docResearch Methods - Rutgers School of Criminal Justice
download 
Report Transcription
Research Methods - Rutgers School of Criminal Justice
Research Methods Spring 2015 Wednesdays 1-‐3:40 (CLJ 572) Professor Sara Wakefield Email: sara.wakefield@rutgers.edu Office Location: Law & Justice Center, 579C Office Hours: By Appointment COURSE DESCRIPTION The goals of this course are (1) to examine the steps required for framing an empirical research question guided by theory, (2) to introduce students to the range of research methodologies used by social scientists and (3) to examine the strengths and limitations of each. It is designed for Ph.D. students who wish to undertake research publishable in scholarly social-‐science journals. Little or no background in social scientific training is assumed. Statistics will not be emphasized; however, familiarity with elementary statistical concepts (e.g., mean, variance, and correlation), and particularly sampling, will prove useful. This course will introduce the techniques of inductive methodologies, including qualitative interviewing and participant observation, and deductive methodologies, including survey research and experimental and quasi-‐experimental design. At the conclusion of the course, students will have a sound overview of research methodology as well as the tools to pursue specific methods in greater depth. The readings and the class assignment are designed to give students the opportunity to “get their feet wet” through hands-‐on learning of research design. While it will be necessary for there to be some lectures, as much time as possible will be devoted to classroom discussion in keeping with a seminar style. All students are expected to participate actively in class discussion to ensure that the seminar style is effectively achieved; all students should expect to be “called on” or asked to contribute their informed considerations. A portion of each person’s grade will be determined based on contributions to class discussion. REQUIREMENTS The course requirements are designed to achieve the objectives outlined above. Leading discussion and completing supplemental readings will comprise 10% of your grade in this course; the remaining 90% will be devoted to your final paper and assignments. Please note that you cannot receive an A in this course merely by completing an excellent final paper. • COMPLETION OF COURSE READINGS (prior to class) • DISCUSSION ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPATION (10% of your grade) o LEADING DISCUSSION: Each student will be required to share responsibility for leading the discussion of at least two seminar sessions (and perhaps more, depending on the number of students enrolled in the course). This will include: § completing additional recommended readings and presenting them to the class (you should also prepare a short one page summary for your colleagues to reference). Your synopsis should detail the theory, data, methods, and main argument/findings of the article and provide a summary evaluation as to its quality. You should concentrate on the relationship between the recommended reading and the core readings – remember that this is a methods course and so we are less concerned with the substantive arguments of articles and more concerned about how they develop an argument, whether the argument is well-‐supported with evidence, and the strengths and weaknesses of the method. A good summary evaluates the quality of the article – a terrible summary offers only a nuts and bolts description without critical commentary. § Prepare 3-‐4 questions for discussion, based on both the core and supplemental readings for the week. Good questions will 1) reference earlier course content (e.g., compare the current week’s method to those that have come before) and 2) be impossible to answer with a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ You ought to prepare answers to these questions and prepare to act as instructor (in partnership with me) for the week that you lead the class. ASSIGNMENTS/SEMINAR PROJECT PAPER (90% of your grade): Research paper and assignments. The project should contribute to your advancement in your PhD program by furthering your own research agenda. I will allow wide variation in the topics of your seminar projects. