Geography 600: Seminar in Qualitative
Methods
Spring 2014
155 Eggers Hall
Mondays, 5:15 pm to 8:00 pm
Jamie Winders
125 Eggers Hall
Syracuse University
(315) 443-5865
[email protected]
Office Hours: Wednesdays, 2:30 to 5:30 pm
Course Description
This seminar is organized around three goals. First, it is designed to help us think through the
relationship between methodology and epistemology . How are research questions and
methodologies connected? What purchase do qualitative methods give us on thinking about human
interactions and geographies of various sorts? What do different qualitative methods enable us to
see, understand, and examine about the world around us? What do they not? Second, the course is
designed as a critical review of various qualitative methods – interviews, participant observation,
textual analyses, archival work, oral/life histories, and other ways of collecting and analyzing
qualitative data. In examining these methodologies, we will look at both the nuts and bolts of their
workings and the theoretical arguments embedded within them. We will look at how different
methodologies compare and what combining them enables and accomplishes. Third, this course is
intended to expose us to different examples of how qualitative methods are used in human
geography and related disciplines. To that end, we will read exemplary pieces and ourselves work
with different qualitative methods.
GEO 600 will include recent and classic texts on the design and use of qualitative methods. Across
readings, we will interrogate the theoretical, empirical, political, and disciplinary implications of
different methodologies. We will review current and past debates about the politics and practices of
qualitative methods. We will read across disciplines, paying particular attention to what a
geographic perspective brings to understandings of methodology, epistemology, and the
politics of knowledge production . Throughout, we will not only investigate different
methodologies but also put our ideas into practice by working with different methodologies in class.
Reading Material
All readings are available electronically through Blackboard.
2
Evaluation
Performance in seminar (30%)
This course is a seminar, so class participation will form a major component of your grade. I expect
that everyone will (1) attend all weekly seminars; (2) carefully read all assignments; and (3) discuss
readings in a critical manner. From time to time, students will lead class discussions and introduce
texts. For seminar discussions, we all agree to do the following each week:
(1) Read the assigned texts critically and closely . We will articulate authors’ arguments,
theoretical frameworks, and so on. Through close readings, we will examine how authors
situate their writings within broader debates, frame their approaches, and connect evidence
to their overall arguments (this last point is key). We will discuss moments when arguments
seem most convincing, as well as moments when authors are unclear, contradictory, etc. We
will read for content, but this course is largely about honing critical analytic skills .
NOTE: Not reading assigned texts will substantially reduce your grade (and it’s painfully
obvious if you’re not reading). There is no riffing in this class, so come to class prepared .
(2) Build on one another’s comments and assessments of the readings. There are multiple
ways of participating in a seminar, but choosing not to engage the readings or one another is
not one of them. We do not have to agree about each week’s readings, nor do I expect that
we will. We do, however, have a mutual responsibility to engage the readings and one
another’s understandings of them. This course is about understanding where readings fit
within broader literatures, what aspects of them push us to think in new ways, and how these
readings shed light on our own work. Doing so will enrich discussions. There is no flying
solo in this class, so be prepared to work with one another.
(3) Be engaged in the seminar. A seminar is about discussion, about working with a set of
readings to see if, and how, authors accomplish what they claim to do. It’s about careful
consideration of ideas and arguments. Without these elements, a seminar becomes a series of
declarative statements that never intersect. This seminar is about intersections, and those
intersections cannot be reached unless everyone is engaged in the task at hand. There is no
checking out in this class, so stay focused.
Critical reflections on methodology (5% each for total of 15%)
For three different sets of weekly readings (there are 8 weeks from which to choose), you will write a brief
(approximately 3 pages) critical assessment of the readings. Your reflection piece must be
submitted by 10:00 am on the Monday your readings will be discussed . In seminar, be prepared
to discuss your reflection piece. Critical reflections are NOT reviews of readings, although you will
devote one or two paragraphs to summarizing them. What are the main arguments? How do authors
support their arguments empirically, theoretically, and methodologically? For these reflections, vary
your approaches. Develop well-organized arguments (brief doesn’t mean shallow), use sharp analytic
tools, and push the boundaries of your thought/critique process. Reflections pieces are my
opportunity to provide feedback on your writing before your term paper, but they are also your
opportunity to sample different topics without the commitment demanded by a term paper. Here
3
are three approaches to try. Please note that you may NOT write a critical reflection in the
same week that you do a research-tool exercise (see below).
