Designing and Doing Social Research

ContentsWho the course is for 2

What you will learn from it 2

Who and where 2

Do this first: Get hold of a book 3

Do this next: Watch the videos and sign up for a research group 3

Week by Week 5

Week 1: Choose your approach 5

Week 2: Asking questions 5

Week 4: Theories and Practicalities of Research 6

Week 6: Gathering Data 7

Week 7: Reviewing Data 8

Week 8: Thinking with and about your data 8

Week 9: Troubleshooting 9

Week 10: Presenting your findings 9

Assessment 10

Advice on the Final Essay: Reflections and implications 11

What it is for 11

What to do 11

What to put in 12

Suggestions from feedback on past assignments 13

Plagiarism 16

Further Reading 17

1

Who the course is forThe course is for anyone who wants practical experience and skills in social research. The course is designed to mimic a real world research scenario, in which a multi-disciplinary research team takes varying approaches to a topic but works together towards the same goal. The emphasis is on learning while doing, and giving you a structured environment where you can learn how to reflect on your research while you are doing it. Many of the skills you learn on the course will be relevant to your honours project or dissertation, and to your future career.

What you will learn from itBy the end of the course you will be able to:

Design a research project Conduct a literature search and review Use a range of research methods common in research that are used in

academia and the public, private and charity sectors of the economy Understand the process of social research Assess and evaluate your own and others’ research Analyse data Write a research report Present your findings Work together in a team

You will end up with demonstrable employment skills in: Team and personnel management Project design and problem solving Report writing, summarising, and presentation Analytical and critical thinking Evaluation of your own and others’ work

Who and whereCourse organiser:

Dr. Angus Bancroft, angus.bancroft@ed.ac.uk. Contact me for anything related to the course. You can find me at 6.23 Chrystal Macmillan Building. Guidance and Feedback hours: Weds 11-1 or drop by when you like.Lecturers:

Angelica Thumala, Angelica.Thumala@ed.ac.uk, Lisa McCormick, Lisa.McCormick@ed.ac.uk, Vernon Gayle, Vernon.Gayle@ed.ac.uk Senior Tutor: Maddie Breeze

2

Research tutors: Maddie Breeze, Maggie Morrison, Anna Ross, Cara Blaisdell, Nichole Fernandez, Jacques Human, Órla Murray, Ceren SengulCourse secretary: Shazia Leonard, Shazia.Leonard@ed.ac.ukMonday lectures are in Hugh Robson Building, lecture theatre.Thursday/Friday group project meetings are in the rooms assigned on Learn.Video blog

Maddie Breeze will produce a video blog of the course, answering common questions and problems submitted by you.

Do this first: Get hold of a bookThe main textbook for the course is Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. It provides a good insight into what is involved in doing research and being a researcher. We have negotiated a small discount on the book with Blackwell’s.A well written and enjoyable book looking at controversies and debates in methods is Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. (1994) Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology Press. This is particularly useful for discussions about epistemology and reliability.A good general handbook covering different methods and epistemological debates is: Seale, C., ed. (2012) Researching Society and Culture. Sage Publications.Core readings for each lecture topic and group sessions are listed below. The lecture readings are available on Learn. There is an extended reading list at the end of this handbook.

Do this next: Watch the videos and sign up for a research group

The course is taught through lectures and group work. The lectures give you grounding in various research skills, debates and controversies in social research. The main focus of the course is the group work. You choose what research group you join. The groups are organised into four topics: Welfare policy and inequality; Deviance and obedience; Art, music and culture; Relationships and emotions. We have prepared a short video about each topic so you can get a sense of what is involved before you choose.

Within your topic, each group uses one method to research the topic: Observation and participation; Visual methods; Discourse; Internet and networks. You choose a topic you are interested in, and then the method you would like to

3

use. The topics and methods are starting points for your group – where you go with them is up to you.

Most students find the project a valuable experience. However it is the nature of group work that you can have disagreements and difficulties along the way. For instance, you may not all agree with the shape the research takes, and you may feel that some group members are doing more than their fair share of work while others are being carried. This happens in all team work, but problems can be avoided if you keep to some ground rules: make sure everyone has their say, the allocation of tasks is clear, and that problems and grievances are aired early on. Here is some advice on running group meetings. Set ground rules (how you are going to communicate outside class, how you

will be sharing work. Some groups set up their own Facebook group, for example)

For each meeting appoint someone to chair and someone to take notes and write up. Take turns at each role.

