Apply to USF Now | Graduate Admissions | Events & Workshops | Giving to the Office of Graduate Studies

Graduate Course Proposal Form Submission Detail - POS6707

Edit function not enabled for this course.


Current Status: Approved by SCNS - 2015-03-01
Campus: Tampa
Submission Type: New
Course Change Information (for course changes only):
Comments: To GC 4/7/14. Required PhD in Govt. Need revisions to Objectives, Learning Outcomes, Concurrence. Emailed 5/20/14. updated 9/19/14. Approvd. To USF Sys 11/4; to SCNS 11/12. Approved eff 3/1/15


  1. Department and Contact Information

    Tracking Number Date & Time Submitted
    2899 2012-07-09
     
    Department College Budget Account Number
    Government and International Affairs AS 1231-000-00
     
    Contact Person Phone Email
    Mark Amen 8139746912 amen@usf.edu

  2. Course Information

    Prefix Number Full Title
    POS 6707 Qualitative Analysis

    Is the course title variable? N
    Is a permit required for registration? N
    Are the credit hours variable? N
    Is this course repeatable?
    If repeatable, how many times? 0

    Credit Hours Section Type Grading Option
    3 C - Class Lecture (Primarily) R - Regular
     
    Abbreviated Title (30 characters maximum)
    Qualitative Analysis
     
    Course Online? Percentage Online
    C - Face-to-face (0% online) 0

    Prerequisites

    POS 6736 Political Research Methods

    Corequisites

    Course Description

    Introduces graduate students to different methods of conducting qualitative empirical research in political science. Students will learn how to establish validity and reliability of findings in conducting case studies and field research.


  3. Justification

    A. Please briefly explain why it is necessary and/or desirable to add this course.

    Needed to compete with national trends

    B. What is the need or demand for this course? (Indicate if this course is part of a required sequence in the major.) What other programs would this course service?

    This course should have been included in the doctoral proposal submitted and approved. All doctoral programs in the social sciences, including political science, require competency in methods. The course is needed to meet disciplinary standards and allow our students to be nationally and globally competitive. This course has been offered three times: fall 2012 with 9 students; fall 2011 with 12 students; and fall 2010 with 6 students.

    C. Has this course been offered as Selected Topics/Experimental Topics course? If yes, how many times?

    Yes, 3 or more times

    D. What qualifications for training and/or experience are necessary to teach this course? (List minimum qualifications for the instructor.)

    Training in the use of qualitative research methods. The instructor must have a Ph.D. to teach this graduate course.


  4. Other Course Information

    A. Objectives

    This course has the following objectives:

    - identify the various qualitative methods used to conduct political science research

    -Understand

    o how to distinguish among different kinds of case studies

    o how to conduct comparative case studies

    o open-ended interviews

    o discourse analysis

    o content analysis of different kinds of documents

    B. Learning Outcomes

    • To learn

    o the fundamental steps common to all case study methods

    o how to define the research questions

    o how to select the cases

    o the various determine data gathering and analysis techniques and which are appropriate for the kind of case method chosen and questions asked

    o how to collect the date in the field

    o how to evaluate and analyze the data

    o how to write the results

    o the Institutional Review Board Approval process

    C. Major Topics

    Epistemology and Causation; Verificaiton Standards; Kinds of Case Studies; Case Study Design; Comparative Historical Analysis; Interview techniques; Discourse Analysis; Content Analysis

    D. Textbooks

    Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations. Chapters 9-12

    Brady, Henry and David Collier. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

    Harding, Sandra (ed). 1993. “Racial” Economy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

    Popper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge

    Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press

    Diesing, Paul.1991. How Does Social Science Work? Pittsbur

    E. Course Readings, Online Resources, and Other Purchases

    Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations. Chapters 9-12

    Brady, Henry and David Collier. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield

    Harding, Sandra (ed). 1993. “Racial” Economy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

    Popper, Karl. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge

    Kuhn, Thomas. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press

    Diesing, Paul.1991. How Does Social Science Work? Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press

    Healy, M.J.R.. 1978. Is Statistics a Science?. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), Vol. 141, No. 3 (1978), pp. 385-393

    Jacobs, Struan. 1990. Popper, Weber and the Rationalist Approach to SocialExplanation. The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Dec., 1990),pp. 559-570

    Friedman, Jeffrey (ed.). 1996. The Rational Choice Controversy. New Haven: Yale University Press