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON A PROJECT COMPLETED ONLY FOR THIS COURSE. Through the mechanisms described above and in-‐class, each student is responsible for active participation in the seminar discussion. I will begin each session with a brief set-‐up of the topic at hand but the responsibility for a successful seminar lies equally with the students. This includes completing the core readings and summaries provided by your colleagues, coming to class ready to engage them, and preparing responses to the discussion leader(s) questions. GRADING AND ACADEMIC HONESTY In keeping with professional standards, you are expected to do all of your own writing and cite sources appropriately. Failure to meet this professional standard will result in a failing (F) grade in the course. REQUIRED READINGS Articles: • Articles in peer-‐reviewed journals can be obtained directly from on-‐line databases. Articles are also available by week through Dropbox. • Some articles or readings may be modified as the course progresses where, for example, a participant suggests a reading that is particularly germane to the topic of discussion. Books: • Emerson, Robert M. Rachel I. Fretz & Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • Frankfort-‐Nachmias, Chava & David Nachmias. 2008 (7th ed.). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin’s Press. • Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-‐Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin. • Week Date 1 1/21 2 1/28 2/4 2/11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2/18 2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25 4/1 4/8 4/15 4/22 4/29 TENTATIVE COURSE GUIDE AND IMPORTANT DUE DATES Topic Discussion Leaders Due Dates/Important Notes Introduction, Secondary Data, -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Conceptualizing an Empirical Question Elements of Causal Assignment 1 DUE: -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Inference Research Question Internal and External Assignment 2 DUE: Clara and Alisa Validity Research Q Revision The Bronze Standard and Experiments in Joanna, Amanda, and Marina Practice Varieties of Quasi-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Experimental Designs I Varieties of Quasi-‐ Clara, Brian, Ross Experimental Designs II Assignment 3 DUE: Survey Research I Vijay, Morgana, Jo Experiment/Quasi-‐Exp Survey Research II: Ntasha, Alisa Measurement Issues NO CLASS SPRING BREAK Inductive and Qualitative Design Amanda, Ross, Ntasha, Vijay Assignment 4 DUE: Survey/Secondary Ethnography Morgan, Brian, Vijay, Marina -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Assignment 5 DUE: Inductive Design -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Assignment 6 DUE: Human Subjects Cert -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ Assignment 7 DUE: First Draft of Final Paper Other Systematic Social Observation Mixed Methods and the Feasibility of Integration Critique and Evaluation Public Criminologies Research Ethics Secondary Data Analysis th Final Paper DUE May 11 - Course Reading Assignments Week 1 Introduction to Social Research and Course Overview Conceptualizing an empirical question Bookkeeping, grading, and discussion leader assignments Some sources for secondary data analysis Background on orientations to theory and method Recommended Background Reading: Becker, Howard. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists. University of Chicago Press. Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. [Basic Undergraduate Text] Hargattai, Eszter. 2009. Research Confidential: Solutions to Problems Most Social Scientists Pretend They Never Have. University of Michigan Press. Week 2: Elements of Causal Inference 1/28/15 - Causal inference and mechanisms - Introduction to experiments (in theory) - Issues with replication *******Assignment #1 DUE******* Required Readings: • Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapters 1-‐3. (Skim Chapter 3) • Textbook: Shadish et al. Chapter 1. • Hedstrom, Peter and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:49–67. • Lehrer, Jonah. 2010. “Annals of Science: The Truth Wears Off, An Old Twist in the Scientific Method.” The New Yorker. 2, 13:52-‐58. Recommended Readings: Rubin, D. B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-‐701. Holland, P. W. 1986. Statistics and Causal Inference (with Comments and Rejoinder). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945-‐970. Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapters 15-‐17. Week 3: Internal and External Validity 2/4/15 - Internal and External Validity - Generalizability *******Assignment #2 DUE******* Required Readings: • Textbook: Shadish et al. Chapters 2 and 3. • Sherman, Lawrence W. 2003. “Misleading Evidence and Evidence-‐Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental.” ANNALS< AAPS, 589, 6-‐19. • Weisburd, David. 2010. “Justifying the Use of Non-‐Experimental Methods and Disqualifying the Use of Randomized Controlled Trials: Challenging Folklore in Evaluation Research in Crime and Justice.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 6: 209-‐227. • Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. 