COMM 508
Humanistic Research of Communication
OVERVIEW:
The Course:
This graduate seminar provides an overview of applied research methodologies for the study of communication. We will discuss the relationships between epistemology, ontology, theory, metatheory, and various methodological traditions. Specific methodological approaches we will explore include (but not necessarily be limited to) focus groups, grounded theory, metaphor analysis, phenomenology, interpretive and critical interpretive approaches, ethnography, and narrative. Our emphasis will focus on the advantages and tradeoffs of different research methods and how we might integrate them to strengthen the foundations of our research. We also will analyze the ways in which issues of validity and reliability are addressed in qualitative research, and the extent to which conclusions can be drawn from qualitative data. The course will include conversations on all aspects of qualitative research, from the development of the question to the writing of the final report.
Learning Outcomes:
This course is designed to guide students in developing skills in designing, evaluating, and understanding qualitative research methods as they relate to communication. The intent is to prepare students to undertake a qualitative research study and to make methodological choices based on an understanding of the assumptions inherent in the method of choice. By successfully completing the course, students will be able to:
WHAT YOU WILL NEED:
Required:
Strongly Recommended:
GRADES:
You may earn a maximum of 1000 points during the semester. Final course grades are assigned as follows:
|
900 -1000 points = A |
600 - 699 points = D |
|
800 - 899 points = B |
000 - 599 points = F |
|
700 = 799 points = C |
COURSE ACTIVITIES:
You may earn points toward your final course grade by completing assignments, taking exams, and participating in class activities. Your final grade is based on a total of 100 points. Each activity is worth a maximum number of points as follows:
|
Assignment |
Maximum Possible Points |
|
Six Practicum Papers (50 points each) |
300 |
|
Annotated Bibliography |
100 |
|
In-Class Topical Presentation |
200 |
|
Thesis or Project Proposal & IRB Application |
400 |
Practicum Papers (50 points each)
Each practicum paper will give you an opportunity to summarize and extend the required and recommended class readings, as well as to apply course concepts. Be prepared to present your paper in class on the day it is due. All papers should be three-to-five-pages of text (not including bibliography), typed, and in conformance with APA style. I am including a bibliography of references to give you a running start.
Practicum Paper #1: This paper will draw on Burrell & Morgan as a starting point to summarize, then compare and contrast various research paradigms. It should include your thoughtful reflections on the types of questions each seeks to answer and the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Practicum Paper #2: This paper will describe a master's thesis that you can obtain on the third floor of the library. After reading the thesis, report the following eight items: 1) the title, author, and year of publication; 2) an outline of all headings and subheadings in the thesis, 3) what theory grounded the research and how it related to the conclusions, 4) whether the thesis is quantitative or qualitative and how you made the determination, 5) whether the study is experimental or nonexperimental and how you made the determination, 6) the sample, whether it was adequate, and how you made the determination, 7) the measures or instruments used and whether the thesis provided enough information for you to judge their adequacy (if so, explain why, and if not, explain what else you need to know), 8) major strengths and major flaws that you see in the study.
Practicum Paper #3: This paper will explore one topic from at least three perspectives. For example, your topic might be something like: "violence in urban settings, the media representations of violence, and violence as communication." For each perspective, describe what sort of research methodology you might use to design a study for and why that methodology is the most appropriate for that perspective.
Practicum Paper #4: This paper will describe the philosophy, process, and evaluation of a journal article that reports an ethnographic research study. Be sure to attach the article to your practicum paper.
Practicum Paper #5: This paper will describe the philosophy, process, and evaluation of a journal article that reports a critical or feminist approach to a research study. Be sure to attach the article to your practicum paper.
Practicum Paper #6: This paper will describe the philosophy, process, and evaluation of a journal article that reports a metaphor or thematic analysis. Be sure to attach the article to your practicum paper.
Annotated Bibliography (100 points)
This assignment is your opportunity to get a running start on your project or thesis proposal. The bibliography should consist of an alphabetical listing of every book and article you can find that addresses your proposal topic. Each reference should be accompanied by a paragraph or two in your own words that summarizes the book or article. Your references should include background information on your topic and anything that relates to your topic, major theories that inform your research, and pieces that describe research methodologies that you might use in your study.
