ANG 5485 Research Design

Wednesday, 5:10 p.m. – 8:10 p.m.

TUR B310
Dr. Clarence C. Gravlee
Office: Turlington B370
Office Hours: Fridays, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. and by appointment
Office Phone: (352) 294-7600
Email: cgravlee@ufl.edu
Web: www.gravlee.org/researchdesign

Course Description and Objectives

This seminar is an introduction to research design and proposal writing in anthropology. It is
organized around elements of research design that cut across subdisciplines: the logic of
scientific inquiry; ethics; conceptualization and measurement; sampling and the selection of
cases; and the relation between methods, data, and theory. The seminar takes up the basic
question of how we know what we claim to know and introduces multiple approaches to doing
social science.

Much of what we learn is the result of discussing participants’ emerging research proposals.
The focus on proposals is useful not only because grant writing is an important skill in its own
right, but also because an effective proposal involves all elements of research design—from
statement of the problem to data analysis.

By the end of the course, you should be able to:

• Formulate a feasible research question, and design research to answer it.
• Discuss the ethical implications of research.
• Select appropriate methods of data collection and analysis for given problems.
• Critically evaluate your own research and that of other social scientists.
• Submit a grant proposal for extramural funding of your dissertation research.

Approach
As you know, the aims of graduate school are fundamentally different from those of
undergraduate education. Undergraduate education is concerned primarily with instilling the
essential knowledge in a field and—at its best—with preparing students for a lifetime of
learning. Graduate education is about turning students into professional researchers and
teachers. These different aims correspond to distinct responsibilities for both teachers and
learners at the graduate and undergraduate levels. As aspiring professionals, you are
responsible for taking initiative to master the key ideas and literature in the field and for
seeking out the resources you need. My role is to facilitate your learning and professional
development as independent scholars by introducing you to pertinent literature, by challenging
you to evaluate and synthesize the material, by rewarding individual initiative, and by offering
constructive feedback on your emerging research projects. The course format, assignments, and
evaluation of your performance are designed to meet these aims.

Course Format
In practice, my approach to graduate education means that you will be actively engaged in
mastering the course material. Our class time will be divided between discussion of assigned
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 2

readings and presentation and critical evaluation of your emerging research proposals. The
readings provide the foundation of knowledge in research design; the proposal provides an
opportunity to apply that knowledge to your own development as a researcher.

The course will be conducted as a seminar. You will be required to complete assigned readings
before class and come prepared to discuss and analyze the issues and concepts that the readings
address. Each of you will lead discussion of assigned readings at least once during the semester.
I expect you to have studied the required readings prior to class. Take time to digest the new
methods and ideas before you come to class, and be prepared to apply them or to ask about
points that remain unclear. Each week, at least two of you will update us on the development of
your research plans and solicit feedback from the group. Everyone must come to class prepared
to offer constructive criticism and suggestions.

Course Materials
& Required Readings
There are four required books, available locally at the UF Bookstore. (Note that the full-text of
the Johnson text is freely available at the author’s website.) Additional required readings will be
made available electronically on the course website.

Bernard, H. Russell. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research
(Second edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting Ethnographic Informants. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[Freely available at http://personal.ecu.edu/johnsonje/informants.pdf]

$ Recommended Readings
The following texts are recommended as reference materials, if you wish to deepen your skills
in research methods and design.
Agar, M. (1996). The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography (Second
Edition). Academic Press.
Bernard, H. Russell and Gery W. Ryan. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant Observation. A Guide for Fieldworkers (Second
Edition). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Handwerker, W. P. (2001). Quick Ethnography. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2010). Designing and Conducting Ethnographic Research: An
Introduction. Ethnographer's Toolkit (Second Edition). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Locke, L., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S. (2007). Proposals That Work: A Guide for Planning
Dissertations and Grant Proposals (Fifth Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 3

Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic Data Collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Course Outline
1. Introduction
2. Epistemology and research traditions
3. Foundations of social research
4. Developing research questions
5. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
6. Validity, reliability, and standards of quality
7. Experimental thinking and research design
8. Mixed methods designs
9. Probability, sampling, and generalizability
10. Ethnographic sampling and selection of cases
11. Case studies and theory
12. Introduction to data analysis
13. QCA and fuzzy-set social science
14. Network thinking and structural analysis
15. Ethical conduct of research