2005. “Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study.” Developmental Psychology, 41, 625-‐635 • Campbell and Stanley 1966. Internal Validity Cheat Sheet. Discussion Leader Readings: (Clara and Alisa) • Anderson, Craig and Brad J. Bushman. 1997. “External Validity of “Trivial” Experiments: The Case of Laboratory Aggression.” Review of General Psychology 1, 1: 19-‐41. • Bushman, Brad J. 1998. “Priming Effects of Media Violence on the Accessibility of Aggressive Constructs in Memory. PSPB 24, 5: 537-‐545. • Gangl, Markus. 2010. “Causal Inference in Sociological Research.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 21-‐47. • Morgan, C. A., III, Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. 2004. Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory for Persons Encountered During Exposure to Highly Intense Stress.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265-‐279. Recommended Readings: Campbell, Donald. 1969. Experiments as Reforms American Psychologist. Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapters 5. Week 4: Design and Causal Inference in Practice: The “Bronze Standard”? 2/11/15 - Experiments and quasi-‐experiments - Introduction to “experiments” (in practice) Required Readings: • Textbook: Shadish et al. Chapters 8-‐10 • Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey B. Liebman, Jeffrey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler & Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2008. “What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment” American Journal of Sociology. 114: 144-‐189. • Sampson, Robert J. 2008. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure. American Journal of Sociology. 114: 189-‐232. • Berk, Richard A. 2005. “Randomized Experiments as the Bronze Standard.” Journal of Experimental Criminology. 4: 417-‐433. Discussion Leader Readings: (Jo, Amanda, and Marina) • Petersilia, Joan and Susan Turner. 1990. “Comparing Intensive and Regular Supervision for High-‐Risk Probationers: Early Results from an Experiment in California” Crime & Delinquency. 36: 87-‐111. • Sherman, Lawrence W. and Richard Berk. 1984. “The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault.” American Sociological Review. 49:261-‐272. • • • • Seron, Carroll, Gregg Van Ryzin, Martin Frankel & Jean Kovath. 2001. “The impact of legal assistance for low-‐income New York City’s Housing Court: Experimental Findings and Policy Implications.” Law & Society Review. 35: 419-‐435. Farrington, David P. and Brandon Walsh. 2005. “Randomized Experiments in Criminology: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?” Journal of Experimental Criminology 1: 9-‐38. Mazzoni, Guiuliana A., Elizabeth F. Loftus & Irving Kirsch. 2001. “Changing Beliefs About Implausible Autobiographical Events: A Little Plausibility Goes a Long Way” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 7: 51-‐59. Clampet-‐Lundquist, Susan & Douglas S. Massey. 2008. “Neighborhood Effects on Economic Self-‐Sufficiency: A Reconsideration of the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology. 114:107-‐144. Recommended Readings: Bernstein, Daniel M., Cara Laney, Erin K. Morris & Elizabeth F. Loftus. 2005. “False Beliefs About Fattening Foods Can Have Healthy Consequences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102: 13724-‐13731. Binder, Arnold & James W. Meeker. 1988. “Experiments as Reforms.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 16:347-‐358. Webster, Murray and Jane Sell. 2007. Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Cook, Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-‐Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Hougton Mifflin. Chapter 3. Staw, Barry M. 1974. “Attitudinal and Behavioral Consequences of Changing a Major Organizational Reward.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 29: 742-‐751. Lachenmeyer, Charles W. 1970. “Experimentation—A Misunderstood Methodology in Psychological and Social-‐psychological Research.” American Psychologist. 25: 617-‐624. Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Chapters 3 & 6. - Week 5 Varieties of Quasi-‐Experimental Designs I 2/18/15 - Bridges between experiments and quasi-‐experiments Lack of randomization, pre-‐tests, or shifts in the treatment of interest Required Readings: • Textbook: Shadish et al. Chapters 4 & 5. • Kirk, David S. 2009. “A Natural Experiment on Residential Change and Recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina.” American Sociological Review 67: 529-‐46. • Uggen, Christopher. 2000. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review. 67:529-‐546. • Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 937-‐75. • Western, Bruce. 