Have an agenda or key points to discuss at the start of each meeting Ensure everybody gets a turn to speak and no one person dominates –

everybody has their view aired. If there is disagreement, acknowledge it. Always agree what work has to be done by the next meeting before the end of

the meeting. Do not leave the majority of tasks to one or two people, even if they want to. You can allow group members to specialise depending on their abilities. At the end of each meeting ask everyone to say how they felt it went. Get out of your comfort zone

Your research tutor is there to help with problems, but as in life it is up to the group to resolve any difficulties. As with all research, you should keep a diary of what the group does and your thoughts on it. This is invaluable preparation for the assignments, acting as a memory jogger and a source of self-reflection.

4

Week by Week

Week 1: Choose your approach Monday 2.10pm-3pm

Introduction: research as a craft.Reading:Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 2, ‘The Researcher as Learner.’Sign-up for your group opens on Tuesday on Learn.

Thursday/Friday, various times.

First group session: come ready with some thoughts about why you chose this topic and what you think of the method your group is doing. These do not have to be fully formed but at the end of the group meeting you should have some idea of what the group is going to study and how. Discuss how you want to communicate with each other e.g. by a Facebook group. End the session with a plan to find some published research on this topic and method.Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 5, ‘Conceptualizing and Planning the Research’.

Week 2: Asking questionsMonday: 2.10pm-3pm

What makes for good research questions? Reading:Robson, Colin. (2002) Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 3 “Developing your ideas.”

Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group: In the light of Monday’s lecture, discuss what your core concepts are? Are there disagreements over how they are defined? What kind of data will you get? How have others gone about this kind of research and what problems have they faced?Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 5, ‘Conceptualizing and Planning the Research’.

5

Week 3: Planning your researchMonday, 2.10pm-3pm

Data collection and sampling Reading:*Becker, Howard (1998). Tricks of the Trade - Chapter 3, “Sampling.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Fielding, N, and H Thomas (2008). “Qualitative Interviewing.” Pp. 245–265 in Researching Social Life, edited by Nigel Gilbert. Los Angeles: Sage.Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 7, ‘Gathering Data in the Field’.Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group: Following on from Monday’s lecture, discuss your research field. Is there a population to sample? Are you sampling something other than individuals, such as networks or images? What characteristics does your study sample have? In preparation for next week, consider:What do you want to investigate and how? What do you want to know about at the end that you do not know about now? Who or what is the most appropriate unit of analysis, e.g. an individual, a location, a group, a place, an institution, an event? Discuss this object of study, what are its qualities? Where can you find it? What kind of data/evidence will you need to meet your aims? Will comparisons (such as by age, sex, or some social characteristics) help you achieve your aims? Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting. Discuss the research problem you are tackling.

Week 4: Theories and Practicalities of ResearchMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Theories of research Reading:*Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder (1994) Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology Press. Chapter 2, ‘Dimensions of Social Research.’*Grix, J. (2002). “Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.” Politics 22(3):175–186.Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group presentation: our research problem

6

This might consist of any of the following a discussion of; your research aim questions; sampling; epistemology; scoping what data there is; background reading on the problem. Present your thoughts on the problem you have been set.

Week 5: Preparing to enter the fieldMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Ethics and position in research Reading:Punch, M. (1994) “Politics and ethics in qualitative research.” Pp. 83–98 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol. 2. London: Sage.Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group project: Develop data collection

Prepare with Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 6, ‘Entering the field’.Work on the design of your data collection methods. Conduct an ethical review of your project. Groups must complete an ethical self-audit of their research, which you can find here: http://goo.gl/kW7zcKGive some thought to what you are going to do with your data when you have collected it. For instance, you might want to analyse it jointly. What will you be looking for? Work on designing the data collection instruments e.g. a topic guide for interviews, or an observation frame for observational methods. Review your plan of who is doing what where and when in order to collect and record data and be finished data collection in time. Agree tasks to be completed by the next week.

