Sociology 63915: Designing Qualitative Research
Spring 2019
Tuesday 3.30-6.15 DeBartolo 347
Lyn Spillman
Office Hours: Thursday 2-4 and by arrangement
4074 JNH: 631 8067
Email:
[email protected]The goal of this course is provide you with the opportunity and resources to reflect on issues
important in all qualitative research design. These issues include the formulation of research
questions; classification, description, and measurement; types of explanation, interpretation, and
inference; comparative design; and the logic of case study design. Our reading and discussion
will focus mostly on methodological reflections and debates about qualitative research.
This class does not focus on any specific type of qualitative method. Most of the issues we will
cover are important regardless of particular research techniques and type of data– documents,
interviews, fieldwork, or some combination of these sources. The ultimate quality of all types of
qualitative research in sociology relies on deep theoretical grounding and well-developed skills
in abstract thinking about research questions and research design. Regardless of the type of
research you pursue, the issues you engage in this class will strengthen the quality of your work.
This focus on very broadly usable knowledge and experience means that this class differs from
other related classes in three ways you should be aware of.
*It does not offer expert grounding in advanced methodological issues and
debates specifically associated with either comparative-historical sociology,
interview studies, or fieldwork. I expect that you will take course offerings in the
department, or develop independent study coursework, to be able to claim
expertise in one of these methods. However (a) the course will familiarize you
with underlying issues in each of these methodologies and (b) your research paper
could investigate the advanced methodological literature in one of these areas.
*In general, it does not offer simple “recipe” skills in any specific methodology.
Unlike quantitative skills– as I understand them– basic qualitative research skills
like reading and listening and observing don’t require special training (although
they do need conscious and systematic attention, and some people are better at
them than others...). You can and should read books of recipe knowledge before
you do any research, as a sensitizing device and to widen your awareness of
potential pitfalls, but it is more important to devote class time to the analytic skills
which will make the reading, listening and observing sociologically productive.
However, your research paper can review “recipe” knowledge of one type of
methodology if you wish, and relate recipe knowledge to broader design issues.
*Unlike many qualitative research classes, this class does not focus primarily on
empirical studies as exemplars. This “apprenticeship” model of learning
qualitative research is appropriate and important for specific methodologies: e.g.,
it is the dominant model of course design for comparative historical sociology.
But because we are interested here in issues common to all qualitative
methodologies, most of our readings are more abstract, though they do offer many
examples. (It is a common misconception that good qualitative research requires
less abstract thinking than quantitative research.) However, (a) we will establish
and use a shared body of empirical topics you have encountered or are
encountering as examples for thinking through our readings and (b) you should
use class work to help think through research proposals and research projects.
Course Assessment
1. 20% class participation. A substantial part of each class will be devoted to discussion of
observations, questions, and issues you raise about readings, and the illustrations you develop.
Discussions should address (1) key ideas of reading(s) (2) illustrative quotes (3) comparison and
contrast to previous readings (4) applications to empirical topics or theoretical issues not
included in reading (5) thinking through how the readings relate to research you might do or are
doing (6) assessment and critique (7) further questions and issues raised. Please note that this is
a seminar. Inevitably, and no matter how often I explain this, one or two members of my
seminars will comment that they want to hear the gospel according to Lyn. That gospel is
embedded as a hidden agenda in the design of the class, but I will do little if any lecturing. What
I will do is summarize and add commentary to your discussion at the beginning of the following
class. You are responsible for close reading of the material, thinking through what it means,
raising questions for discussion, listening to and learning from others, admitting what puzzles
you, and asking questions about what you don’t get. If you learn better from lectures and
authoritative proclamation, this might not be the class for you. As a reminder:
... many define... [seminars]... by size (between five and twenty) or configuration
(a circle around a central table), by focus (the centrality of a shared text) or
professorial function (... facilitator or conductor). But beneath these aspects is ... a
pedagogy wherein everyone has a voice and each person’s ideas are valued, a
venue for exploring varied perspectives, an opportunity to experiment, a way to
flesh-out skeletal ideas through the challenge of friendly critics. The seminar is a
community working on the principle that if many hands make light work then
many minds make deep meaning. Participation is vital, responsibility is shared,
and ownership is produced.... students “take learning into their own hands and
make something meaningful out of it....” (Richard Gale, Carnegie Academy of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.)