Bear in mind that whether you're planning to write a thesis or to complete a project, both endeavors have an academic component, and both require a fairly extensive bibliography. Therefore, while the thesis may have more emphasis on theory than a project, both should be grounded in a theory you have studied. For example, both a thesis and a project on persuasive messages in international public relations might incorporate Petty & Caccioppo 's elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, as well as Hall's high- and low-context cultures and Hofstede's concepts of individualism and collectivism. The thesis, however, is a larger undertaking than the project, and the final report will take the form of a formal research study. The project, on the other hand, will be more applied than the thesis, and the format may be less scholarly. For example, a project on persuasive messages in international public relations might take the form of a corporate or business report (e.g., include an executive summary and direct feedback to the "client"). The bottom line is that the bibliography, at least at this stage, will look pretty much identical for both, and should include a minimum of 20 sources. Hint: Be sure to incorporate both quantity and quality in your bibliography. While minimum numbers almost always result in grades of C, extensive listings of low-quality resources will not fare any better.
In-Class Topical Presentation (200 points)
During the first week of class, please review all the topics that we will address during the semester (see the Course Schedule). The second week of class, come armed with a one- or two-page description of your first, second, and third choices for a topic you would like to tackle. You will become the resident class expert on that topic. In that capacity, you will act as class lecturer on the evening that the topic will be covered. Half of the scheduled class time will be yours to cover the information (we can negotiate if you need more for an exercise, demo, etc). As part of your presentation, you should prepare a handout for your classmates and instructor that outlines the content of your presentation. Your handout should include abstracts (in your own words) of all articles, books, and book chapters that pertain to your topic, as well as any diagrams, figures, exercises, or tables that you think will be useful for your classmates. If you need extra presentation equipment, you may order it from the Learning Technology Center, LS-048A, Phone 657-278-3056. Your grade will be based on: 1) the depth and breadth of your research, 2) the clarity of your presentation, 3) the quality of your handout as a reference resource for your classmates. Hint: Work smart--give some thought to the subject of your thesis or project proposal when you choose your presentation topic!
Thesis or Project Proposal & IRB Application (400 points)
The major assignment in this course is the preparation of a proposal for your master's thesis or project. We will discuss this extensively in class. The proposal is just that--a proposal to conduct a research study or to engage in a project that will contribute to an organization or community. The proposal will describe: 1) your statement of purpose, 2) your rationale for the importance of the study, 3) the theory or theories that inform your work as well as who else has done similar work and a report of their findings, 4) the questions you hope to answer by doing the study or project, 5) a detailed description of the methods you expect to use for the collection and analysis of your data, and 6) what you expect to contribute to your field and/or client by completing the work.
If you expect to work with human subjects (this includes such innocuous methods as surveys, ethnographies, and interviews), you must complete file both an application and a completion report with the Cal State Fullerton Institutional Review Board (IRB). The good news is that the IRB form requires you describe your research protocol, which will strengthen your proposal. Your course packet includes a sample of the IRB application, the completion form, and a mock protocol.
Although I will formally grade only your final proposal and IRB application, for full credit, you must turn in several early stages. The first stage is submission of a minimum of three possible topics for approval. The second stage is your annotated bibliography, which is graded separately (see above). The third stage is submission of your review of literature and research questions. The fourth stage is your research protocol (this is the first draft of your IRB application). The fifth stage is an optional rough draft of your complete proposal package. The sixth and final stage is your final proposal draft and your in-class presentation of your proposal.