(1) Vary the amount of detail you include. Provide a close, detailed analysis of a particular
passage from a reading and situate it in the context of the broader questions/issues raised
for that set of articles. Deconstruct an author’s argument and reflect on where the analysis
leaves you. Alternatively, step back with a broader question and read across a given week’s
pieces. How does your chosen question/theme move in and out of readings, and to what
end? What do overlaps/disconnects among readings mean?
(2) Vary the kinds of questions you ask. Think about questions of methodology,
epistemology, ontology, politics, and so on. This approach can push the boundaries of your
own approaches. Pick readings that are less familiar to you and use that unfamiliarity to bring
a fresh eye to them.
(3) Vary the mix of empirics and theory on which you draw. In at least one reflection, offer
a critical analysis of what you find to be an exemplary paper. Reflect on why this piece is
exemplary and to what end. How does it demonstrate the capacities/limitations of a
particular methodological approach? How would a similar theme be approached through a
different methodological lens (perhaps from another discipline or paradigm in geography)?
Research tools (5% each for total of 25%)
For five qualitative methods we examine (there are 6 total), you will create a research tool. You must
submit your research tool by 10:00 am on the Monday your method is discussed . We will use a
portion of class to reflect on them, so be prepared to explain either the design of your research tool
or the analysis you offer.
Final paper (30% total)
You will write a 15- to 20-page paper, minus bibliography and footnotes, that expands on one of the
methodologies we examined (approx. 4,500 to 6,000 words). Your paper can discuss how a particular
methodological approach, or set of approaches, works vis-à-vis your research interests or subdiscipline/field – a critical review of sorts. It can be the beginning of a chapter on methodology for
your thesis or dissertation or a manuscript for submission. Write strategically. Talk to me early in the
semester to work out a plan. The following deadlines will apply:
Statement of paper topic and annotated bibliography (due March 9th, 2014) – 2%
Paper outline/progress report (due April 16th, 2014) – 3%
Final research paper (due May 5th, 2014) – 25%
Statement on learning and physical disabilities: If you believe that you need accommodations
for a disability, please contact the Office of Disability Services (ODS),
http://disabilityservices.syr.edu, located at 804 University Avenue, Room 309, or call 315-443-4498
for an appointment to discuss your needs and the process for requesting accommodations. ODS is
responsible for coordinating disability-related accommodations and will issue students with
documented disabilities “Accommodation Authorization Letters,” as appropriate. Since
4
accommodations may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please
contact ODS as soon as possible. Students who may need academic accommodations due to a
disability must discuss their needs with me at the beginning of the semester.
Statement on academic integrity: Syracuse University’s Academic Integrity Policy holds students
accountable for the integrity of the work they submit. Students should be familiar with the policy
and know that it is their responsibility to learn about course-specific expectations, as well as about
university policy. The university policy governs appropriate citation and use of sources, the integrity
of work submitted in exams and assignments, and the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets
and other verification of participation in class activities. The policy also prohibits students from
submitting the same written work in more than one class without receiving written authorization in
advance from both instructors. The presumptive penalty for a first offense by an undergraduate
student is course failure, accompanied by a transcript notation indicating that the failure resulted
from a violation of Academic Integrity Policy. The standard sanction for a first offense by a graduate
student is suspension or expulsion. For more information and the complete policy,
see http://academicintegrity.syr.edu.
Syracuse University takes academic integrity seriously, and so I do. Violating SU’s policies on
academic integrity can lead to course failure, suspension, and expulsion from Syracuse University.
All of the following constitute a violation of academic integrity policy:
1.
Plagiarism – the use of someone else’s language, ideas, information, or original material
without acknowledging the source. If you are unclear about how to cite sources in your
papers, ask me. Examples of plagiarism include….
a. Downloading a paper from an Internet source or purchasing it from a paper mill.
b. Using part or all of the writing of another person (including another student) without
citation.
c. Submitting a paper with passages copied from an Internet source without citation (or
copied from any source, for that matter).
2.
Use of unauthorized aids in examinations or papers submitted for evaluation.
Examples of unauthorized aids include…
a. Cell phone, PDA, IPOD, or any other electronic product used or visible during
exams.
b. Notes of any sort in exams.
c. Other students’ exams or papers.
3.
