly what the study is measuring, but
they spend substantial time helping Jane and Dr. Nutrition and give them
extra access to food services for their research
○ The next time Jennifer and Andrew hear from Jane is when she sends
them an abstract about an article that is going to be published in a very
rigorous top nutrition journal that is highly critical of campus food services ○
Jennifer and Andrew are annoyed, as is much of food service staff.
○ They decide they won’t participate in Dr. Nutrition’s research in the future
■ Does it matter whether food services staff were annoyed if the
findings of the study were accurate
■ What could Jane and Dr. Nutrition have done differently in the
research relationship?
● What is community engaged research?
○ Not a method of research but an approach
○ Community groups, organizations and/or individuals are involved in all
stages of the research process, from problem-definition to data collection
to report-writing
○ Framework of reciprocity and mutual benefit
○ Values multiple forms of knowledge
○ Advocacy commitment
● Common reasons scholars engage with community
○ Community knowledge necessary to accurately understand a problem
■ Type of research requires community buy-in
■ Interest in an applied problem (for example, public health, public
policy, environmental regulations)
○ Ethics and values of the researcher
■ Critique of “ivory tower” representation of the university
■ Conce rn with social justice (“Critical Community Engaged
Research”)
■ Concern with replicating researcher-object approach to inquiry
● Theoretical Underpinnings
○ Community members and organizations have essential knowledge about
social problems
○ Problematization of the traditional “expert”
○ Problematization of traditional research hierarchies
○ View that academic research can and should inform social change
● Methods and strategies
○ Collaborative and open research process
■ Individual vs. collaborative process
■ Subject to change
○ Attention to equity
■ Capacity building
■ Provision of support to enable equitable research participation
○ Emphasis on academic and community outputs
■ Journal articles but also community meetings, videos, policy-briefs,
etc.
● Varieties of community engaged research
○ Community Based Research (CBR)
○ Participatory-Action Research (PAR or CBPAR)
○ Critical Community Engaged Research (CCER)
● We-Act: Look at slides
● Conclusion
○ COmmunity engaged research is an approach to research that involves
community in all aspects of the research process
○ Community engaged research fundamentally challenges traditional
academic views on the place of the researcher and the role of academic
research
○ Community engaged research may be useful approach for research aims
to
■ Move beyond critique towards policy ideas
■ Cultivate long-term partnerships with community organizations
■ Engage with communities experiencing socioeconomic and/or
political marginalization
Week 9
● What are unobtrusive research methods?
○
a collection/creation without interacting with research participants
○ Works with already existing materials
○ Often (not always) combined with other methods
○ Extremely wide range of items that could be used as sources of data
● When/why/and how do we use unobtrusive research methods?
○ Often cost- effective (ie. if you don’t need big research budgets)
○ Existing materials, as human creations, tell us how people/groups wish to
represent themselves the document and its representation can be an –
important source of data
○ May use documentary research to guide our complementary methods (ie.
may help to inform our interviews/focus groups, etc.)
○ Manifest vs. Latent content analysis
● Statistical records
○ Who we count and how we count tell us a lot about society
○ Bruce Curtis - The Politics of Population: State Formation, Statistics and
the Census of Canada, 1840-1875
○ Census and statistics tell us stories about the ‘image’ or ‘identity’ a that
one might be trying to build (representation)
○ Statistical records are based on other forms of information – what is used
to measure and count population? Who is not counted? Why?
○
● Correspondences and autobiographies
Correspondences may be published in volumes accessible through
libraries or bookstores but often also obtained through archives
○ Intimate snapshots of daily life allow us to build a picture with more
attention to the ‘mundane’
○ Allows us to connect the ‘private troubles’ of individual lives to broader
social phenomenon
● Institutional Documents
○ Institutional Ethnography (IE) examines how we as a society have
routinized and institutionalized certain patterns of relations
○ Analyzing institutional documents also provides language and thereby
information about representing certain groups, behaviors, etc.
● Professional Publications
○ Otherwi se known as ‘secondary research’
○ Academic literature, grey literature
○ Not only a source of ‘data’ but provides information on social
positions/power in relation to particular topics
○ Insight into how we frame, discuss and prioritize certain social
phenomenon
● Atip and FOI’S
○
○ Access to Information and Privacy many requests can be made online ($5
fee)
You can also search/request copies of previously completed ATIP
requests
○ ATIP established 1983, in the interest of governmental transparency and
democratic process provides right to access records under federal –
control
○ Ontario – called Freedom of Information (FOI) and must be made in
writing ($5 application fee)
○ Provided for under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act (FIPPA) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (MFIPPA)
● News Media
○ News media as both representative and productive of social reality
○ Framing analysis - tina fontaine (globe and mail headline) - framing victim
as less deserving of empathy or sympathy because of drug or alcohol use
○ Content analysis
● Popular Culture
○ Television, music, advertisements, social media, literature, film are
important sources of data
○
○ In the long term, can serve as a historical timeline or repository of social
experience and representation
○ A window into popular attitudes of a time/shows change through time
○ Might highlight prevalent moral panics
Contributes to the building of personal and social identity/reality
● Archival research
○ Use of primary sources to trace lineage, provide evidence, or conduct
interpretive analysis
○ Maps, photographs, drawings, official documents, correspondence, legal
documents, and more.