Week 6: Gathering DataMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Analysis Reading:Silverman, David (2005) Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook - Chapter 11, “Beginning Data Analysis.” Sage.Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group project: Collect data this week

Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 7, ‘Gathering Data in the Field’.Begin data collection, review progress with data collection, decide on any further data you want to obtain. Is the data collection working as planned? Are there any

7

initial thoughts or ideas that are emerging from the data? You should be thinking both about the findings and also the research process itself. Give some thought to what you are going to do with your data when you have collected it. For instance, you might want to analyse it jointly. What will you be looking for? Based on initial ideas coming from the data, do you want to finesse your data collection, e.g. by focusing on one emerging issue? Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting.

Week 7: Reviewing DataMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Writing up and producing results workshop Reading:Holliday, Adrian. (2002) Doing and writing qualitative research - Chapter 5 “Writing About Data.” SAGE.Thursday/Friday, various times.

Group Project: Finding the dataUse this session to share data and develop a good idea of the kind of evidence you have obtained. Consider whether and how the data will prove useful in your data analysis. Can you identify any obvious gaps you can still address? How has the data collection worked compared with how you expected it would work? Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting.

Week 8: Thinking with and about your dataMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Making your argument Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 11, ‘Our Characters’ Analysis’.DHT, Faculty Room NorthThursday/Friday, various times.

Group Project: PresentationPresentation.

Finding and interpreting the dataThis will focus on doing the research, covering data collection; the form the data takes; how the research is conducted; ethical challenges. Following on from Monday’s lecture, think about how to make the most of the evidence you have gathered and how best to present it to your intended audience.

8

Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 9, ‘Issues that arise in the field’.Think about how to make the most of the evidence you have gathered and how best to present it to your intended audience. Agree plan and divisions of labour for preparing the presentation. Review what you will be doing next week and agree any reading or written work or research to be brought to the next meeting.

Week 9: TroubleshootingMonday 2.10pm-3pm

Troubleshooting – the lecturers discuss problems and controversies in researchThursday/Friday, various times.

Group project: Prepare analysis

Prepare with Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. (2012). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Chapter 10, ‘Analysing and interpreting data’, and Chapter 12 ‘Presenting the Learnings’Review your data analysis and preparation for the final presentation. What conclusions can be drawn from your data? How are these conclusions based on the evidence you have generated? Have you achieved the aims and objectives of the research? Can you generalise from the study? Do you want to place yourselves ‘in’ the study? To what extent did your presence and decisions affect the results that were produced? Review your progress and division of labour for making the group presentation and (individually) the preparation still to be done for your final report.

Week 10: Presenting your findingsThursday/Friday, various times.

Final group presentations.

9

AssessmentYou are not being assessed on how well your group does the research. You are being assessed on your ability to reflect on the research process and to link what you have done to wider themes in research methods.Course work will be submitted online using our submission system – ELMA. You will not be required to submit a paper copy. Marked course work, grades and feedback will be returned online – you will not receive a paper of your marked course work or feedback.For information, help and advice on submitting coursework and accessing feedback, please see the ELMA wiki at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/SPSITWiki/ELMA

There are three parts to the assessment:

Total course mark

Group Presentation 20% (all group members receive the same mark)

Individual Performance 10% (individual)

Final Essay 70% (individual) 1. Group Presentation

Your group presents three times on the research. See the timetable for suggested topics. The presentation is to the rest of the class. Group members receive the same mark. If a member of the group is absent or has not contributed they will receive zero. If you are unavoidably absent or have other difficulties preventing you contributing please let Angus know as soon as possible.

2. Individual Performance

So that individual contributions to the group can be properly recognised, tutors will evaluate the performance of each group member. The purpose of this is to assess how you work as well as the work you produce, and to ensure that each student’s contribution to the group is recognized fairly. We will look for you taking on and carrying out tasks (e.g. research tasks, chairing, writing up meetings), you contributing to group discussions and general being a committed member of your project group.

3. Final Essay: Reflections and implications.

Word count: 3500-4000 words, due December 16th.

10

A personal reflective essay on the implications of the study. Use this essay to situate the group’s work in the context of other groups’ findings and/or what is more generally known about the topic. To prepare you can complete an essay structure. This is a short piece which will allow us to give you feedback and help you to prepare for your final essay. Use it as a practice for the final essay and choose one theme or aspect of the research that you will tackle in the final essay using the guidance for the final essay. The essay structure is 750 words long. You can also look at past examples of final essays on Learn.