Course Requirements and Grading

Your final grade has four components: class participation (20 percent), final research proposal
(40 percent), proposal sections and assignments (30 percent), and peer review (10 percent). Final
grades will be A (90-100), A- (87-89), B+ (84-86), B (80- 83), B- (77-79), C+ (74-76), C (70-73), C-
(67-69), D+ (64-66), D (60-63), D- (57-59), E (<57)

1. Class participation (10%). I expect you to attend each meeting and to participate actively in
class discussions. Active participation requires that you read all assigned readings and
prepare thoughtful questions and critical discussion points. You will also be expected to
provide constructive feedback on your peers’ presentations of proposals. I will evaluate
your participation on the quality, not just quantity, of your contributions.
2. Seminar moderator (10%). Each week one or two students will be assigned to lead the
seminar. Your job is to stimulate and guide thoughtful discussion about the concepts and
arguments relevant to the week’s reading. If you and another student are assigned to the
same week, you are expected to meet ahead of the class time to coordinate your presentation
of the material. The purpose of serving as seminar moderator is to enhance your skills in
critical reading and interpretation, oral presentation, active listening, and synthesis and
evaluation of arguments and ideas.
3. Final research proposal (40%). The final product of the course is a research proposal written in
the format of a NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant. The proposal, including a
completed IRB application, is due to me by email on December 4.
4. Proposal sections and assignments (20%). To help you make steady progress on your proposal,
you will be required to submit sections of the proposal throughout the semester. The page
lengths for each proposal section should conform to the advice from NSF reviewers
available on the NSF website. See the summary of assignments due (below) for the required
sections and their due dates.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 4

5. Peer review (10%). You will provide written feedback on the submitted drafts of two
classmates’ proposals, using guidelines that will be distributed in class. You will be
expected to read the proposals carefully and to provide comments that are thoughtful,
respectful, and constructive. In addition to the direct benefit of getting feedback on your
paper, you will also find that the process of reading and thinking critically about others’
proposals will help you analyze and refine your own.
6. Research journal (10%). The author of one of your required texts, Luker, encourages you to
keep a research journal and provides writing exercises to help you get started (p. 20-21). It’s
a good practice, and to encourage you in this direction, I expect you to keep a running
research journal as part of your work in this seminar. The specific format of the journal is up
to you. You could keep a three-ring binder, as Luker suggests; a bound notebook or journal,
as lab scientists insist (e.g., http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/labnotebooks); a
word processor or writing software like Scrivener (http://www.literatureandlatte.com); a
journaling app like Day One (http://dayoneapp.com); general note-taking software like
Evernote (www.evernote.com); or a private blog. The important part is what you write, not
how you write it. Do the exercises at the end of each chapter in the Luker book. Write
summaries and reactions to other assigned readings. Capture ideas about your own
research proposal. Practice free-writing to stimulate your thought about research problems
and potential research directions. I will evaluate your research journal for evidence that you
made consistent use of it to capture your thoughts and track your progress.
7. Course web site. You are responsible for all materials posted on the course web site
(http://gravlee.org/researchdesign), including required readings, announcements, details
on assignments, and other supplementary material.

Summary of Assignments and Due Dates

Assignment
Research interests paragraph
Research question exercise
Problem statement
Literature review
Research setting
Research plan and methods
Significance
Complete draft of proposal
Peer review
Final proposal
Approximate
Page Length Due Filename (submit via email)
August 28 <lastname>_interests
September 11 <lastname>_questions
1 September 18 <lastname>_problem
2 September 25 <lastname>_literature
½ October 2 <lastname>_setting
5 October 23 <lastname>_methods
½ October 30 <lastname>_significance
10 November 6 <lastname>_draft
November 20 <lastname>_review_<peername>
10 December 4 <lastname>_proposal

Policy on Late Assignments

You are required to complete all assignments by the stated due dates. Late assignments will lose
one half-letter grade for each day past the deadline. There are no make-up opportunities for any
assignment, as you will have ample time to complete each requirement. I will not assign grades
of “incomplete” except in the most unusual, extreme circumstances of incapacitating illness,
death of family members, or other university-approved excuses. You must provide
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 5

documentation of such circumstances from a medical doctor, funeral home, or other

appropriate authority.