2002. “The Impact of Incarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality.” American Sociological Review 67, 4: 526-‐546. • Loeffler, Charles. 2013. “Does Imprisonment Alter the Life Course? Evidence on Crime and Employment from a Natural Experiment.” Criminology 51, 1: 137-‐166 - Week 6 Varieties of Quasi-‐Experimental Designs II 2/25/15 - More on quasi-‐experiments Statistical strategies in observational research (Regression Discontinuity, Time Series, Propensity Score Matching, Fixed/Random Effects) Required Readings: • Testbook: Shadish et al. Chapter 6 and 7. • Van Schellen, Marieke, Robert Apel, and Paul Nieubeerta. 2012. “The Impact of Military Service on Criminal Offending Over the Life Course: Evidence From a Dutch Conviction Cohort.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 8: 135-‐164. • Porter, Lauren and Ryan King. 2014. “Absent Fathers or Absent Variables? A New Look at Paternal Incarceration and Delinquency.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1-‐30. • Carpenter, C., & Dobkin, C. 2009. The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Mortality: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from the Minimum Drinking Age. Journal of Applied Economics, 1: 64-‐182. (Regression Discontinuity) • Massoglia, Michael. 2008. “Incarceration, Health, and Racial Disparities in Health.” Law & Society Review. 42:275-‐307. (Propensity Score Matching) Discussion Leaders: (Clara, Ross, and Brian) • • • • Apel, Robert and Gary Sweeten. 2010. “The Impact of Incarceration on Employment During the Transition to Adulthood.” Social Problems 448-‐479. [Strategic Comparison, Propensity] Wakefield, Sara and Christopher Uggen. 2004. “The Declining Significance of Race in Federal Civil Rights Law: The Social Structure of Civil Rights Claims.” Sociological Inquiry 74, 1: 128-‐157. [Simple Time Series] Levitt, Steven D. 1997. “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime.” American Economic Review, 87, 270-‐290. [Instrumental Variables] Shadish, W. R., Clark, M. H., & Steiner, P. M. 2008. Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments (With Comments and Rejoinder).” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 1334-‐1356. [Comparison of Randomized and Non-‐ Randomized Studies.] • • Horney, Julie and Cassia C. Spohn. 1991. “Rape Law Reform and Instrumental Change in Six Urban Jurisdictions.” Law and Society Review, 25: 118-‐153. (Interrupted Time Series) Harding, David J. 2003. “Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy.” American Journal of Sociology 109, 3: 676-‐719. [Propensity Score Models] Week 7 Survey Research I: 3/4/15 - Introduction to survey research Survey instruments, recruitment, and difficult topics/populations *******Assignment #3 DUE******* Required Readings: • Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapter 10. • Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Chapter 2 & survey instrument. • Logan, Trevon. 2010. “Personal Characteristics, Sexual Behaviors, and Male Sex Work: A Quantitative Approach.” American Sociological Review 75(5): 679-‐704. • Simpson, Sally S. & Nicole Leeper Piquero. 2002. “Low Self-‐Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review. 36: 509-‐549. Discussion Leader Readings: • Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Stanley Presser. 2003. “The Science of Asking Questions.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 65-‐88. • Barkan, Steven E. & Steven F. Cohn. 2005. “Why Whites Favor Spending More Money to Fight crime: The Role of Racial Prejudice.” Social Problems. 52:300-‐314. • Sandefur, Rebecca L. 2008. “Lawyers’ Pro Bono Service and American-‐Style Civil Legal Assistance. Law & Society Review. 41: 79-‐113. • Pager, Devah and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. “Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do.” American Sociological Review 70: 355-‐380. • Kreager, Derek, David Schaefer, Martin Bouchard, Dana Haynie, Sara Wakefield, Jacob Young, and Gary Zajac. Forthcoming. “Toward A Criminology of Inmate Networks.” Justice Quarterly. Recommended Readings: Sudman, Seymour & Graham Kalton. 1986. “New Developments in the Sampling of Special Populations.” Annual Review of Sociology. 12: 401-‐429. Schuman, Howard & Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Seron, Carroll, Joseph Pereira, Jean Kovath. 2006 “How Citizens Assess Just Punishment for Police Misconduct. Criminology. 44:925-‐960. Seron, Carroll, Joseph Pereira, Jean Kovath. 2004. “Judging Police Misconduct: “Street-‐level” versus Professional Policing: The Views of the Public” Law & Society Review. 38:665-‐ 708. - Week 8 Survey Research II 3/11/15 - Survey Research Measurement and more sampling issues Required Readings: • Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapters 7 & 8. • Kirk, Dave. 2006. “Examining the Divergence Across Self-‐Report and Official Data Sources on Inferences about the Adolescent Life-‐Course of Crime.