COURSE POLICIES:
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Read the assigned reading prior to each class meeting. Additional assignments may be announced.
|
Week |
Date |
Topic |
Readings & Assignments Due |
|
1 |
Jan 31 |
Course Overview & Introductions |
|
|
2 |
Feb 7 |
Introduction to Qualitative Research Video |
Burrell & Morgan; Geertz In-Class Presentation Topics |
|
3 |
Feb 14 |
Ethics & Regulations for Research Involving People Guest Speaker: Vicki Langille, CSUF IRB Video |
McNamee Practicum Paper #1 Topics for Practicum Paper #2 |
|
4 |
Feb 21 |
Phenomenology |
Putnam Three Proposal Topics |
|
5 |
Feb 28 |
Proposal Writing |
Practicum Paper #2 |
|
6 |
Mar 7 |
Structural Analysis |
Bantz |
|
7 |
Mar 14 |
Observations |
Annotated Bibliography |
|
8 |
Mar 21 |
Interviews |
Practicum Paper #3 |
|
|
Mar 28 |
Spring Break |
No Class! |
|
9 |
Apr 4 |
Ethnography Video |
Witmer Lit Review & Research Questions |
|
10 |
Apr 11 |
Case Study |
Hearn Practicum Paper #4 |
|
11 |
Apr 18 |
Critical Approaches |
Deetz & Kersten; Conquergood Method (IRB Draft) |
|
12 |
Apr 25 |
Metaphor Analysis |
Smith & Eisenberg Practicum Paper #5 |
|
13 |
May 2 |
Historical Sources |
Startt & Sloan Optional Proposal Draft |
|
14 |
May 9 |
Focus Groups |
Practicum Paper #6 |
|
15 |
May 16 |
Proposal Presentations |
Final Proposal & IRB Application |
|
16 |
May 23 |
7:30-9:20 p.m. |
Final Exam Scheduled |
REFERENCES TO HELP YOU GET STARTED
Naturalist Paradigm and Qualitative Research
Anderson, J. A. (1987). Communication research: issues and methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
Argyris, C. (1980) Inner contradictions of rigorous research. New York: Academic Press.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: MacMillan.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer Press.
Fisher, M. (1997). Qualitative Computing: Using software for qualitative data analysis. Ashgate: Aldershot:.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education
(pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1979). Postpositivism and the naturalist paradigm. Naturalistic Inquiry, 14-46.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lofland, L. & Lofland, L. (1995). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. (2nd Ed.). Belmont, CA,: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: systems of inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Richards, L. & Richards, T. (1990) NUDIST Qualitative Data Analysis Solutions for Research Professionals [Computer software]. Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
Weitzman, E. A. & Miles, M. B. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis: A software sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ethnography
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1974). From the native's point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. The Bulletin of the American Academy, 480-492.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hammersley, N. (1990). Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. London: Longman.
Hammersley, N., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York: Tavistock.
Kriezek, B. (1992). Goodbye old friend: A son's farewell to Comiskey Park. Omega, 25(2), 87-93.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking "like a man" in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 13-22.
Rosen, M. (1988). You asked for it: Christmas at the bosses' expense! Journal of Management Studies, 25(5), 463-479.
Whyte, W. F. (1941). Corner boys: A study of clique behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 64, 647-662.
Whyte, W. F. (1943/1981). Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Life History
Garnet, S. with the Personal Narratives Group (1989). Interpreting women's lives: Feminist theory and personal narratives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Watson, L. C., & Watson-Franke, M. B. (1985). Interpreting life histories: An anthropological inquiry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,.
Interpretive and Cultural Approaches
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism: Vol. 16. Applied social research methods series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.
O'Donnell-Trujillo, N., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1983). The interpretation of organizational cultures. In M. S. Mander (Ed.). Communication in transition: Issues and debates in current research. (pp. 225-241). New York: Praeger.
Pacanowsky, M. E., & O'Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50. 126-147.
Putnam, L.L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. L. Putnam & M.E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28. 339-358.
Narrative Theory and Analysis
Boje, D. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as Tamara-Land. Academy of Management Journal, 38. 997-1035.
Clair, R. P. (1993). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60. 113-136.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. (pp. 77-110).
Emihovich, C. (1995). Distancing passion: narratives in social science research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 37-48.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm. The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1-22.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54. 113-127.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Metaphor Theory and Analysis
Clair, R. P. (1993). Discoure and disenfranchisement: Targets, victims, and survivors of sexual harassment. In R. E. Berlin, (Ed.). (pp. 313-327). Communication and the disenfranchised: Social health issues and implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deetz, S. (1984). Metaphor analysis. Methods for Intercultural Communication Research. 215-228.