Academic Honor Code

Unless it is specifically connected to assigned collaborative work, all work should be individual.
Evidence of collusion (working with someone not connected to the class or assignment),
plagiarism (use of someone else’s published or unpublished words or design without
acknowledgment) or multiple submissions (submitting the same paper in different courses) will
lead to the Department’s and the University’s procedures for dealing with academic dishonesty.
All students are expected to honor their commitment to the university’s Honor Code (available
online at http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/catalog/policies/students.html).

Accommodation for Students with Disabilities

Students requesting classroom accommodation must first register with the Dean of Students
Office. The Dean of Students Office will provide documentation to the student who must then
provide this documentation to the Instructor when requesting accommodation. Please make
any requests by the second week of class.

UF Counseling Services
Resources are available on-campus for students having personal problems or lacking clear
career and academic goals that interfere with their academic performance. These resources
include:
• University Counseling Center, 301 Peabody Hall, 392-1575, personal and career
counseling
• Student Mental Health, Student Health Care Center, 392-1171, personal counseling
• Sexual Assault Recovery Services (SARS), Student Health Care Center, 392-1161, sexual
counseling
• Career Resource Center, Reitz Union, 392-1601, career development assistance and
counseling.

Syllabus Change Policy

This syllabus is a guide for the course and is subject to change with advanced notice.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 6

Course Schedule and Readings

Week 1 (Aug. 21) Introduction and Overview

• Overview of the course
• Proposals and pedagogy
• Funding sources

$ Recommended reading
Bestor, T, J Comaroff, L Garro, G Ryan, S Weller (2007). Guidelines for research proposals in
anthropology. In, M Lamont, P White: Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic
Qualitative Research (Appendix 3), Workshop report submitted to NSF.
Pzreworski, A., & Salomon, F. (1998). The art of writing proposals. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science
Research Council.
Silverman, S. (1991). Writing grant proposals for anthropological research. Current Anthropology,
32(4), 485–489.
Winslow, D. (2007). What makes an NSF proposal successful Anthropology News, 48(7), 31–31.
Winslow, D. (2008). Writing a dissertation research proposal? Be specific, be clear and
proofread! Anthropology News, 49(8), 27.
Winslow, D. (2010). Funding a “healthy mix” of research: Peer review at NSF. Anthropology
News, 51(4), 27–27.
Winslow, D. (2010). Cultural anthropology grows at NSF. Anthropology News, 51(2), 29–29.
Winslow, D. (2011). Anthropology without borders. Anthropology News, 52(2), 29–30.

Week 2 (Aug. 28) Epistemology and research traditions

• Anthropology and the social sciences
• Positivism, interpretivism, and other approaches
• Goals and norms of anthropological research

 Due – Research interests paragraph

& Required reading

Bernard, Ch. 1 (pp. 1-22)
Luker, Ch. 1–2 (pp. 1-39)
Schweizer, T. (1998). Epistemology: The Nature and Validation of Anthropological Knowledge.
In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology (pp. 39-87). Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Jacobs-Huey, L. (2002). The Natives Are Gazing and Talking Back: Reviewing the Problematics
of Positionality, Voice, and Accountability among “Native” Anthropologists. American
Anthropologist, 104(3), 791–804.
Aunger, R. 2004. Chapter 1 (p. 1-20) "A Crisis in Confidence," Reflexive Ethnographic Science.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 7

Marcus, G. E. (2008). The End(s) of Ethnography: Social/Cultural Anthropology's Signature

Form of Producing Knowledge in Transition. Cultural Anthropology, 23(1), 1–14.