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 107-‐129. • Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., Jr., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. 2001. “Youth Gangs and Definitional Issues: When is a Gang a Gang, and Why Does it Matter?” Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105-‐130. • Hipp, John. 2007. “Block, Tract, and Levels of Aggregation: Neighborhood Structure and Crime and Disorder as a Case in Point. American Sociological Review, 72, 659-‐680. • Hagan, John and Bill McCarthy. 1998. “Street and School Criminologies.” Chapter 1 in Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge University Press. Discussion Leader Readings: • Farnworth, M., Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., & Lizotte, A. J. 1994. “Measurement in the Study of Class and Delinquency: Integrating Theory and Research.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31: 32-‐61. • Junger-‐Tas, Josine and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1999. “The Self-‐Report Methodology in Crime Research.” Crime and Justice 25: 291-‐367. • Pratt, Travis C. and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-‐Analysis.” Criminology 38, 3: 931-‐964. • Hennigan, Karen M., Cheryl L. Maxson, David Sloane, Molly Ranney. 2002. “Community Views on Crime and Policing: Survey Mode Effects on Bias in Community Surveys.” Justice Quarterly. 19: 505-‐587. Week 9 3/18/15 NO CLASS SPRING BREAK Week 10 Inductive and Qualitative Design 3/25/15 Introduction to qualitative and inductive designs - Historical development of ethnography Issues of reliability and inference in qualitative research *******Assignment #4 DUE******* Required Readings: • Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapter 12. • Geertz, Clifford. 2001 “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” • Emerson, Robert (ed.) 2001. Contemporary Field Research, pp. 55-‐76. • Burowoy, Michael. 2003. “Revisits: An Outline of a Theory of Reflexive Ethnography.” American Sociological Review 68: 645-‐679. • Miller, Jody. 2014. Inter-‐Rate Reliability and Qualitative Research. [Dropbox] Discussion Leader Readings: • Poletta, Francesca, Pang Ching Bobby Chen, Beth Gharrity Gardner, and Alice Motes. 2011. “The Sociology of Storytelling.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 109-‐130. • Emerson, Robert. Additional Selection. • Campbell, John L., et al. 2013. “Coding In-‐Depth Semi-‐Structured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercode Reliability and Agreement.” Sociological Methods and Research 42(3): 294-‐320. • Becker, Howard S. 1958. “Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation.” American Sociological Review, 23: 652-‐660. • Jacobs, Bruce A. and Richard Wright. 1999. “Stick-‐Up, Street Culture, and Offender Motivation.” Criminology 37, 1: 149-‐174. • Maynard, Douglas W. and Steven E. Clayman. “Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.” [Dropbox] • Becker, Howard. 1953. “Becoming a Marijuana User.” American Journal of Sociology 59, 3: 235-‐242. • Richardson, Laurel. 2000. “Evaluating Ethnography.” Qualitative Inquiry 6, 2: 253-‐255. Week 11 Ethnography 4/1/15 - Ethnographic examples Evaluating ethnographic research Required Readings: • Textbook: Emerson. Chapters 2, 3 & 6. (Skim.) • Comfort, Megan. Doing Time Together. Selection and Methodological Appendix. [Dropbox] • Goffman, Alice. 2014. On The Run. Selection and Methodological Appendix. [Dropbox] • Goffman, Alice. 2014. “Ten Things.” Available from instructor. [Dropbox] • Jerolmack, Colin and Shamus Khan. 2014. “Talk is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy.” Sociological Methods and Research 43(2): 178-‐209. • Duneier, Mitchell. “How Not to Lie with Ethnography.” Sociological Methodology. [Dropbox] Discussion Leader Readings: • Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 16-‐33, 179-‐205. [Selection, Dropbox] • Jones, Nikki. 2004. “’It’s Not Where You Live, It’s How You Live”: How Young Women Negotiate Conflict and Violence in the Inner City.” The Annals of the American Academic of Political and Social Science. 49-‐62. • Duneier, Mitchell. Sidewalk. [See Instrutor.] • Goffman On The Run. [See Instructor.] • Rios, Victor. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. [See Instructor.] Week 12 Other Examples of Systematic Social Observation 4/8/15 Required Readings: • Sampson, Robert J. and Steven W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology, 105: 603-‐651. • Levitsky, Sandra. 2008. “’What Rights?’ The Construction of Political Claims to American Health Care Entitlements.” Law & Society Review. 