Jamie Baxter   Jamie Baxter
Associate Professor - UWO Geography

Geography 9108 - Qualitative Methods in Social Geography		 www.uwo.ca




GEOGRAPHY 9108
News
Description
Contact
Evaluation
Readings
Handouts
Meetings
PAPERS
Paper 1
Paper 2
MISCELLANEOUS
Critical Appraisal
Marking
HOME | Research | Publications | Education | 152b | 237a | 361b | 9108 | 551b | Marking | GEOGRAPHY
 

READINGS/HANDOUTS ()
Qualitative Methods in Social Geography

See the schedule for dates for each topic.

Philosophy and Qualitative Methodology

The purpose of this introductory session is to review some recent philosophical, theoretical, and above all, methodological trends in human/social geography. The Cloke et al. chapter contrasts two basic approaches to enquiry in human geography - parts of which need not be qualitative, but nevertheless have implications for how qualitative research is conducted. Guba and Lincoln give a more comprehensive review of traditions in qualitative research generally.  They settle on a fourfold classification of what they call "alternative inquiry paradigms": positivism, post-positivism, critical theory et al., and constructionism. 

Readings
Cloke, P. Cook, I. Crang P. Goodwin M. Painter J. and Philo, C. (2004) Changing Practices of Human Geography (Ch 1) in Cloke, P. Cook, I. Crang P. Goodwin M. Painter J. and Philo, C. (Eds.) Practising Human Geography London: Sage, pp.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (2004) Competing paradigms in qualitative research: Theories and issues, in Nagy Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy P , Approaches to Qualitative Research: A reader on Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press: 17-38.

Limb, M. and Dwyer, C. (2001) Qualitative Methods for Geographers: Issues and Debates Ch 1.

Questions to Think About

  1. According to Cloke et al., what are some key distinctions that differentiate Carl Sauer's approach and Linda McDowell's approach to geographic enquiry?
  2. What are some of the key debates these authors suggest qualitative researchers need to understand?
  3. Distinguish the four paradigms outlined by Guba and Lincoln. Identify examples of studies that represent each.
  4. Contrast qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
  5. Suggest a topic for discussion for the group from these readings.
  6. What are the "take-home" themes from these readings?

Overheads reproduced from Hesse-Biber and Leavy

Critical/Realist Approaches

Don't forget to find a empirical paper to represent each of the "alternative paradigms" discussed last day - i.e., four papers. By empirical, I mean reports of actual research - not theoretical or methodological discussion pieces. Reproduce the abstracts (minimum), and share them with the other members of the class and be prepared to discuss how you found them.

Readings and Questions to Think About
The purpose of this session is to explore in more detail the critical realist perspective/"alternative paradigm" (see Guba and Lincoln 2004). Sayer expands on the philosophical groundwork already laid by Guba and Lincoln in week 1. Wai-chung Yung, however makes more problematic exactly how geographers are expected to practice critical realist geography. To help ground the discussion, Warf provides and example of an empirical study informed by the critical realist approach.

Sayer, Andrew (1992) Method in Social Science: a Realist Approach, New York: Routledge.Chapter 3 "Theory and Method I: Abstraction, Structure, and Cause"

Wai-chung Yeung, H (1997) Critical realism and realist research in human geography: a method or a philosophy in search of a method? Progress in Human Geography, 21(1)57-74

  1. What is the distinction between external (contingent) and internal (necessary)
    2. relations? Why does this distinction matter?
  2. How are structures reproduced? What is the relationship between structure and agency?
  3. What is generalization and what notion of causation does it rely upon?
  4. What methods (as opposed, to methodology) should (critical) realists use?

Warf, Barney (1988) "Regional Transformation, Everyday Life, and Pacific Northwest Lumber Production," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, 2, 326-346.

  1. How does Warf address issues of structure and agency, and necessity and contingency, in his analysis of Northwest lumber production?