Advice on the Final Essay: Reflections and implications The essay is a personal, reflective essay on the implications of the study. Use this essay to situate your group’s work in the context of other groups’ findings and/or what is more generally known about the topic, or about social research as an activity, or apply knowledge from your own discipline or interests to the research. For instance, you might write about the research from a feminist perspective, or its relevance to policy, or the political debates that go on around the research topic.

What it is forThe final part of a research project is putting it in context and saying what is relevant about it. This is also your opportunity to give your own personal account and interpretation of the research, as distinct from the group report on the wiki and presentation. We would like you to think of the group presentation and wiki as the public face of the research. They are like an executive summary for a client or funder, according to the brief they gave you. The final essay is a more considered and personal examination of the research and its findings in a wider context, much as an academic researcher might do.

What to doIn this essay you discuss the strengths and limitations of the research, reflect on your group’s approach, and outline the implications of what you found. This should be a reflective piece of work, and should go beyond describing the study.To help yourself prepare, Write notes on the decision making in the group on the data collection methods, what factors influenced your selection and design of the research instrument (the ‘instrument’ is the interview topic guide, observational guide etc that you employ in data collection so is not the same as the method). Take notes on your data collection as you are doing it.

11

For a good example of how to write about the research process, see Seale, C, ‘My Research practice’, pp 463-473 in Seale, C. (2004) Researching Society and Culture, London: Sage. @ http://goo.gl/QJcaL

What to put inThere are several ways to approach this essay. Include a short overview of your research and findings just to make explicit the thinking that went into the overall design. Exactly what you say here depends on the angle you take from those suggested below.You may select a particular angle to take from the following (do not try to do all of them):

What you have found out about social research, your role as a researcher, and this research field.

You could approach this in terms of questions of epistemology: Should the principles of natural science inquiry (objectivity, replicability, neutrality) apply to the social sciences? Should your research be value neutral or emancipatory? Are an interviewee’s statements descriptions of reality or are they constructed accounts? Is there a single truth about this phenomenon that you can get close to by researching it?

Discuss the quality of the research

When doing this consider not only common yardsticks of research quality (confirmability, transferability, measurement validity etc.) but also what you have learned about whether these measures apply. Consider if social research can be judged according to these or other yardsticks.

You might explore what worked and did not work in the research design approach, or how you might have done things differently.

We are not looking for any amazing insights here into the nature of research design, more a sense that in the light of what you did, do you think that the research design/epistemology you settled on was the right one for the job? Did it capture the phenomena you were interested in? Did your design approach really match what was going on? If you had gone about the research in a different way, would you have generated different findings?

You can reflect on your experience collecting the data. For example, if you were speaking to individuals, how you described the research to them, and their reactions, how people responded to you and if built rapport with them. Or if observing, how you felt when observing in that setting. Whether your own characteristics or the assumptions you brought to the study affected the data collection process, and how you sought to address these assumptions. Did

12

you treat them as bias, as a threat to objectivity, or as an inevitable part of naturalistic enquiry? Were there ethical and political dilemmas that you faced?

You could situate the findings in comparison to the rest of the project, the wider context of research in this field, or the wider policy/theoretical context

Here you should discuss the significance of what you found. This might be for policy, or for future research. You could say what other questions arose from the research you did that you might like to explore further. Your interpretation of the results can be very different from those of other group members or groups. Likewise, you can give different emphasis to different aspects of the research literature, theory, or policy.

Suggestions from feedback on past assignmentsIn past years, good assignments were well grounded in the methods literature and course concepts. Some reflection on the research process is a good way to approach the assignment. This might involve relating your own experiences to the research. For instance, did you take a stance as a ‘neutral researcher’, or were you more involved, revealing information about yourself to the people you researched? What about, for instance, your gender, age or social class? Did your experiences influence the research questions you settled on? Did doing the research meet your expectations? However it is not absolutely necessary to write in this way. A more theoretical account would be just as good.