2. 20% class reading journals: around one page due each class, based on reading. Bring one
hard copy for me, and another if you want to refer to it in discussion. In your journal you will
make and develop one or two points which strike you as important about that day's reading.
Analysis, critique, connection to other perspectives and other scholarly work, suggested
empirical applications, and puzzles and questions are examples of productive responses. You
should explain your point by saying why you think it is significant, and using examples from the
text for support. You may also include reflection on how the ideas are relevant to the design of
your own research, but be sure to make the connections to broader analysis, connections, and
puzzles. The purpose of assigning journals is to help you (although I also enjoy reading them).
Taking your journals seriously as a form of learning has a big pay-off for the depth of your
understanding of the readings, and your notes will be useful to you in the future in ways you
don’t yet realize. See further information on journals p.11.
3. 20% class presentation on main points and key questions of our reading in relation to class
topics and previous readings. You should aim to develop illustrations and applications of the
authors’ methodological arguments from sociological or other research you have read and/or
conducted. You should also explore and connect one or two of the recommended readings.
Please circulate a handout of main points of the reading and questions to class, and post to Sakai.
4. 40% work for your 15-20 page class paper. You can write on a general methodological
topic, do a literature review, etc, or you can use this paper to investigate and review literature on
a methodological issue relevant to your research interests. The primary focus of the paper should
be the methodological questions, but if you wish you can also include brief discussion of your
topic, question, or research to the extent that it helps illustrate the methodological topic. (For
example you could explain and assess two different approaches to researching your topic). We
can discuss this further as the semester progresses. You should: (a) Sign up to meet with me
Thursday February 28 to discuss your topic ideas. (b) Turn in a progress report/ formal
proposal on Monday March 11, noon. (c) Prepare a presentation to class Tuesday April 30 (d)
Turn in your paper Tuesday May 7 by noon– hard copy and electronic copy.
Note on Inclusion: I share the University’s and the Sociology Department’s concern with social
justice and aim for a positive learning environment based on open communication, mutual
respect, and non-discrimination. We will not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, class,
disability, veteran status, religion, sexual orientation, color, or national origin.
Required Readings
Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative
Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Ragin, Charles C. and Lisa Amoroso. 2019 Constructing Social Research: The Unity and
Diversity of Method. Third edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press.
Reed, Isaac. 2012. Interpretation and Social Knowledge: On the Use of Theory in the Social
Sciences. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Smelser, Neil J. 1995. Problematics of Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3
Other required readings are available online or will be distributed to class.
Recommended Reading
Other recommended readings are listed for each week should they be of use for your research for
your papers or in future. Please ask me to delve into my other files of references if you have
further questions.
*************************************************************************
Course Outline
WEEK ONE: January 15. Introduction. Why is research design important?
*Murdock Pencil, 1976. “Salt Passage Research: The State of the Art,” Journal of
Communication 26(4): 31-36.
*Darcy Chopwhittle, “Review of When the Cows Come Home: Barn Architecture and Changes
in Bovine Public Space,” and Lars Mooson Taleglad, “Response to Review: Bovine History and
the Linguistic Left Turn,” Social Science History 25(4) Winter 2001: 609-14.
*************************************************************************
WEEK TWO: January 22. Situating sociological projects: mapping the field and its tensions
*Neil J. Smelser, 1995. Problematics of Sociology: The Georg Simmel Lectures 1995. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
*Charles C. Ragin and Lisa Amoroso, 2019. “What is (and Is Not) Social Research?” ch. 1, pp 5-
27 in Constructing Social Research.
Recommended: Neil J. Smelser, 2014. “Sociology as Science, Humanism, and Art,” pp 148-62
in Getting Sociology Right Berkeley: University of California Press; Robert Nisbet, 1976.
Sociology as an Art Form. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Note: If you wish to attend the “Walk the Walk Week” event scheduled for 5.30 Tuesday 22nd
please let me know in advance. (The event is “Dome-ish Episode 3– Identity Crisis” at the
Montgomery Auditorium, LaFortune Student Center).
************************************************************************
WEEK THREE: January 29. Sociological Craft
*Max Weber, 1946 [1919]. “Science as a Vocation,” pp. 129-56 in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills, eds. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
*C. Wright Mills 2000[1959]. “On Intellectual Craftsmanship,” Appendix, pp. 195-226 in The
4
Sociological Imagination. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
*Beatrice Webb, 1926. “The Art of Note-taking,” pp. 364-72 in My Apprenticeship.