42:551-‐591. • Obasogie, Osagie K. “Do Blind People See Race? Legal, Social, and Political Considerations.” Law & Society Review. 44: 585-‐616. • Braverman, Irus. 2008. “’The Tree is the Enemy Soldier’: A Sociolegal Making of War Landscapes in the Occupied West Bank.” Law & Society Review. 42:449-‐483. • Lynch, Mona. 2002. “Pedophiles and Cyber-‐predators as Contaminating Forces: The Language of Disgust, Pollution, and Boundary Invasions in Federal Debates on Sex Offender Legislation.” Law & Social Inquiry. 27: 529-‐576. Week 13 Mixed-‐Methods and The Feasibility of Integration 4/15/15 - Examples of mixed-‐methods research - Difficulties with evaluation of multiple methods *******Assignment #5 DUE******* Required Readings: • Textbook: Shadish et al. Chapter 14. • Maruna, Shadd. 2010. “Mixed Method Research in Criminology: Why Not Go Both Ways?” Pp. 123-‐143 in Handbook of Quantitative Criminology, edited by Alex Piquero and David Weisburd. Springer. • Jenness, Valerie. 2010. “From Policy to Prisoners to People: A “Soft Mixed Methods” Approach to Studying Transgender Prisoners.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography: 1-‐ 37. • Laub, John H. and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1-‐81. • Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis & Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. American Sociological Review. 71: 211-‐234. • Blackstone, Amy, Christopher Uggen, & Heather McLaughlin. 2009. “Legal Consciousness and Responses to Sexual Harassment.” Law & Society Review. 43: 631-‐ 669. • Raudenbusch, Stephen W. 2005. “Learning From Attempts to Improve Schooling: The Contribution of Methodological Diversity.” Educational Researcher 34: 25-‐31. Recommended readings: Gould, Jon B. 2005. Speak No Evil: The Triumph of Hate Speech Regulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 1, 6 & Appendix. Sieber, Sam D. 1973. “The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods.” American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1335-‐1359. Axinn, William G. & Lisa D. Pearce. Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006 Harcourt, Bernard. 2006. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. Chapter 1, pp. 237-‐239. Creswell, JW and VL Plano-‐Clark. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Mahoney, James & Deitrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 3-‐41, pp. 91-‐131. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 1973. Lawyers and Their Society: A Comparative Study of the Legal Profession in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press. Week 14 Critique and Evaluation Within the Academy Public Criminolog(ies): Bringing Research Outside the Academy 4/22/15 *******Assignment #6 DUE******* Required Readings: • Wacquant, Loic. 2002. "Scrutinizing the Street: Poverty, Morality, and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography." American Journal of Sociology, 108: 1468. • Anderson, Elijah. 2002. "The Ideologically Driven Critique 1. Reply to Wacquant." American Journal of Sociology, 108: 1533. • Duneier, Mitchell. 2002. "What Kind of Combat Sport Is Sociology? Reply to Wacquant." American Journal of Sociology. 108: 1551. • Clear, Todd R. 2010. “Editorial Introduction: Public Criminologies.” Criminology & Public Policy 9, 4: 721-‐724. • Uggen, Christopher and Michelle Indebritzen. 2010. “Public Criminologies.” Criminology & Public Policy 9, 4: 725-‐749. • Rock, Paul. 2010. “Comment on ‘Public Criminologies.’” Criminology & Public Policy 9, 4: 751-‐767. Recommended Readings: Lempert, Richard O. 2001. “Activist Scholarship.” Law & Society Review. 2001:25-‐33. Chancer, Lynn and Eugene McLaughlin. 2007. “Public Criminologies: Diverse Perspectives on Academia and Policy.” Theoretical Criminology 11, 2: 155-‐173. Currie, Elliott. 2007. “Against Marginality: Arguments for a Public Criminology.” Theoretical Criminology 11, 2: 175-‐190. Week 15 Research Ethics Secondary Data Analysis 4/29/15 *******Assignment #7 DUE******* Required Reading: • Textbook: Nachmias. Chapter 4. • Venkatesh, Sudhir. Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. Chapter 6: The Hustler and the Husted. • Diederik Stapel’s Audacious Academic Fraud – NY Times. • Lancet Retracts Controversial Autism Paper – ABC News. • California Schools’ Risks Rise as Vaccinations Drop – LA Times. • Freese, Jeremy. Secondary Analysis of Large-‐Scale Surveys. In Research Confidential. [Dropbox] • Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza. 2002. "Democratic Contraction? The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States." American Sociological Review. 67: 777-‐803. (Skim) • Messner, Steven F., Eric P. Baumer, and Richard Rosenfield. 