Copying from another student’s work with or without his/her permission.
4.
Submission of the same written work in more than one course.
All of the above are strictly prohibited. Any violation of SU’s policies on academic integrity –
whether cheating or plagiarism – will result in no credit (i.e., a zero) for the assignment and,
potentially, the course.
5
Statement on Religious Observances Policy: SU’s religious observances policy, found at
http://supolicies.syr.edu/emp_ben/religious_observance.htm, recognizes the diversity of faiths
represented among the campus community and protects the rights of students, faculty, and staff to
observe religious holy days according to their tradition. Under the policy, students are provided an
opportunity to make up any examination, study, or work requirements that may be missed due to a
religious observance, provided they notify their instructors before the end of the second week of
classes. For Spring 2014, an online notification process is available through MySlice/Student
Services/Enrollment/My Religious Observances from the first day of class until the end of the
second week of class.
Rules of engagement: GEO 600 is a graduate-level course, and I expect all of us to be motivated
to be here. By accepting this syllabus, we all agree to follow these ground rules:
o (1) We will come to seminar on time. Disrupting class by arriving late is disrespectful.
Starting late puts us behind from the beginning.
o (2) We will refrain from non-class-related conversation during seminar. Whispering,
side conversations, etc. are disruptive, even in a small class.
o (3) We will refrain from using our phones. If you text, take or make calls, or otherwise
use your phone in my class, I will ask you to leave. If there is some reason you cannot go the
full seminar with your phone turned off and put away, you must talk to me about your
situation during the first week of classes. In all other cases, phones should not be visible,
heard, or used during seminar.
o (4) We will not use our laptops for tasks other than note taking. My strong preference
is that you not bring laptops to seminar. They are distracting to those of us sitting by them.
GEO 600 is a seminar, not a lecture.
6
January 13th, 2014 (Week 1) – Course introduction
No readings.
January 20th, 2014 (Week 2) – Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday
NO CLASS, NO READINGS
January 27th, 2014 (Week 3) - Methodology and epistemology: What
we think we’re doing when we do qualitative research
Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Politics and the Study of Discourse.” The Foucault Effect: Studies in
Governmentality. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, eds. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 53-72.
Crang, Mike. 2002. “Qualitative Methods: The New Orthodoxy?” Progress in Human Geography 26.5:
647-655.
Davies, Gail and Dwyer, Claire. 2007. “Qualitative Methods: Are You Enchanted or Are You
Alienated?” Progress in Human Geography 31.2: 257-266.
-----. 2008. “Qualitative Methods II: Minding the Gap.” Progress in Human Geography 32.3: 399-406.
Dwyer, Claire and Davis, Gail. 2010. “Qualitative Methods III: Animating Archives, Artful
Interventions and Online Environments.” Progress in Human Geography 34.1: 88-97.
Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, Yvonna. 2011. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research.” The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna
Lincoln, eds. Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications, 1-19.
Erickson, Frederick. 2011. “A History of Qualitative Inquiry in Social and Educational Research.”
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. Los
Angeles and London: SAGE Publications, 43-60.
February 3rd, 2014 (Week 4) – Historical research: Understanding
archives
Kurtz, Matthew. 2001. “Situating Practices: The Archive and the File Cabinet.” Historical Geography
29: 26-37.
Domosh, Mona and Morin, Karen. 2003. “Travels with Feminist Historical Geography.” Gender,
Place, and Culture 10.3: 257-264.
Lorimer, Hayden. 2003. “The Geographical Fieldcourse as Active Archive.” Cultural Geographies 10:
278-308.
7
Bailey, Adrian, Brace, Catherine, and Harvey, David. 2009. “Three Geographers in an Archive:
Positions, Predilections and Passing Comment on Transient Lives.” Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 34: 254-269.
Lorimer, Hayden. 2010. “Caught in the Nick of Time: Archives and Fieldwork.” Handbook of
Qualitative Geography. Dydia DeLyser, Steve Herbert, Stuart Aitken, Mike Crang, and Linda
McDowell, eds. London: Sage, 248-273.
Cresswell, Tim. 2011. “Value, Gleaning and the Archive at Maxwell Street, Chicago.” Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers NS 37: 164-176.
Exercise I: Going to the SU Archives or Special Collections…
February 10th, 2014 (Week 5) – Asking questions: focus groups to
interviews
Anderson, Kathryn and Jack, Dana. 1991. “Learning to Listen: Interview Techniques and Analyses.”
Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai, eds.
New York: Routledge, 11-26.
Mullings, Beverley. 1999. “Insider or Outsider, Both or Neither: Some Dilemmas of Interviewing in
a Cross-Cultural Setting.” Geoforum 30.4: 337-350.
England, Kim. 2002. “Interviewing Elites: Cautionary Tales About Researching Women Managers in
Canada’s Banking Industry.” Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods. Pamela Moss, ed.
Oxford: Blackwell, 200-213.
Adler, Patricia and Adler, Peter. 2002. “The Reluctant Respondent.” Handbook of Interview Research:
Context and Method. Jaber Gubrium and James Holstein, eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 515-536.
Hyams, Melissa. 2004. “Hearing Girls’ Silences: Thoughts on the Politics and Practices of a Feminist
Method of Group Discussion.” Gender, Place and Culture 11: 105-119.
Inwood, Joshua and Martin, Deborah. 2008. “Whitewash: White Privilege and Racialized
Landscapes at the University of Georgia.” Social and Cultural Geography 9.4: 373-395.
Exercise II: Making an interview script.
February 17th, 2014 (Week 6) – Theorizing the Field
Katz, Cindi. 1994. “Playing the Field: Questions of Fieldwork in Geography.” The Professional
Geographer 46.1: 67-72.
Marcus, George. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-sited
Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95-117.
8
Clifford, James. 1997. “Spatial Practices: Fieldwork, Travel, and the Disciplining of Anthropology.”
Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds in a Field Science. Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson,
eds. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 185-222.
Gupta, Akhil and Ferguson, James. 1997. “Discipline and Practice: ‘The Field’ as Site, Method, and
Location in Anthropology.” Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds in a Field Science. Akhil
Gupta and James Ferguson, eds. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California
Press, 1-46.
Hage, Ghassan. 2005. “A Not So Multi-Sited Ethnography of a Not So Imagined Community.”
Anthropological Theory 5.4: 463-475.
Moseley, William. 2007. “Collaborating in the Field, Working for Change: Reflecting on Partnerships
Between Academics, Development Organizations and Rural Communities in Africa.” Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 334-347.
February 24th, 2014 (Week 7) – Ethnography
Burawoy, Michael. 2000. “Introduction: Reaching for the Global.” Global Ethnography: Forces,
Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Michael Burawoy, Joseph A. Blum, Sheba
George, Zsuzsa Gille, Teresa Gowan, Lynne Haney, Maren Klawiter, Steven Lopez, Sean o
Riain, and Millie Thayer. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 140.
Emerson, Robert, Fretz, Rachel, and Shaw, Linda. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, select chapters.
Heynen, Nick. 2013. “Marginalia of a Revolution: Naming Popular Ethnography Through William
W. Bunge's Fitzgerald.” Social and Cultural Geography 14.7: 744-751.
Keith, Michael. 1992. “Angry Writing: (Re)presenting the Unethical World of the Ethnographer.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10.4: 551-568.
Comaroff, Jean and Comaroff, John. 2003. “Ethnography on an Awkward Scale: Postcolonial
Anthropology and the Violence of Abstraction.” Ethnography 4.2: 147-180.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2004. “Parts Unknown: Undercover Ethnography of the OrgansTrafficking Underworld.” Ethnography 5.1: 29-73.
Exercise III: Mini-ethnography
March 3rd, 2014 (Week 8) – Feminist methodologies
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege
of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14.3: 575-599.
9
Stacey, Judith. 1991. “Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Words: Feminist Practices of
Oral History. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai, eds. New York: Routledge, 111-119.
Sundberg, Juanita. 2003. “Masculinist Epistemologies and the Politics of Fieldwork in Latin
Americanist Geography.” The Professional Geographer 55.2: 180-190.
Benson, Koni and Nagar, Richa. 2006. “Collaboration as Resistance? Reconsidering the Processes,
Products, and Possibilities of Feminist Oral History and Ethnography.” Gender, Place and Culture
13.5: 581-592.
Mountz, Alison, Miyares, Ines, Wright, Richard, and Bailey, Adrian. 2003. “Methodologically
Becoming: Power, Knowledge and Team Research.” Gender, Place and Culture 10.1: 29-46.