Goulden, N. R., & Griffin, C. J. G. (1995). The meaning of grades based on faculty and student metaphors. Communication Education. 44, 110-125.
Nielsen, Sue. (1991). Metaphor analysis and organisational reality. Australian Journal of Communication. 18, 73-80.
Ortony, A. (19785). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory. 45-53.
Santa Ana, O.. (1999). 'Like an animal I was treated': Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society. 10, 191-224.
Smith, R., C., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Conflict at Disneyland: A root-metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54. 367-380.
Smith, R. C., & Turner, P. K. (1995). A social constructionist reconfiguration of metaphor analysis: An application of "SCMA" to organizational socialization theorizing. Communication Monographs. 62, 152-181.
Thematic Analysis
Clair, R. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, "A Real Job": Implications for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63. 249-267.
Kobland, C. E., Du, L., and Kwon, J. (1992). Influence of ideology in news reporting: Case study of "New York Times'" coverage of student demonstrations in China and South Korea. Asian Journal of Communication, 2, 64-77.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70. 274-287.
Peterson, T. R., Witte, K., Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E., Espericueta, L., Flora, J. T., Florey, N., Loughran, T., and Stuart, R. (1994). Using informant directed interviews to discover risk orientation: How formative evaluations based in interpretive analysis can improve persuasive safety campaigns. Journal of Applied Communication. 22. 199-215.
Postmodernism and Deconstruction
Derrida, J. (1991). Letter to a Japanese friend, More than One Language. In P. Kamuf, (Ed.). Between the Blinds. (pp. 270-276). New York: Columbia.
Dolan, F. M. (1991). Deconstruction's object. Text and Performance Quarterly, 11i. 190-206.
Parker, M. (1992). Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory. Organization Studies, 13. 1-17.
Feminist Postmodern Deconstruction
Clair, R. P. (1993). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 123-157.
Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Oranization Science, 1, 339-359.
Postmodern Ethnography
Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford, & G. E. Marcus, (Eds.). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. (pp. 1-26). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Marcus, G. E. (1986). Afterward: Ethnographic writing and anthropological careers. In J. Clifford, & G. E. Marcus, (Eds.). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. (pp. 1-26). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Tyler, S. A. (1986). Post-modern ethnography: From document of the occult to occult document. In J. Clifford, & G. E. Marcus, (Eds.). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. (pp. 122-140.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Critical Approaches
Deetz, S. (1990). Reclaiming the subject matter as a guide to mutual understanding: Effectiveness and ethics in interpersonal interaction. Communication Quarterly. 38, 226-243.
Geist, P., & Dreyer, J. (1993). The demise of dialogue: A critique of the medical encounter. Western Journal of Communication. 57, 233-246.
Hardt, H.. (1993). Authenticity, communication, and critical theory. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 10, 49-69.
Kersten, A. (1987). Multilevel analysis in critical research. Communication Yearbook. 10, 709-726.
Moffitt, M. A. (1992). Bringing critical theory and ethical considerations to definitions of a "public." Public Relations Review. 18, 17-30.
Feminist Theory and Practice
Glennon, L. M. (1983). Synthesism: A case of feminist methodology. In G. Morgan, (Ed.). Beyond method: Strategies for social research. (pp. 260-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harding, S. (1987). Conclusion: Epistemological questions. Feminism and Methodology. (pp. 181-191). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? Feminism and Methodology. (pp. 1-14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hearn, J. (1994). The organization(s) of violence: men, gender relations, organizations, and violences. Human Relations, 47, 731-754.
Putnam, L. L. (1982). In search of gender: A critique of communication and sex-roles research. Women's Studies in Communication. 1-9.
Reliability, Validity, & Triangulation of Methods
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. The art of interpretation, evaluation and presentation. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jayaratne, T. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences. Beyond Methodology, 85-106.
Jick, T. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In J. Van Maanen, (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 135-148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Professional Social Sciences, 59-73.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Issues of validity in new paradigm research. Human Inquiry. 239-250.
January 26, 2001