Overheads
video divx | (video mpeg) AITF inflation, cost of living, and lived experience. Structures are hidden behind layers of social meaning and "reproduction".

Though Archie seems to understand the implications of the deal his union receives in relation to price inflation, his desire to get back to work and resume his perceived role within the household is a far more powerful motive. That is, a critical realist would not get much by interviewing Archie as the hidden structural relations Mike (Meathead) talks about are largely denied by Archie (and Stretch). This is why the "knowing subject" is often a lower priority for those following a strictly critical realist approach. From a constructionists point of view though, interviewing each member of the family would provide insight into the multiple and rational realities each family member experiences in relation to coping with inflation and the strike as each is cast (temporarily it seems) into a new role. That is the problem could be addressed from different angles (re: realism vs constructionism) based on very different views on what is "reality" (hidden structural relations vs perceived roles with the family).
Is the structural relation Mike talks about MORE important than the perceived reality Archie acts on (is Archie really a dupe)?

Feminist Approaches

One of the most lively areas of debate within Geography and elsewhere in the social sciences concerns the practice of feminist research (e.g., positionality, reflexivity). These debates have been prompted from both within and outside the group of practitioners with the important effect of helping all qualitative practitioners think more critically about why and how social research should be done. Geographers are fortunate to have the book by Moss (2000) at their disposal - one that explores timely and relevant issues for both feminists and qualitative researchers generally. We will discussion a selection of chapters from this book along with Nightingale's (2003) piece on strategies for and implications of mixing methods in feminist research.

Feminist Pedagogy Working Group (2002) Defining feminism, in Moss, P. (Ed.) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, pp.21-4.

Johnson, L. (2002) The difference feminism makes: Researching unemploymed women in an Austrailian Region, in Moss, P. (Ed.) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Ch 4: pp.57-74.

Moss, P. (2002) Taking on, thinking about, and doing feminist research in Geography, in Moss, P. (Ed.) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Ch 1: pp.1-17.

Nightingale, A. (2003) A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1): 77-90.

Valentine, G. (2002) People like us: Negotiating sameness and difference in the research process, in Moss, P. (Ed.) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Ch 7: pp.116-32

Questions to Think About

  1. What distinguishes feminist approaches from other approaches in social science?
  2. Be prepared to discuss, at the very least, the following concepts:

    3. - feminism
    - positionality
    - reflexivity
    - representation
    - power
    - oppression
    - second wave and third wave feminisms
    - oppression
  3. What is the relationship between feminism and:

    4. - critical realism
    - post-postivism
    - social constructivism

Participatory Action Research

This session reviews some of the general literature on participatory action research in the social sciences. Kemmis and McTaggart review the literature and outline some of the different approaches to PAR. The remaining papers are short descriptions of case studies from the Nyden et al. book. All the papers raise the importance of and the considerable challenges of PAR.

Brown, P. (1997) Social science and environmental activism: A personal account, in Nyden, P., Figert, A., Shibley, M. and Burrows, D. (Eds.) Building Community: Social Science in Action, Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press, pp.98-102.

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000) Participatory action research, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage, pp.567-605

Lukehart, J. (1997) Collaborative, policy-related research in the area of fair housing and community development, in Nyden, P., Figert, A., Shibley, M. and Burrows, D. (Eds.) Building Community: Social Science in Action, Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press, pp.47-51.

Pena, D. and Gallegos, J. (1997) Local knowledge and collaborative environmental action research, in Nyden, P., Figert, A., Shibley, M. and Burrows, D. (Eds.) Building Community: Social Science in Action, Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press, pp. 85-91

Questions to Think About

  1. Describe the central elements of PAR.
  2. Outline some of the key ethical issues faced by PAR practitioners
  3. Compare PAR and feminist approaches - how different? Likewise for the critical realist approach.
  4. What elements of PAR might be adopted by practitioners who may not claim to be explicitly guided by PAR.