Houston, Serin, McLean, James, Hyndman, Jennifer, and Jamal, Arif Jamal. 2010. “Still
Methodologically Becoming: Collaboration, Feminist Politics and ‘Team Ismaili’.” Gender, Place,
and Culture 17.1: 61-79.
Pratt, Geraldine. 2010. “Collaboration as Feminist Strategy.” Gender, Place, and Culture 17.1: 43-48.
**
A brief statement of topic with research question and initial bibliography is due
Friday, March 7th, 2014.
March 10th, 2014 (Week 9) – Spring Break
NO CLASS, NO READINGS
March 17th, 2014 (Week 10) – Ethics, power, and representation
Alcoff, Linda. 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20: 5-32.
Katz, Cindi. 1996. “The Expeditions of Conjurors: Ethnography, Power, and Pretense.” Feminist
Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Diane Wolf, ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 170-184.
Rose, Gillian. 1997. “Situating Knowledges: Positionalities, Reflexivities and Other Tactics.” Progress
in Human Geography 21.3: 305-320.
Pratt, Geraldine. 2000. “Research Performances.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18.5:
639-651.
Winders, Jamie. 2001. “On the Outside of ‘In’: Power, Participation, and Representation in Oral
Histories.” Historical Geography 29: 45-52.
Jazeel, Tariq and McFarlane, Colin. 2010. “The Limits of Responsibility: A Postcolonial Politics of
Academic Knowledge Production.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35: 109-124.
Dhanju, Richa and O’Reilly, Kathleen. 2013. “Human Subjects Research and the Ethics of
Intervention: Life, Death, and Radical Geography in Practice.” Antipode 45.3: 513-516.
10
March 24th, 2014 (Week 11) – Discourse analysis, I: What does it
mean?
Foucault, Michel. 1981 [1970]. “The Order of Discourse.” Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader.
Robert Young, ed. Boston: Routledge, 48-78.
-----. 1977. “The Incitement to Discourse” and “Method.” The History of Sexuality. Volume I. New
York: Vintage Books, 17-35 and 92-102.
Hall, Stuart. 1997. “The Work of Representation.” Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying
Practices. Stuart Hall, ed. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 15-64.
Lees, Loretta. 2004. “Urban Geography: Discourse Analysis and Urban Research.” Progress in Human
Geography 28.1: 101-107.
Dittmer, Jason. 2010. “Textual and Discourse Analysis.” The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography.
Dydia DeLyser, Steve Herbert, Stuart Aitken, Mike Crang, and Linda McDowell, eds. Los
Angeles and London: SAGE, 274-286.
March 31st, 2014 (Week 12) – Discourse analysis, II: What does it look
like?
Martin, Deborah. 2003. “‘Place-Framing’ as Place-Making: Constituting a Neighborhood for
Organizing and Activism.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93.3: 730-750.
Pratt, Geraldine. 1999. “From Registered Nurse to Registered Nanny: Discursive Geographies of
Filipina Domestic Workers in Vancouver, B.C.” Economic Geography 75.3: 215-236.
Dittmer, Jason. 2010. “Comic Book Visualities: A Methodological Manifesto on Geography,
Montage and Narration.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35.2: 222-236.
Glasze, G., Putz, R., Germes, M., Schirmel, H., and Brailich, A. 2012. “The Same But Not the Same:
The Discursive Constitution of Large Housing Estates in Germany, France, and Poland.” Urban
Geography 33.8: 1192-1211.
Talburt, Susan and Matus, Claudia. 2013. “Confusing the Grid: Spatiotemporalities, Queer
Imaginaries, and Movement.” Gender, Place, and Culture in press.
Tan, Qian Hui. 2014. “Postfeminist Possibilities: Unpacking the Paradoxical Performances of
Heterosexualized Femininity in Club Spaces.” Social and Cultural Geography 15.1: 23-48.
Exercise IV: Doing discourse analysis
April 7th, 2014 (Week 13) – Mixing methods
Wyly, Elvin. 2009. “Strategic Positivism.” The Professional Geographer 61.3: 310-322.
11
Barnes, Trevor. 2009. “‘Not Only… But Also’: Quantitative and Critical Geography.” The Professional
Geographer 61.3: 292-300.
Small, Mario Luis. 2011. “How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly
Growing Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 57-86.