Weak assignments tended to:- Fail to adequately define terms.- Not focus on the research or be vague about what was done that was

relevant to the essay- Confuse research design with method.- Contradict themselves, such as saying that sampling was both random and

theoretical.- Make general and unconvincing statements of good intention, e.g. ‘We tried

to be sensitive when interviewing people,’ without saying how this worked in practice.

- Apply inconsistent epistemological positions, e.g. saying they took an interpretivist view but then using positivist language about testing and objectivity.

The following are suggestions based on previous years’ work for this assignment. Say what you did: ‘This paper presents some very good ideas concerning alcohol and university life. It includes important concepts of research design such as data collection, limitations/advantages of semi-structured interviews, the

13

relationship between interviewer and interviewee, and sampling. Overall, the report engaged in some critical analysis of the methodological concepts.’Balance methodology and epistemology: ‘Use your findings to critique the existing studies and the apparent notion there of a one directional ‘causal link’ between alcohol moderation and general health’ ‘Your inclusion of the different sides of the theoretical debate demonstrates engagement with your chosen topic.’Discuss research problems: ‘I particularly liked your awareness not only of the problems of defining political engagement and activism, but also the research implications of particular kinds of definition, which was extended to the use of a subjective, respondent-led, definition, which also has problems and advantages. You raised interview bias as an issue – I would have liked your particular thoughts there, on whether it was something you were aware of in the interviews, e.g. around your own political engagement/awareness.’ ‘On some occasions you tend to skim over issues which it would have been interesting to elaborate on, such as criticism in the literature of your chosen sampling techniques; and there does seem to be some lack of clarity over the benefits of these different techniques (a clearer grasp of these will help you in your final essay). Overall, while the report would benefit from greater clarity of methodological concepts, it does otherwise present a relatively full account of your research design.’Critically discuss key concepts: ‘I liked your discussion of the meanings of work and leisure – this is a point I feel could be developed further. For instance, would some forms of work not be ‘relaxing and enjoyable’? What about e.g. compulsory leisure (a feature of Japanese working life, and of some Fresher’s week events)?’ ‘A somewhat unproblematic approach to nationality weakens the reasoning behind your choice of research questions.’Pay attention to bias in commonly used definitions: ‘Overall a very good account, carefully constructed and well written. A bit more reflection on key decisions would have been valuable. You said you defined leisure using the Oxford English Dictionary definition to avoid bias, but of course that definition has its own biases, which you could usefully explore further – is there anything it misses out? E.g. forms of leisure which aren’t strictly enjoyable or relaxing such as ‘edgework’ or some forms of hallucinogenic drug use.’Show, don’t tell: ‘When discussing how you felt conducting the interviews, you need to use your emotions more reflectively – say why you felt satisfied, was it the interaction itself, or the successful completion of the interview? In which case, how did you know they were successfully completed? Likewise, the group may have agreed that the data collected was robust etc, but you need to demonstrate that. Stylistically, a more punchy introduction is preferable – one that gives a

14

sense of what is to come specifically, rather than merely outlining the separate sections.’ Explain key decisions: ‘Some decisions need to be explained more carefully, e.g. why political engagement was expected to be higher among politics students (rather like expecting psychology students to be more psychologically balanced than other students). Be clear about the points of comparison – e.g. what are the problems affecting students you mention in reference to Heath and Douglas. Don’t assume that all students are young, or that youth means immaturity.’ Tell a story: ‘A good account, especially of the ins and outs of designing the research itself. The ‘story’ structure of the assignment also worked well – perhaps more could be made of that. There were some good reflections on relationships with respondents. Some more reflection on the topic itself would have been good here – how respondents understood it, whether they used the same terminology of engagement used in yours’ and others research etc. Explain the reasoning behind your decisions – e.g. you stated you wanted interviewees to answer questions without too much prompting – why? What was wrong with prompting? Did you think it would damage the quality of data, or something else? This is also apparent when discussing sampling – I think there was more to the choice of Sociology/Politics students than stated here. I liked the way you looked forward to the next stage in the conclusion.’Reflect on your own claims: ‘Generally good, with some nice personal, involved reflections on the development of the study. Although you say a bit about the benefits of political engagement, there isn’t much about what it actually is, how you defined it and what the implications of your definitions were for the study. I don’t think you can judge a respondent (or yourself) as ‘introverted’ – perhaps they were in a bad mood that day, or didn’t know what you expected of them? If you are going to make these assessments, the basis for them needs to be clear. You need to explain also why you thought people might exaggerate in focus groups – presumably you though so because there is a cultural expectation for political engagement among these students, but it could just as easily be the opposite.’Analyse the literature: ‘Describe the relevant research literature as a body, and then critically assess how key readings you identify have arrived at their findings, and any weaknesses in how they have done so.’ ‘You could reflect on the different disciplines the literature comes from – what effect does that have on the research findings? What issues are considered relevant in the sociology of alcohol, for instance, that you don’t find in medical studies of alcohol and vice versa? You could use your study to critique the attempt to establish a causal law