*Michael Mann, 1981. “Socio-logic,” Sociology 15(4): 544-50.
*John Gerring. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapter Two, “Beginnings,” pp. 25-57.
Recommended: David Hackett Fischer, 1970. “Fallacies of Question-Framing,” ch. 1, pp. 3-39
in Historians’ Fallacies: Towards a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper and Rowe;
Fred Eidlin, “The Method of Problems vs the Method of Topics.” Paper presented at the
Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, 2010. (See me for a copy).
***************************************************************************
WEEK FOUR: February 5. An overview of qualitative research design
*Charles C. Ragin and Lisa Amoroso, 2019. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and
Diversity of Method. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge Press. Chs. 2-6, pp. 29-145.
Recommended: Arthur L. Stinchcombe. 2005. The Logic of Social Research. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
***************************************************************************
WEEK FIVE: February 12. How is Qualitative Research Distinctive? Part I
*Gary Goertz and James Mahoney, 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative
Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Ch. 1 (1-15);
ch. 2 (18-25 only), chs. 6-8 (75-114), ch. 10 (127-38), chs. 14-17 (177-226).
Recommended: Gary King, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba, 1994. “The Science in Social
Science,” ch. 1 pp. 3-33 in Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative
Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; and Review of King, Keohane and Verba
by Robert R. Alford in Contemporary Sociology 24(3) May 1995: 424-27; Peter Abell, 2004.
“Narrative Explanation: An Alternative to Variable Centered Explanation?” Annual Review of
Sociology 30: 287-310; Duncan Watts, 2014. “Common Sense and Sociological Explanation,”
American Journal of Sociology 120: 313-51 and reply by Catherine Turco and Ezra Zuckerman,
2017. AJS 122(4): 1272-91.
************************************************************************
WEEK SIX: February 19. How Is Qualitative Research Distinctive? Part II
*Isaac Reed, 2012. Interpretation and Social Knowledge: On the Use of Theory in the Social
Sciences. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
5
Recommended: Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,”
pp. 3-30, in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973); Paul Ricoer, 1979
[1971] “The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as Text.” pp 73-101 in Paul
Rabinow and William Sullivan, eds. Interpretive Social Science. (Berkeley CA: University of
California Press); “On Abstraction and Interpretation– The Biernacki-Evans Debate,” pp.177-
277 in Isaac Reed and Jeffrey C. Alexander, eds. 2009. Meaning and Method: The Cultural
Approach to Sociology Boulder CO and London: Paradigm Publishers; John Law, 2009. “Seeing
Like a Survey,” Cultural Sociology 3(2): 239-56; Leslie MacColman, 2015. “The central
arguments of Isaac Ariail Reed’s Interpretation and Social Knowledge,” Czech Sociological
Review 51(3): 475-86.
****************************************************************************
WEEK SEVEN: February 26. Is Qualitative Research Distinctive? (Meet with me about your
ideas for papers on Thursday February 28.)
*John Gerring. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 3-7, 13-14. (Pp. 58-193, 361-393). Read
Chs. 3-7 selectively– don’t get bogged down. Pay attention to the tables, and to anything that
puzzles you. Then read the concluding argument in Chs. 13-14 closely.
*Lyn Spillman, 2004. ”Causal Reasoning, Historical Logic, and Sociological Explanation” Pp.
216-34 in Jeff Alexander, Gary Marx, and Christine Williams, eds. Self, Social Structure, and
Beliefs. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Recommended: John Gerring, 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. 2nd ed.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Part Three: Causation (chapters 8-12.);
Howard Aldrich, 2014. “Stand up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the
qualitative/quantitative dichotomy,” at workinprogress.oowsection.org/2014 with responses by
Matt Vidal and-- (at orgtheory.net)-- Elizabeth Popp Berman.
***************************************************************************
WEEK EIGHT: March 5. History, Comparison, and Comparative Logic
*Neil J. Smelser. 1976. “Classification, Description, and Measurement,” and “Association,
Cause, Explanation, and Theory,” ch. 6 and 7, pp. 151-243 in Comparative Methods in the Social
Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (selections).
* Craig Calhoun. 1998. “Explanation in Historical Sociology: Narrative, General Theory, and
Historically Specific Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 104(3): 846-71.