$ Further reading
Greenfield, P. M. 2000. What Psychology Can Do for Anthropology, or Why Anthropology
Took Postmodernism on the Chin. American Anthropologist 102:564-576.
Moore, H. L., & Sanders, T. (2006). Anthropology and Epistemology. In H. L. Moore & T.
Sanders (Eds.), Anthropology in Theory: Issues in Epistemology (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.

Roth, W., & Mehta, J. (2002). The Rashomon Effect: Combining Positivist and Interpretivist
Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events. Sociological Methods & Research, 31(2), 131–
173.

Week 3 (Sept. 4) Foundations of social research

• Language and logic of social science
• Concepts, variables, and measurement
• Causal inference

& Required reading

Bernard, Ch. 2 (pp. 23-53)
Luker, Ch. 3 (pp. 40-50)
Abbott, A. (1997). Seven Types of Ambiguity. Theory and Society, 26(2/3), 357–391.

$ Further reading
McEwen, W. J. (1963). Forms and problems of validation in social anthropology. Current
Anthropology 4, 155-183.
Bernard, H. R., P. J. Pelto, O. Werner, J. Boster, A. K. Romney, A. Johnson, C. R. Ember, and A.
Kasakoff. (1986). The Construction of Primary Data in Cultural Anthropology. Current
Anthropology 27, 382-395.

Week 4 (Sept. 11) Developing research questions

• The research cycle
• Types of research questions
• Matching questions and methods
• Literature search strategies
 Due – Research question exercise
& Required reading
Bernard, Ch. 3 (pp. 54-81)
Luker, Ch. 4-5 (pp. 51-98)
Firebaugh, G. (2008). Chapter 1, “The First Rule: There Should Be The Possibility of Surprise in
Social Research.” Seven Rules for Social Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 8

Becker, H. S., & Richards, P. (2007). Ch. 8, “Terrorized by the Literature.” Writing for Social
Scientists: How To Start And Finish Your Thesis, Book, Or Article (Second Edition.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

$ Further reading
Handwerker, W. P. 2001. Chapter 2, "Identify The Question," Quick Ethnography. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira Press.
Hart, C. 1999. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Week 5 (Sept. 18) Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

• Matching methods to questions
• Limits of the qualitative-quantitative divide
• History and development of “mixed methods”

 Due – Problem statement

& Required reading
Creswell and Plano, Ch. 1-2 (pp. 1-52)
Small, M. L. (2011). How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly
Growing Literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 57–86.
Mahoney, J. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.
Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.
Bernard, H. (1996). Qualitative data, quantitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal,
8(1).

$ Further reading
Gravlee, Clarence C. (2011). “Research Design and Methods in Medical Anthropology,” in M.
Singer and P. Erickson (Eds.), A Companion to Medical Anthropology (p. 69-91). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A Continuation of the Paradigm Wars? Prevalence Rates of
Methodological Approaches Across the Social/Behavioral Sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 4(2), 103–126.

Week 6 (Sept. 25) Validity, reliability, and standards of quality

• Evidence and theory
• Replication, repeatability, and ethnography
• Validity, reliability, and alternative frameworks
• Triangulation

 Due – Literature review

& Required reading
Bernard, H., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The Problem of Informant
Accuracy: The Validity of Retrospective Data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–
517.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 9

Heider, K. G. (1988). The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree. American

Anthropologist, 90(1), 73–81.
Shankman, P. (2013). The “Fateful Hoaxing” of Margaret Mead: A Cautionary Tale. Current
Anthropology, 54(1), 51–70.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic
Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
Hammersley, M. (1995). Theory and Evidence in Qualitative Research. Quality and Quantity,
29(1), 55–66.
Morse, J., Barrett, M., & Mayan, M. (2002). Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and
Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2).

$ Further reading
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative Research: Standards, Challenges, and Guidelines. The Lancet,
358(9280), 483–488.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465.
Moles, J. (1977). Standardization and Measurement in Cultural Anthropology: A Neglected
Area. Current Anthropology, 18(2), 235–258.
Moret, M., Reuzel, R., van, D., & Grin, J. (2007). Validity and Reliability of Qualitative Data
Analysis: Interobserver Agreement in Reconstructing Interpretative Frames. Field
Methods, 19(1), 24–39.