15

between alcohol consumption and bad behaviour, so turning an apparent weakness into a strength.’Think about your own role: ‘You raise an interesting issue in the final paragraph in relation to the role of the researcher, which relates well to your Goffman/dramaturgical approach.’Balance description and reflection: ‘This is a very well written paper that critically engages with the literature on social methodology. It provides a good analysis of limitations and challenges of conducting a qualitative study on alcohol and student social networks. The paper included a discussion of sampling methods, the interview process, and the theoretical framework/research design of the study. However, it may have been useful to include content on why focus groups or other interview methods were not utilized. Also, it may be relevant to include a further discussion of current literature on alcohol and social networks. Overall, well done!’ In contrast: ‘The introduction did not really include relevant information concerning the topic of student social networks and alcohol. At times, the report was repetitive-especially in the sections on developing a research question and acquiring a sample group. The paper was too descriptive and could have utilized the literature on social methodology more extensively (i.e. more information could be included on convenience sampling).’

Word Count PenaltiesEssays above the word count will be penalised using the Ordinary level criterion of 1 mark for every 20 words over length.  You will not be penalised for submitting work below the word limit. However, you should note that shorter essays are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this will be reflected in your mark.

PlagiarismNever reproduce material that is not your own unless it is clearly marked as such. This includes material from readings, the internet, your own work that has been submitted for another course, and other students' work. An exception to the latter is the group submission to which all your group contributes.You must ensure that you understand what the University regards as plagiarism and why the University takes it seriously. This is your responsibility. All cases of suspected plagiarism, or other forms of academic misconduct, will be reported to the College Academic Misconduct Officer. You’ll find further information in your Honours (or Visiting student) handbook, and at the following page:

http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/honours/what_is_plagiarism

16

The School of Social and Political Science uses the ‘Turnitin’ system to check that essays do not contain plagiarised material. Turnitin compares every assignment against a constantly-updated database, which highlights all plagiarised work.

17

Further ReadingDoing research

*Becker, Howard Saul, and Pamela Richards. (2007) Writing for social scientists: how to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. University of Chicago Press. Chapter 7 ‘Learning to write as a professional’.*Clifford, James, (1986) "Introduction" from James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography pp.1-26, Berkeley, University of California Press.Clough, Peter, and Cathy Nutbrown. 2007. A student’s guide to methodology: justifying enquiry. Sage Cottrell, Dr Stella. 2011. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. 1994. Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology Press.*Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2000. “The discipline and practice of qualitative research.” Pp. 1–28 in Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.Greener, Ian. 2011. Designing Social Research: A Guide for the Bewildered. SAGE Publications.*Mills, C.W. 1980. “On intellectual craftsmanship.” Society 17(2):63–70.Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Inc. Chapter 2, The Researcher as Learner, pp 31-60Seale, C., ed. 2012. Researching society and culture. Sage Publications.Silverman, David. 2007. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE.Silverman, Professor David. 2009. Doing Qualitative Research. Third ed. Sage Publications Ltd.Deciding on your research questions

Cryer, Pat. 2006. The Research Student’s Guide to Success. 3rd ed. Open University Press. Chapter 20, 21, pp203-225, ‘Developing ideas’ and ‘Keeping going’.*Greener, Ian. 2011. Designing Social Research: A Guide for the Bewildered. SAGE Publications. Chapter 2, pp 22-37, ‘Reviewing What Other People Have Said - Or How Can I Tell If Others' Research is Any Good?’