*Elizabeth S. Clemens. 2007. “Towards a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes
and Emergence.” Annual Review of Sociology 33:527-49
*Anne Kane, 2000. “Reconstructing Culture in Historical Explanation: Narrative as Cultural
Structure and Practice.” History and Theory 39: 311-330.
6
*Theda Skocpol. n.d.. “Six Rules of Thumb for Comparative Historical Analysis.” Unpublished
notes, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.
Recommended: Theda Skocpol, 1984. “Emergent Agendas and Recurrent Strategies in Historical
Sociology, pp. 356-91 in Skocpol, ed. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; James Mahoney. 2004. “Comparative-Historical Methodology,”
Annual Review of Sociology 30: 81-101; Jim Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2015.
Advances in Comparative Historical Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
**************************************************************************
WEEK NINE: Spring Break. Progress report/formal proposal for your paper due Monday
March 11, noon. Please put a hard copy in my mailbox, as well as sending an electronic copy.
**************************************************************************
WEEK TEN: March 19. Case Selection and Inference from Cases.
*Michael Burawoy. 1998. “The Extended Case Method,” Sociological Theory 16: 4-33.
*Bent Flyvbjerg, 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research” Qualitative
Inquiry 12(2):219-45.
*George Steinmetz. 2004. “Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and
Small Ns in Sociology.” Sociological Theory 22(3): 371-400.
*Mario Luis Small. 2009. “How Many Cases Do I Need? On Science and the Logic of Case
Selection in Field Based Research.” Ethnography 10: 5-38.
Recommended: Howard Becker. 2014. What about Mozart? What about Murder? Reasoning
from Cases. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Nina Eliasoph and Paul Lichterman. 1999.
“‘We Begin With Our Favorite Theory...’ Reconstructing the Extended Case Method,”
Sociological Theory 17: 228-34; John Stolte, Gary Alan Fine and Karen S. Cook, 2001.
“Sociological Miniaturism: Seeing the Big through the Small in Social Psychology.” Annual
Review of Sociology 27: 387-413; Carol Heimer, 2001. “Cases and Biographies: An Essay on
Routinization and the Nature of Comparison.” Annual Review of Sociology 27: 47-76; David
Thacher, 2006. “The Normative Case Study.” American Journal of Sociology 111(6): 1631-
1679; Lars Mjoset. 2009. “The Contextualist Approach to Social Science Methodology.” Pp. 39-
68 in The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods. Los Angeles and London: Sage; Josh
Pacewicz, “What can you do with a single case?” ms. (See me for a copy); Peter Abell, 2009. “A
Case for Cases: Comparative Narratives in Sociological Explanation,” Sociological Methods and
Research 38(1): 38-70.
***************************************************************************
7
WEEK ELEVEN: March 26. Working with Textual Evidence
*Andrew Abbott, 2014. Digital Paper: A Manual for Research and Writing with Library and
Internet Materials. Chapters 1-3, pp. 1-63.
*Lyn Spillman, 2012. “Appendix: Methodological Overview.” Pp. 371-92 in Solidarity in
Strategy: Making Business Meaningful in American Trade Associations. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
*William G. Roy. 2006. “Document Analysis Exercise.” Adapted from an assignment for
“Comparative-Historical Methods in Sociology” Graduate Seminar, second quarter, UCLA
Winter 2006.
*Bring an example of a document related to your research with some thoughts about it building
on the Roy reading. Hopefully we will have time to work a few examples in class.
A journal is required as usual.
Recommended: *Vernon K. Dibble, 1963. “Four Types of Inference from Documents to
Events,” History and Theory 3: 203-21; John D. Milligan, 1979. “The Treatment of an Historical
Source,” History and Theory 18 (2): 177-96; “From the Archives: Innovative Use of Data in
Comparative Historical Research,” (Reports by Victoria Johnson, Melissa Wilde, Simone Pollilo,
and Amy Kate Bailey, Nathan Cermak and Steward Tolnay), Trajectories: Newsletter of the ASA
Comparative and Historical Sociology Section 19(2) 2008: 1-11. (Available online at
http://www2.asanet.org/sectionchs/newsletter/. Take this opportunity to browse other issues of
the newsletter and become familiar with the work of this lively ASA section); Richard Biernacki.
2012. Reinventing Evidence in Social Inquiry. New York: Palgrave McMillan; Marc J. Ventresca
and John W. Mohr, “Archival Research Methods.” Ch. 35, pp. 805-28 in Joel C. Baum, 2002.