Interviews and Focus Groups

Interviews are currently the most popular method in qualitative research. The purpose of this session is to discuss both the practice of interviews and focus groups in the field and the representation of such work in empirical writing.  There are three substantive papers - Miller and Crabtree (2004), Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) and Madriz (2000) - which discuss the nature of interviewing and focus groups. Bonnet (1992) and McGee (1999) are reports of studies which use interviews. Drawing on these papers and others we have already read we will again discuss the relationship between theory of method (methodology) and actual practice.

Readings

Bonnett, A. (1992) Anti-racism in 'white' areas: The example of Tyneside, Antipode, 24(1): 1-15.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Insider accounts: Listening and asking questions, in Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P .Ethnography: Principles in Practice (Chapter 5), London: Routledge.

Madriz, E. (2000) Focus groups in feminist research, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage

McGee, T (1999) Private responses and individual action: Community responses to chronic environmental lead contamination, Environment and Behaviour, 31(1): 66-83.

Miller, W. and Crabtree, B. (2004) Depth interviewing, in Nagy Hess-Biber, S. and Leavy, P.(Eds.) Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.

Questions to Think About

  1. List the variety of interview methods and outline how they differ.
  2. Why is 'conversation' an important research 'tool'?
  3. What skills must the good field interviewer develop?
  4. Why use focus groups?  What challenges are involved with this method?
  5. In what sense are interviewers 'allowed' to be biased (re: definition under positivism)?
  6. How well do the empirical articles address the methodological issues raised by substantive papers?

Qualitative Data "Analysis" Grounded Theory and Discourse Analysis

There are numerous strategies for analysing qualitative data and almost all of them require forethought concerning methodology. For example, the type of analysis usually informs respondent selection, study site, and data management.  Like most social science, the general strategy for analysis should be choosen at the outset of any qualitative study. There are two substantive papers in this session.  The Charmaz (2004) chapter how to conduct analysis, in this case, from point of view of the grounded theory approach. Likewise, Pior's (2004) chapter is specific, but in her case, to discourse analysis.

Mini Assignment
In order to hone your critical appraisal skills, this week will involve a mini-assignment that will count towards your participation mark.  In class you will be assigned either "grounded theory" or "discourse analysis". You are asked to find and critically review a paper,  preferably from geography, that is based largely on your assigned analytical approach. Though these are not mutually exclusive  approaches to analysis, your paper has to have the approach assigned to you as at least one of its major foundations.  You will be given 10 minutes max. to orally present your critical review in a format that is most comfortable to you (powerpoint, handouts etc.).  You do not have to restrict your comments to methodology and analytical strategy only (but that is the focus of the course).
You are asked to circulate your paper to the group ahead of time so they can read it and discuss it.  Your comments on others' appraisals are important too (and counts towards your grade).
You may find this critical appraisal form helpful (see main menu to left)

Readings

Charmaz, K. (2004) Grounded theory, in Nagy Hess-Biber, S. and Leavy, P.(Eds.) Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 496-521.

Prior, L. (2004) Following in Foucault's footsteps: Text and context in qualitative research, in Nagy Hess-Biber, S. and Leavy, P.(Eds.) Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 317-333.

Questions to Think About

  1. Compare and contrast grounded theory and discourse analysis.
  2. What is the role of the knowing subject in qualitative research design and analysis?
  3. To what extent can grounded theory and discourse analysis be used together?
  4. Describe the match/mismatch (if any) between the intended use of these approaches and the ways they are practiced in the two empirical papers.
  5. Focusing on this "match/mismatch" prepare a summary of your critical analysis of your empirical journal article on an overhead for presentation to the class.
  6. What practical challenges remain for using these approaches?

Should Qualitative Reseachers "Count" This session concerns a key set of epistemological and analytical dilemmas that face most qualitative researchers. What role should work based on(post)postivist epistemologies/ontologies play vis a vis qualitative work on the same topic? On an a more practical/analytical level, should we represent data gathered and interpretted through a qualitative approach as counts/frequences of themes? We will explore the positions of four researchers on this issue.