Elwood, Sarah. 2010. “Mixed Methods: Thinking, Doing, and Asking in Multiple Ways.” The SAGE
Handbook of Qualitative Geography. Dydia DeLyser, Steve Herbert, Stuart Aitken, Mike Crang, and
Linda McDowell, eds. Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications, 94-113.
Cresswell, John. 2011. “Controversies in Mixed Methods Research.” The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. Los Angeles and London: SAGE
Publications, 269-283.
Warshawsky, Daniel. 2014. “The Potential for Mixed Methods: Results from the Field in Urban
South Africa.” The Professional Geographer 66.1: 160-168.
April 14th, 2014 (Week 14) – Qualitative research and GIS (with Thor
Ritz )
Elwood, Sarah. 2006. “Negotiating Knowledge Production: The Everyday Inclusions, Exclusions,
and Contradictions of Participatory GIS Research.” The Professional Geographer 58: 197-208.
Kwan, Mei-Po and Ding, G. 2008. “Geo-Narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems for
Narrative Analysis in Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research.” Professional Geographer 60: 443465.
Brennan-Horley, Chris and Gibson, Chris. 2009. “Where Is Creativity in the City? Integrating
Qualitative and GIS Methods.” Environment and Planning A 41.11: 2595-2614.
Leszczynski, Agnieszka. 2009. “Quantitative Limits to Qualitative Engagements: GIS, Its Critics,
and the Philosophical Divide.” The Professional Geographer 61.3: 350-365.
Gregory, Ian and Healey, Richard. 2007. “Historical GIS: Structuring, Mapping, and Analysing
Geographies of the Past.” Progress in Human Geography 31.5: 638-653.
Jones, Phil and Evans, James. 2012. “The Spatial Transcript: Analysing Mobilities Through
Qualitative GIS.” Area 44.1: 92-99.
Exercise V: Deconstructing (or reconstructing?) the map
http://geospatialhistorian.wordpress.com/lessons/
http://revolt.axismaps.com/
** A progress report (2-3 pages) on your final paper is due by Wednesday, April 16th, 2014.
12
April 21st, 2014 (Week 15) – Qualitative methods online
DeLyser, Dydia, Sheehan, Rebecca, and Curtis, Andrew. 2004. “Ebay and Research in Historical
Geography.” Journal of Historical Geography 30: 764-782.
Madge, Clare. 2007. “Developing a Geographer’s Agenda for Online Research Ethics.” Progress in
Human Geography 31: 654-674.
Schrooten, Mieke. 2012. “Moving Ethnography Online: Researching Brazilian Migrants’ Online
Togetherness.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35.10: 1794-1809.
Longhurst, Robyn. 2013. “Using Skype to Mother: Bodies, Emotions, Visuality, and Screens.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31: 664-679.
Ruppert, Evelyn, Law, John, and Savage, Mike. 2013. “Reassembling Social Science Methods: The
Challenge of Digital Devices.” Theory, Culture and Society 30.4: 22-46.
Ringrose, Jessica, Harvey, Laura, Gill, Rosalind, and Livingstone, Sonia. 2013. “Teen Girls, Sexual
Double Standards and ‘Sexting’: Gendered Value in Digital Image.” Feminist Theory 14: 305-323.
Exercise VI: Online spaces?
April 28th, 2014 (Week 16) – Rigor in qualitative research
Ragin, Charles, Nagel, Joane, and White, Patricia. 2004. “Workshop on Scientific Foundations of
Qualitative Research.” July 11-12, 2003. Sociology Program Methodology, Measurement, and
Statistics Program, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. National Science
Foundation, select passages.
Lamont, Michele and White, Patricia. 2008. “Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for
Systematic Qualitative Research.” May 19-20, 2005. National Science Foundation, select
passages.
Schiellerup, Pernille. 2008. “Stop Making Sense: The Trials and Tribulations of Qualitative Data
Analysis.” Area 40.2: 163-171.
Lin, Ann Chih. 1998. “Bridging Positivist and Interpretivist Approaches to Qualitative Methods.”
Policy Studies 26.1: 162-180.
Herbert, Steve. 2010. “A Taut Rubber Band: Theory and Empirics in Qualitative Geographic
Research.” The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography. Dydia DeLyser, Steve Herbert, Stuart
Aitken, Mike Crang, and Linda McDowell, eds. Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications,
69-81.
Monday, May 5th, 2014 – Final paper is due!