The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford and Malden MA: Blackwell; John I. Kitsuse
and Aaron V. Cicourel, “A Note on the Use of Official Statistics, Social Problems 11(2) 1963:
131-139; Nina Bandelj, 2008. “Economic Objects as Cultural Objects: Discourse on Foreign
Investment in PostSocialist Europe,” Socio-Economic Review6(4): 671-202. (A good example of
someone who gets an important analysis and argument from newspaper content analysis).
*************************************************************************
WEEK TWELVE: April 2: Textual Evidence, Interpretation, and Computer–Assisted Coding
*Bail, Christopher A. 2014. “The Cultural Environment: Measuring Culture with Big Data.”
Theory and Society 43 (3-4): 465-82.
*Mohr, John W, and Petko Bogdanov. 2013. “Introduction– Topic Models: What they are and
why they matter,” Poetics 41: 545-569.
*Nelson, Laura, Derek Burk, Marcel Knudsen, and Leslie McCall. 2018. “The Future of Coding:
A Comparison of Hand-Coding and Three Types of Computer-Assisted Text Analysis Methods,”
Sociological Methods and Research 5/27/18 p 004912411876911
8
*Lee, Monica and John Martin, 2015. “Coding, Counting, and Cultal Cartography,” American
Journal of Cultural Sociology 3(1): 1-33.
*Spillman, Lyn. 2015. “Ghosts of Straw Men: A Reply to Lee and Martin,” American Journal of
Cultural Sociology 3(1): 36-79. DOI: 10.1057/ajcs.2015.5;
Recommended: Other replies in AJCS 3(2015); Richard Biernacki. 2014. “Humanist
Interpretation Versus Coding Text Samples,” Qualitative Sociology 37(2014): 173-88.
************************************************************************
WEEK THIRTEEN: April 19. Thinking about Interviews as Evidence
*Robert Merton, Marjorie Fiske and Patricia L. Kendall. 1990 [1956].The Focused Interview: A
Manuaal of Problems and Procedures. 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press. Ch. 1., “Purposes and
Criteria”, 3-20. Selections to be assigned.
*Allison Pugh, 2012. “What Good are Interviews for Thinking About Culture? Demystifying
Interpretive Analysis. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1(1): 1-27.
*Colin Jerolmack and Shamus Khan. 2014. “Toward an Understanding of the Relationship
between Accounts and Action.” Sociological Methods and Research 43(1): 1-12.
*Michele Lamont and Ann Swidler. 2014. “Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and
Limits of Interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37: 153-171.
Recommended: Naomi Quinn, (ed.) Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan; Miri Song and David Parker. 1995. “Commonality, Difference and
the Dynamics of Disclosure in In-Depth Interviewing,” Sociology 29(2): 241-56.
*************************************************************************
WEEK FOURTEEN: April 16: Thinking about Fieldwork as Evidence
*Paul Lichterman. 2002. “Seeing Structure Happen: Theory-Driven Participant Observation.”
Pp. 118-46 in Bert Klandermans and Suzanne Staggenborg, eds. Social Movement Research.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
*Michell Duneier. 2011. “How Not to Lie with Ethnography,” Sociological Methodology 41:1-
11.
*Frederick Wherry. 2017. “Fragments from an ethnographer’s field guide: Skepticism, thick
minimalism, and big theory.” Ethnography 18(1): 46-56.
*Paul Lichterman and Isaac Ariail Reed. 2014. “Theory and Contrastive Explanation in
Ethnography.” Sociological Methods and Research X(xx): ?1-51. DOI
9
10.1177/0049124114554458.
Recommended: Jack Katz. 2001. “From How to Why: Luminous Description and Causal
Inference in Ethnography.” Ethnography 2:443-73 and 3: 63-90; Dana R. Fisher, Alexandra
Murphy, Colin Jerolmack, Kimberly Kay Hoang, and Rhacel Salazar Parrenhas. 2016.