18

*Robson, Colin. 2002. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers - Chapter 3 “Developing your ideas”. Blackwell Publishers.Rossman, Gretchen, and Sharon F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. Chapter 5, ‘Planning the Research’.Data collection and interviews

*Fielding, N, and H Thomas. 2008. “Qualitative Interviewing.” Pp. 245–265 in Researching social life, edited by Nigel Gilbert. Los Angeles: Sage.* Kvale, Steinar, (1996) "Thematizing and designing an interview study" from Kvale, Steinar, Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing pp.83-108, London, Sage. [26 pages].*May, Tim. 2001. Social research: issues, methods and process - Chapter 6, “Interviewing.” Open University. (available as an e-book through the library)McComack, C. 2004. “Storying Stories: A Narrative Approach to In-depth Interview Conversations.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(3):219–236.Roulston, Kathryn. 2010. Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd.Sampling

*Becker, Howard. 1998. Tricks of the Trade - Chapter 3, “Sampling.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.*Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative researching, Chapter 7, Sampling and Selection in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.Politics and ethics of research

Andreas, Peter, and Kelly M. Greenhill, eds. 2010. Sex, Drugs, and Body Counts: The Politics of Numbers in Global Crime and Conflict. Cornell University Press.Bulmer, Martin (2008) ‘The Ethics of Social Research’ in Nigel Gilbert (ed.) (2008) Researching Social Life (3rd edition), London: Sage.Crow, Graham et al (2006) ‘Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed Consent’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9 (2).Hammersley, Martyn. 2005. “Should Social Science Be Critical?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35(2):175 –195. Lambert, E, ed. 1990. The Collection and Interpretation of Data From Hidden Populations. Rockville, MD.

19

Munro A, Lesley Holly, Helen Rainbird, and Ruchira Leisten. 2004. “Power at work: reflections on the research process.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7:289–304. Retrieved August 17, 2010.*Punch, M. 1994. “Politics and ethics in qualitative research.” Pp. 83–98 in Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.*Sanders, Teela. 2005. Sex work: a risky business. Willan. Chapter 2, ‘Ethnography, sex and the self’Sanders, Teela. 2008. Paying for pleasure: men who buy sex. Willan. ‘Researching Men who buy sex’.*Stanley, Liz, and Sue Wise. 1993. Breaking out again: feminist ontology and epistemology. Routledge. Chapter 8 ‘Afterword’Stevens, Alex. 2007. “Survival of the Ideas That Fit: An Evolutionary Analogy for the Use of Evidence in Policy.” Social Policy and Society 6(01):25–35. Retrieved May 26, 2011.Analysis

*Cottrell, Dr Stella. 2011. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 8, ‘Where’s the proof?’ pp125-146*Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook - Chapter 11, “Beginning Data Analysis”. SAGE.Silverman, David. 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. Third ed. Sage Publications Ltd. Wodak, Ruth, and Michal Krzyzanowski. 2008. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.Writing up and producing results

Bryman, Alan. 2008. “Writing Up Social Research.” Pp. 661–688 in Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.Fossey, Ellie, Carol Harvey, Fiona McDermott, and Larry Davidson. 2002. “Understanding and evaluating qualitative research.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36(6):717–732. Retrieved September 12, 2011.*Holliday, Adrian. 2002. Doing and writing qualitative research - Chapter 5 “Writing About Data.” SAGE.Merriam, S. 1995. “What Can You Tell From An N ofl?: Issues of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research.” PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning 4:50–60.Epistemology and reflecting on research

20

*Bancroft, Angus. 2011. “In the Field: The Research Relationship.” in Researching Families and Relationships: Reflections on Process, edited by Lynn Jamieson and Roona Simpson. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.*Davidson, Julia O’Connell, and Derek Layder. 1994. Methods, Sex and Madness. Psychology Press. Chapter 2, Dimensions of social research, pp 29-60*Grix, J. 2002. “Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research.” Politics 22(3):175–186.Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing paradigms in qualitative research.” Pp. 163–194 in Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 2. London: Sage.Seale, Clive. 1999. “Quality in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 5(4):465 –478. Retrieved October 14, 2011.

External Examiners

The External Examiner for this course in session 2015-2016 is Dr Michael Halewood,

University of Essex

21