    Gerring, John. 2001: Social Science Methodology. New York: Cambridge University Press Recommended:

    Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune 1982. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company

    Morse, Janice, Michael Barrett, Maria Mayan, Karin Olson, and Jude Spiers. 2002. Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Research Methods 1 (2) Spring 2002

    Becker, Howard. 1986. Writing for Social Scientists. How to Start and Finish your Thesis, Book, or Article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Weber, Max 1949: The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press

    Gerring, John. 2005. Case Study Research. New York: Cambridge University Press

    Habermas, Jürgen 1989. On the Logic of the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press

    Vaus, David de. 2001. Research Design. Chapters 1-6, 13-15

    Gerring, John. 2004. “What is a Case Study and What is it Good for?” American Political Science Review. Vol.98, No.2 (May 2004): 341-354.

    Eckstein, Harry. 1992. Regarding Politics. Pages 117-176.

    George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, Chapters

    Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Ragin, Charles. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science.

    Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.). 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1, 6, 8, 9-12

    Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.). 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, remaining chapters.

    Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies, Vol. 14. N. 3 (Autumn 1988): 575-599

    Leech, Beth L. 2002. “Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 665-688.

    Leech, Beth L. 2002. “Interview Methods in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 663-664.

    Goldstein, Kenneth. 2002. “Getting in the Door: Sampling and Completing Elite Interviews.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 669-672.

    Berry, Jeffrey M. 2002. “Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35: 679-682.

    Reiter, Bernd. 2006. The Hermeneutic Foundations of Qualitative Research. Qualitative Methods. Vol. 4, N.2 (Fall 2006):18-23.

    Symposium: Discourse and Content Analysis. Qualitative Methods. Vol. 2(1). Spring 2004: 15-38.

    Pedersen, Ove. 2009. Discourse Analysis. Working Paper 65. Copenhagen Business School.

    Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse.” In: Robert Young (ed). Untying the Text. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pages 48-78.

    Bowen, Glenn. 2006. Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 September 2006

    Groenewald, Thomas. 2004. A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (1) April, 2004

    Maynard, Douglas W and Steven Clayman. 1991. The Diversity of Ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17 (1991):385-418

    Nesbitt-Larking, Paul. 1992. Methodological Notes on the Study of Political Culture. Political Psychology, Vol. 13. No.1 (Mar 1992):97-90

    Frank, Arthur. 2002. Why Study People’s Stories: The Dialogical Ethics of Narrative Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (1) Winter, 2002

    Srivastava, Prachi and Nick Hopwood. 2009. A Practical Iterative Framework for Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1), 2009

    Glaser, James M. 1996. “The Challenge of Campaign-Watching: Seven Lessons of Participant-Observation Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29: 533- 537.

    Vicsek, Lilla. 2007. A Scheme for Analyzing the Results of Focus Groups. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6 (4) September, 2007

    Montell, Frances. 1999. Focus Group Interviews: A New Feminist Method. NWSA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 44-71

    Feyerabend, Paul. 2010. Against Method.

    Field Research Symposium. Qualitative Methods. Vol.2(1).Spring 2004:2-15

    MacLean, Lauren Morris. 2006. “The Power of Human Subjects.” Qualitative Methods.Vol.4(2).Fall 2006: 13-15

    Goduck, Ivy. “Ethics and Politics of Field Research in South Africa.” Social Problems 37: 329-340.

    Winddance, Twine and Jonathan Warren. 2000. Racing Research. Researching Race. New York: NYU Press

    Bogdan, Robert and Sari Knopp Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon

    Katznelson, Ira. 1976. Black Men, White Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Nelson, William. 2000. Black Atlantic Politics: Dilemmas of Political Empowerment in Boston and Liverpool. Albany: SUNY Press

    Eisner, Elliot. 1998. The Enlightened Eye. Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. Columbus: Prentice Hall

    Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.). 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press

    F. Student Expectations/Requirements and Grading Policy

    participation (10%)

    presentation (10%)

    weekly postings(20%)

    book review (20%)

    the research proposal (40%)

    G. Assignments, Exams and Tests

    Class 1: Introduction

    Class 2: Epistemology and causation

    Class 3: Shard Standards: logic, verification

    Class 4: Case Study Introduction

    Class 5: Research design

    Class 6: Types of Case Studies

    Class 7: Case Studies and Theory Development

    Class 8: Fuzzy Sets

    Class 9: Comparative Historical Analysis

    Class 10: Expert Interviews

    class 11: Discourse Analysis (Book Review due)