○ Most archives are organized by the system of fonds
○ In Canada, archives are organized in the following framework: fonds,
sous-fond, series, sub-series, file, item
● Navigating archive use
○ If visiting Library and Archives Canada, you need a user card and must fill
out a material retrieval form before visiting
○ Most archives have developed research guides to help
○ You may also book an appointment with and archivist to help you (in
person, skype, phone)
○
○ Some items have been digitized but many will need to be consulted on-
site
○ Some items (personnel files, military service files, restricted records of
federal government institutions) may need to be accessed through ATIP
requests
● Archival activity
Before visiting an archive it is helpful to familiarize yourself with the kinds
of information you will need/would like to consult ahead of time
○ In your groups go to Library and Archives Canada’s collection search
○ Conduct a search, any search you want, through this page
○ Start at the fond level and try to follow it down to an actual item or file for –
each stage, record the label associated with the descriptive level (ie. fond,
sous-fond, series, subseries, file, item)
Week 10
Analyzing and Writing your Research
On Reflexivity in Qualitative Analysis
● Research question continues to be refined
● Ask what questions your data answers, rather than how it answers your question
● Consider how your positionality impacted the data you received (and the silences)
○
Analysis Begins ‘In the Field’
● Your field notes and memos are the beginning of your analysis
● Organizing field notes into memos – identify themes as a proto-coding system
● Develop a system for recording ideas about analysis (themes, codes, literature)
throughout the life-span of the project.
Coding: What is it?
❏ Thematic organization of research data
❏ Assign labels to chunks of your data (transcripts, literature, documents,
audio/visual material, field notes, etc.)
❏ Allows you to identify emergent themes, compare and analyze data within and
across themes
❏ Codes should emerge from your data rather than be imposed upon it
Open Coding
● First stage coding (may want to color code)
● Labelling of broad themes (there will be many – not all will make your final cut)
● Make note of absences but do not read them into your data
● Work with manageable chunks
● Reorganize all your data into new files for each theme/chapter
Manageable chunks ie. what are the themes of interview 1, focus group A, document –
B, etc. Don’t try to stretch this across all of your data yet
Focused coding
● Coding within themes
● Copy and file accordingly
● Begin to think about the flow between different sub-themes
● How will you organize your discussion
Making connections
● Narrative
● Sensitizing Concepts
● Situating your data in the literature
● General Social Processes
Narrative – how do partcipants tell the ‘story’ of their life/experience? This personal
story gives us insight into how participants identify pivotal moments, policies, activities,
etc. that we may overlook. Also tend to give us a sense of participants’ identities,
values, etc. based on how they are trying to present themselves (intentionally or not) –
in telling stories about ourselves we also create a narrative around our identity
Sensitizing concepts are derived from the language of our participants ie the –
shorthand phrases/concepts that are used frequently once identified, we should ask –
what is being communicated by these concepts and the ideas/processes important?
Their usage will be different for the group in question than broader community
Ex road work (boxers) – – Wacquant talks about how this term foregrounds the ‘work’
of boxing in a way that juxtaposes it to the backdrop of crime etc. that had
characterized many membe rs of the community who took up the sport to ‘go straight’
General Social Processes – Links up to the ‘so what?’ What do these themes mean in
terms of broader social phenomenona?
Discourse Analysis
-Discourse as power/knowledge (Foucault)
-Analyzing communication/language as active in structuring social relations/definitions
of situation/values/beliefs etc.
-In contrast to content analysis, this is an interpretive
-We are asking about how things like word choice, structure, contrast, and grammar
communicate meanings about values, power, authority, etc.
May look at the specific words/phrases used (vocab); the structure of sentences to
reveal meaning (grammar); the structure of a text to indicate aspects of how people
narrate/organize social events (structure)
What words are often paired or mentioned at the same time?
Narrative Analysis
● Rather than simply examining stories that people tell, the outcome itself is a
narrative
● Goal is to piece together your data to tell the story of a people, community,
process
● Stories are still organized in an analytically coherent manner – think through
themes of the stories people told
● Environment of the story also matters for analysis
Writing the Research
● Keeping the reader in mind
● Begin with the findings (group in themes)
● Bring evidence from your data/coding
● Connect to literature
➢ Methods
➢ Conclusions
➢ Introductions
Exam Review
Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology
-
Tenets of positivism and how they relate to qualitative research
-
What it means to conduct research that is collaborative vs. participatory
-
The uses and limits of damage-centred research
-
What is desire based research?
-
What is meant by refusal for Tuck and Yang?
-
Historical timeline of research ethics
-
What does/does not require ethics approval (be able to assess a scenario)
-
How is risk assessed?
-
Requirements for consent/variations and exceptions
-
Confidentiality vs. Anonymity
-
Conflicts of Interest
-
Know how to identify key aspects of the major theories discussed
- Rational choice theory, etc.
What are the different interview formats? Why do we use them?
- survey , etc.
Be able to identify poorly framed questions/why
- Double barreled, etc.
What are challenges in focus groups/what are suggested tips to deal?
-
What is insurgent research?
- Research with the intent to be actionable
What are the key ethical requirements for research with/about indigenous peoples
(TCPSII)
-
What is the conversational method?
-
What is unobtrusive research? What are institutional documents vs. professional
publications
-
What are FOIs and ATIPs?
-
What is ethnography?
-
Be able to identify the different ethnographer roles
-
What are gatekeepers?
-
What is coding?
-
What are the different stages of coding
-