Week 7 (Oct. 2) Experimental thinking and research design

• Experimental and nonexperimental research
• Internal validity and causation
• Threats to validity and ways to manage them

 Due – Research setting

& Required reading
Bernard, Ch. 4 (pp. 82-112)
Johnson, J. C. (1998). Research design and research strategies. In H. R. Bernard, Ed., Handbook of
methods in cultural anthropology (p. 131-171). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Aunger, R. 2004. Chapter 5 (p. 94-115), "Reflexive realism: A new way of doing ethnography,"
Reflexive ethnographic science. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

$ Further reading
Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Brim, J. A., and D. H. Spain. (1974). Research design in anthropology: Paradigms and pragmatics in
the testing of hypotheses. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gil-White, F. (2002). The cognition of ethnicity: native category systems under the field
experimental microscope. Field Methods, 14(2), 161–189.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 10

Paluck, E. L. (2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and
perspective taking in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185.
Fowler, J. H. (2008). The Colbert bump in campaign donations: more truthful than truthy. PS:
Political Science & Politics, 41(03).

Week 8 (Oct. 9) Mixed methods designs

• Principles for designing mixed methods research
• Selecting an appropriate design
& Required reading
Creswell and Plano Clark, Ch. 3-4 (pp. 53-142)
Weisner, T. S. (2012). Mixed Methods Should Be a Valued Practice in Anthropology.
Anthropology News, 53(5), 3–4.

$ Further reading
Bergman, M. M. (2011). The good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Mixed Methods Research and
Design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 271–275.
Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate:
Implications for Mixed-Methods Research. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43–53.
Creswell, J.W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V.L., Smith, K. C. (2011). Best Practices for Mixed
Methods Research in the Health Sciences. Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
(OBSSR) National Institutes of Health. http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research/

Week 9 (Oct. 16) Probability, sampling, and generalizability

• The central limit theorem
• Representativeness and generalizability
• Probability sampling designs

& Required reading

Bernard, Ch. 5-6 (pp. 113-142)
Luker, Ch. 6 (pp. 99-128)

$ Further reading
Benfer, R. A. 1968. The desirability of small samples for anthropological inference. American
Anthropologist 70:949-951.
Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112:155-159.
Thomas, D. H. 1986. Chapter 15 (pp. 439-456), "Sampling problems in anthropology" Refiguring
anthropology: First principles of probability and statistics. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Week 10 (Oct. 23) Ethnographic sampling and selection of cases

• Nonprobability sampling designs
• Sample size and selection strategies
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 11

 Due – Research plan and methods

& Required reading
Bernard, Ch. 7 (pp. 143-155)
Johnson, J. C. 1990. Selecting Ethnographic Informants. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Handwerker, W., & Wozniak, D. (1997). Sampling Strategies for the Collection of Cultural Data:
An Extension of Boas’s Answer to Galton’s Problem. Current Anthropology, 38(5), 869–875.
Small, M. (2009). `How Many Cases Do I Need?': On Science and the Logic of Case Selection in
Field-Based Research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5-38.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment
with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

$ Further reading
Handwerker, W., Hatcherson, J., & Herbert, J. (1997). Sampling Guidelines for Cultural Data.
Cultural Anthropology Methods, 9, 7–9.
Romney, A., Weller, S., & Batchelder, W. (1986). Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and
Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88, 313–339.

Week 11 (Oct. 30) Case studies

• Case study designs
• Case studies and theory
 Due – Significance
& Required reading
Luker, Ch. 7-8 (pp. 129-189)
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science
Review, 98(2), 341–354.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219–245.

$ Further reading
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerring, J., & McDermott, R. (2007). An Experimental Template for Case Study Research.
American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 688–701.