2006. “Distrust of Government, the Vigilante Tradition, and Support for Capital Punishment.” Law & Society Review. 40: 559-‐591. (Skim) Recommended Reading: Textbook: Frankfort-‐Nachmias and Nachmias. Chapter 13. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html Protection of Human Subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf1 1 The American Society of Criminology has not formally adopted a code of ethics. Why not??? Paper Assignments Sara Wakefield Spring 2015 In keeping with the goal of this course to develop a familiarity with a variety of research methodologies, the assignment for this course requires that you develop various research designs to examine empirically a social-‐legal question. In preparing the various sections of this paper, you are required to make specific reference to readings required for this course; in other words, you should demonstrate a firm grasp of the methodological strategies under discussion. Papers should be double-‐spaced, using normal, one-‐inch margins and 11 or 12 point font and formatted according to the standards of either the Law and Society Association (LSA) or the American Society of Criminology (ASC). Each assignment/section will be graded by way of providing guidance; this is a “soft” grade. Your final grade on the paper may be higher, or lower, than the guiding “soft” grade on each section, depending on the quality of the final submission. The paper will be divided into the following sections and submitted on the following dates: 1. Research Question. Prepare a research question that captures your interest in the field of criminology, law & society, criminal justice, or related field. You will spend a significant portion of the quarter on this question so you ought to spend a fair amount of time deciding on it. (Approximately one page; due week 2.) 2. Development of a research question. Prepare a document that maps out a review of the literature leading to the presentation of a research question. In developing a research question, you should demonstrate an understanding of the literature, with a particular focus on the presentation of relevant and at least two contending theories. Based on the question and the review of the literature, this section includes a presentation of the hypotheses to be tested. Your discussion of the literature should demonstrate that you understand the methodological concepts of covariation, nonspuriousness, and causality. (Approximately four pages; due week 3.) 3. Experimentation/quasi-‐experimentation, including time series: Presentation of a research design to answer the question/test the hypotheses using an experimental or quasi-‐ experimental approach. Your discussion of the design must demonstrate a firm understanding of the methodological concepts of comparison, manipulation, control, and generalizability. (Approximately four pages; due week 7.) 4. Survey Research: Presentation of a research design to answer the question/test the hypothesis using a design that relies on either survey research (you may also draw from secondary survey datasets like the NLSY, AddHealth, the PHDCN, etc for this assignment). Your discussion of the design must demonstrate a firm understanding of the methodological concepts of comparison, manipulation, control, and generalizability. (Approximately four pages; due week 10.) 5. An Inductive Approach—participant observation and/or qualitative interviewing. Presentation of a research design to answer the question that relies on an inductive methodology, e.g., participant observation and/or interviewing. Your discussion must demonstrate a firm grasp of the methodological steps of participation, observation, and interviewing on the ground, inductive analysis of data, and the development of theoretical understanding. (Approximately four pages; due week 13.) 6. Complete Rutgers Human Subjects Certification Program (pass/fail) – (PDF certificate to be uploaded to Blackboard) (http://orsp.rutgers.edu/content/hscp-‐instructions-‐and-‐link-‐ online-‐exam). All students are required to complete the online certification program, and submit the certificate. (Submit certificate of completion; due week 14.) 7. Draft of final paper, including new section on trade-‐offs and critique. Analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each design, including, if feasible, a revised design that integrates methods. In this discussion, consideration should be given to the feasibility, including costs, attached to the actual execution of a design. This draft should also include revised versions of all of your prior assignments. (Approximately 20 pages; due week 15.) 8. Revised, final paper. Submission of final, revised paper incorporating reviewer comments. (Approximately 20 pages; due VIA Email to the instructor by 5pm May 11th.)