    Class 12: Methods Critique

    Class 13: Field Research: Practical Issues

    Class 14: Field Research: Ethical Issues

    Class 15: Research Proposals due and IRB training certificate

    H. Attendance Policy

    Course Attendance at First Class Meeting – Policy for Graduate Students: For structured courses, 6000 and above, the College/Campus Dean will set the first-day class attendance requirement. Check with the College for specific information. This policy is not applicable to courses in the following categories: Educational Outreach, Open University (TV), FEEDS Program, Community Experiential Learning (CEL), Cooperative Education Training, and courses that do not have regularly scheduled meeting days/times (such as, directed reading/research or study, individual research, thesis, dissertation, internship, practica, etc.). Students are responsible for dropping undesired courses in these categories by the 5th day of classes to avoid fee liability and academic penalty. (See USF Regulation – Registration - 4.0101,

    http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/ogc%20web/currentreg.htm)

    Attendance Policy for the Observance of Religious Days by Students: In accordance with Sections 1006.53 and 1001.74(10)(g) Florida Statutes and Board of Governors Regulation 6C-6.0115, the University of South Florida (University/USF) has established the following policy regarding religious observances: (http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/gc_pp/acadaf/gc10-045.htm)

    In the event of an emergency, it may be necessary for USF to suspend normal operations. During this time, USF may opt to continue delivery of instruction through methods that include but are not limited to: Blackboard, Elluminate, Skype, and email messaging and/or an alternate schedule. It’s the responsibility of the student to monitor Blackboard site for each class for course specific communication, and the main USF, College, and department websites, emails, and MoBull messages for important general information.

    I. Policy on Make-up Work

    The College and University policy on academic honesty and dishonesty is set forth in the USF Rules Manual (http://usfweb2.usf.edu/usfgc/usfrules/6c4-3/3-0015.htm). (a) “Plagiarism is defined as "literary theft" and consists of the unattributed quotation of the exact words of a published text, or the unattributed borrowing of original ideas by paraphrase from a published text. On written papers for which the student employs information gathered from books, articles, or oral sources, each direct quotation, as well as ideas and facts that are not generally known to the public at large, or the form, structure, or style of a secondary source must be attributed to its author by means of the appropriate citation procedure. Only widely known facts and first-hand thoughts and observations original to the student do not require citations. Citations may be made in footnotes or within the body of the text. Plagiarism, also, consists of passing off as one's own, segments or the total of another person's work. (b) Punishment Guideline: The student who submitted the subject paper, lab report, etc. shall receive an "F" with a numerical value of zero on the item submitted, and the "F" shall be used to determine the final course grade. It is the option of the instructor to fail the student in the course.”

    The reason that academic communities consider academic dishonesty such a serious offense is that scientific research and learning—and hence the very life of the academic enterprise—are built on a foundation of truth. Without that foundation, academic institutions would lack the integrity that permits critical analysis and that, from a utilitarian perspective, fosters scientific, economic, and social progress.

    To make the case that academic honesty is indispensable to scholarly work in the social sciences, let me begin with a discussion of the natural sciences. Students who perform laboratory experiments to verify whether their findings are correct must carefully record their procedures in their lab reports. This is not simply a make-work exercise. Students follow the same procedures as professional scientists, who must keep careful records of their work so that their colleagues, critics, or successors can replicate the original experiments to test their work and verify (or, depending on the results, qualify or reject) their findings.

    For library research in the social sciences, correct and complete citation is analogous to rigorous laboratory procedure in the physical sciences. Scholars in the social sciences take careful notes so that their evidence can be checked and their work replicated or challenged by other social scientists. This enables knowledge and understanding to evolve as researchers confirm, refine, or reject prevailing paradigms of explanation. And, just as laboratory experiments and lab notes must represent a student’s own work, so too must research papers or other written work—properly documented—be the student’s own.

    When the student justifies appropriate circumstances, the instructor will arrange with the student to complete make-up work that the student could not meet due to unforeseen developments outside the student's control that prevented the student from completing requirements.

    J. Program This Course Supports

    doctoral and master of arts programs in Government and International Affairs


  5. Course Concurrence Information

    The following Master of Arts and Doctoral programs in the Social Sciences: Anthropology, Geography, History, Latin American Studies, Liberal Arts, Sociology, Womens Studies.



- if you have questions about any of these fields, please contact chinescobb@grad.usf.edu or joe@grad.usf.edu.