Week 12 (Nov. 6) Introduction to data analysis

• Thinking with matrices
• Logic and methods of comparison
• Qualitative, quantitative (again)

 Due – Complete draft of proposal

ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 12

& Required reading

Bernard, Ch. 15 (pp. 337-345)
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. (2000). Data Management and Analysis Methods. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), (pp. 769–802). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wutich, A. & Gravlee, C. C.. (2010). Water Decision-Makers in a Desert City: Text Analysis and
Environmental Social Science. In I. Vaccaro, E. A. Smith, S. Aswani (Eds.), Environmental
Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design (p. 188-211). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Utts, J. 2003. What Educated Citizens Should Know about Statistics and Probability. The
American Statistician 57:74-79.
Handwerker, W. & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). Reasoning with Numbers. In H. R. Bernard & C. C.
Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Second Edition (in press).
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

$ Further reading
Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methodology, 21, 291–313.
American Sociological Association.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Week 13 (Nov. 13) QCA and fuzzy-set social science

• Qualitative comparative analysis
• Fuzzy-set social science
Luker, Ch. 9-10 (pp. 190-216)
Bernard, pp. 453-455
Rihoux, B. (2003). Bridging the Gap between the Qualitative and Quantitative Worlds? A
Retrospective and Prospective View on Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Field Methods,
15(4), 351–365.
Ragin, C., Shulman, D., Weinberg, A., & Gran, B. (2003). Complexity, Generality, and
Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Field Methods, 15(4), 323–340.
Rantala, K., & Hellström, E. (2001). Qualitative Comparative Analysis and a Hermeneutic
Approach to Interview Data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 87–100.

$ Further reading
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Systematic
Comparative Methods: Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges for Social Science
Research. International Sociology, 21(5), 679–706.
Bail, C. A. (2008). The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe.
American Sociological Review, 73(1), 37–59.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 13

Schweizer, T. (1991). The Power Struggle in a Chinese community, 1950-1980: A Social Network
Analysis of the Duality of Actors and Events. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 3, 19–44.
Schweizer, T. (1996). Actor and Event Orderings across Time: Lattice Representation and
Boolean Analysis of the Political Disputes in Chen Village, China. Social Networks, 18(3), 247–
266.

Week 14 (TBD) Network thinking and relational analysis

Reschedule class due to AAA meetings
 Due – Peer review (Nov. 20)
• Social and semantic network analysis
• Relational versus attribute analysis
& Required reading
McCarty, C. & J. L. Molina (2014). Social Network Analysis. In H. R. Bernard & C. C. Gravlee
(Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Second Edition (in press). Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Schweizer, T. (1997). Embeddedness of Ethnographic Cases: A Social Networks Perspective.
Current Anthropology, 38(5), 739–760.
Borgatti, S., Mehra, A., Brass, D., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network Analysis in the Social Sciences.
Science, 323(5916), 892.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency.
American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454.
Bearman, P. S., & Stovel, K. (2000). Becoming a Nazi: A Model for Narrative Networks. Poetics,
27(2-3), 69–90.

$ Further reading
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1940). On Social Structure. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of
Great Britain and Ireland, 70(1), 1–12.
Mitchell, J. C. (1974). Social Networks. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3(1), 279–299.
Kadushin, C. (2011). Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Week 15 (Nov. 27) No class—Thanksgiving Holiday

Week 16 (Dec. 4) Ethical conduct of research

• Professional ethical codes
• Current controversies
• Working with the IRB
 Due – Final proposal
& Required reading
Fluehr-Lobban, C. 1998. "Ethics," in Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Edited by H. R.
Bernard, pp. 173-202. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
ANG 5485 Research Design Gravlee
Fall 2013 p. 14

González, R. J. (2008). “Human terrain” Anthropology Today, Past, present and future
applications, 24(1), 21–26.
AAA Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence
Communities (CEAUSSIC), Executive Summary (2009).
Gregor, T. A., and D. R. Gross. (2004). Guilt by association: The culture of accusation and the
American Anthropological Association's investigation of Darkness in El Dorado. American
Anthropologist 106:687-698.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1979.The Belmont report: Ethical principles
and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.
Nathan, R. 2005. "An anthropologist goes under cover," in Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B11-
B13.

$ Further reading
AAA Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence
Communities, Final Report (2007).
Meskell, L., and P. Pels. Editors. (2005). Embedding ethics. New York: Berg Publishers.
Armbruster, H., & Lærke, A. (2008). Taking sides: Ethics, politics and fieldwork in anthropology.
New York: Berghahn Books.