Hodge, D. (1995) Should Women Count? The Role of Quantitative Methodology in Feminist Geographic Research, The Professional Geographer 47(4) 426.

Lawson, V. (1995) The Politics of Difference: Examining the Quantitative/Qualitative Dualism in Post-Structuralist Feminist Research, The Professional Geographer 47(4) 449-457.

Mattingly D.J. and Falconer-Al-Hindi K. (1995) Should women count: A context for the debate, The Professional Geographer 47(4) 427-435.

Moss, P. (1995) Embeddedness in practice, numbers in context: The politics of knowing and doing, The Professional Geographer 47(4) 442-449.

Sandelowski, M. (2001) Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research, The Professional Geographer 24 230-240.

  1. What reasons are there for NOT counting in qualitative research?
  2. What arguments are most convincing for "counting" within qualitative practice?
  3. To what extent do the arugments made by these authors blur the epistemological and ontological distinctions between postivist post-postivist approaches and interpretive approaches (see Table 1.1 from Guba and Lincoln above)

Qualitative Data "Analysis" - Using NVivo to Manage Data

We will have a hands-on demonstration of NVivo using either (you choose) a demo version of the software provided here: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx (see "free trial"), or the FULL (licenced) VERSION on SSCNet (log in, press Start, Programs, QSR. If that latter link does not work or you want to be able to save to your local harddisk, install the windows remote desktop client, otherwise you will have to save to your SSCNet drive. I find the remote desktop client is the best way to connect. Though this may not be typical for every year, this year enough people have laptops that we can run a hands-on session in our usual room using wireless. Word on the street is that sscnet is currently faster than sscnet2.

Prior to class please do the following:

  1. Install or run the NVivo software - ensure you can have a copy of it running in front of you at the beginning of class.
    2. If you have time open up help and look through some of the documentation. I have asked that Flash be installed on SSCNet so we can view the tutorials (this may be functional anytime now).
  2. Read: Bringer, J. Johnston, L. and Brackenridge, C. (2006) Using Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software to Develop a Grounded Theory Project, Field Methods, 18(3) pp.245-266.

Evaluating Rigour in Qualitative Research

This session is organized around the question: "How does one recognize good qualitative research?". The main impetus for asking this question is that while quantitative researchers have quite well-defined principles for evaluation (e.g., validity, reliability) and strategies for guarding against threats to these criteria (e.g., random sampling, "detached" researchers), until recently, qualitative researchers traditionally have not had their own explicit criteria and strategies. Some even claim there cannot be "criteria" for evaluation (see Risteen Hasselkus, 1991). Since the mid 1980s divergent responses to the above question have emerged and are often couched in terms of the key differences between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms.  Athens and Baxter and Eyles each focus on different criteria for making implicit criteria more explicit. Qualitative evaluation criteria remain controversial for some if they threaten the main purposes of qualitative design. Risteen Hasselkus describes some of the problems with formulating explicit qualitative evaluation criteria. Crang raises broader questions about representation.

Readings

Athens L (1984) Scientific criteria for evaluating qualitative studies,  In Denzin N (ed) Studies in Symbolic Interaction Volume 5 Jai Press, London

Baxter, J. and Eyles, J. (1997); Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing "rigour" in interview analysis, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22(4): 505-25.

Crang, M. (2005) Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside the text?, Progress in Human Geography

Risteen Hasselkus B (1991)  Qualitative research: Not another orthodoxy The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 11(1) 3-7

see also
Lincoln Y and Guba E (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry Sage, Beverly Hills

Questions to Think About

  1. Develop your own hierarchy (most important...not-as-important) of qualitative research evaluation criteria.
  2. What are the implications for research design of adopting various sets of evaluation criteria.
  3. To what extent is circumscribing qualitative evaluation criteria controversial (e.g., see Risteen Hasselkus)?
 
  Copyright: This material is for students registered in this class. Others, particularly instructors, please do not use without permission.