“Viewpoints: How to do ethnography right,” Contexts 18(2): 10-19; Iddo Tavory and Stefan
Timmermans. 2013. “A Pragmatist Approach to Causality in Ethnography,” American Journal of
Sociology 119(3): 682-714; Watching Closely: A Guide to Ethnographic Observation (New
York: Oxford University Press, 201?); John van Maanen, Tales of the Field: On Writing
Ethnography 2nd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011) and see his website for other
useful sources; Donna Kelly and Michael Gibbons. 2008. “Marketing Methodologies: The good,
the bad and the ugly,” Journal of Medical Marketing 8(4): 279-85; Pat Armstrong and Ruth
Lowndes, 2018. Creative Teamwork:Developing Rapid, Site-Switching Ethnography (New York:
Oxford University Press); Michael Burawoy, 2017. “On Desmond: The Limits of Spontaneous
Sociology,” Theory and Society 46(4): 261-84
************************************************************************
WEEK FIFTEEN: April 30: Contemporary Standards and New Directions.
*Michele Lamont and Patricia White. 2005. “Report of the Workshop on Interdisciplinary
Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research.” National Science Foundation. Introduction (8-
14) and Appendix 6, “Sociology,” Introduction and essays by Blee, Griswold, Hochschild,
Lamont, Nagel, Small, and Young (141-80).
*Lyn Spillman. 2014. “Mixed Methods and the Logic of Qualitative Inference.” Qualitative
Sociology 37(1): 189-205.
*Stefan Timmermans and Iddo Tavory, 2012. “Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:
From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.” Sociological Theory 30(3): 167-86.
*Daniel Hirschman and Isaac Ariail Reed. 2014. “Formation Stories and Causality in
Sociology.” Sociological Theory 32(4): 259-82.
Recommended: John Mohr and Craig Rawlings, “Four Ways to Measure Culture: Social
Science, Hermeneutics, and the Cultural Turn,” pp. 70-113; Isaac Ariail Reed. 2012. “Cultural
Sociology as Research Program: Post-Positivism, Meaning, and Causality.” Pp. 27-45 (all in
Jeffrey C. Alexander, Ronald N. Jacobs, and Philip Smith, eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of
Cultural Sociology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press); Iddo Tavory and Stefan
Timmermans. 2014. Abductive Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. “Measuring
Culture,” Special issue of Theory and Society 43(3-4) July 2014; Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and
Patricia Leavy, eds. 2008. Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York: Guilford Press.
WEEK 16: April 30: Review and presentations on your papers.
*********************************************************
10
About Class Journals
Lyn Spillman
You should write a one-page journal in response to each day’s reading assignment in this class.
Turn in one paper copy in to me at the beginning of class: keep another copy to use in class
discussion if you wish. (If you have a printing glitch, email me a copy ASAP, but please try to
turn in hard copy if possible). Keep a file of the journals as a record and reminder of the topics
and issues you have thought about: later this will help you compare readings and put together
what you have learnt in a cumulative way. No journal is due when you are doing a class
presentation.
As you know, you can’t say very much in only one page. Rather than adopting a scatter-shot
approach and throwing different thoughts together somewhat randomly, you should choose one
or two points which strike you as important about that day’s reading, and develop them in a
paragraph or two.
To develop and expand the point you want to explore, you can explain it by saying why you
think it is significant, and use examples or quotations from the reading to demonstrate. Other
good strategies to adopt include relating concepts and arguments in the reading to previous
readings, using your own assumptions, observations, or experiences to support or challenge the
reading, and suggesting a good question for class discussion. (A good question does not
necessarily have one right answer, and is not a matter of yes or no: rather, it will direct us to an
important issue in our readings.)
The point(s) you write about can be on any topic related to the reading: writing is a good way of
clarifying your responses, and this is an opportunity to think through some of your own ideas.
However, if you are having trouble getting started you could use the following sorts of questions
for brainstorming. What is the author’s main point? How does the author support their argument
in this reading? What general concepts are important in this reading? How does this reading
relate to your own observations and experiences? Are there any points of comparison or contrast
with other class readings or other things you have read? Does this reading explore a common
viewpoint in more depth, does it open a new topic we don’t usually think about, or does it
challenge a commonly held assumption? What questions does this reading raise for you?
It is important to realize writing these journals should not be a big worry, or take an excessive
amount of time. I will assess them only as "good" (one tick), occasionally “excellent thinking
and writing” (two ticks) or– rarely– "not completed/inadequate reading." What makes a
difference to this part of your learning and your grade is your consistency over the semester in
making a serious and sustained effort to engage with the readings and connect the ideas in our
class. I also think the sidebars to class discussion which sometimes develop in your comments
and my further responses can be interesting and helpful.
11
