Research Design in Theory and Practice

Geography 703
Fall 2007
Wendy Wolford
Department of Geography
UNC Chapel Hill
Thursdays 3:30 - 6:00

Research design is one of the most important, if neglected, areas of graduate study in any discipline. Designing a good research project requires an understanding of the general field in which the research will take place, an appreciation for the sort of questions that will advance the state of knowledge in that field, an ability to select and apply the methods appropriate to studying the selected research questions, formulating approaches to assess uncertainty in your analyses and to validate results, and, perhaps most importantly, perseverance. Formulating a rigorous, appropriate and novel research design in Geography is particularly challenging because of the breadth of approaches and areas available to the researcher. Geographers are constantly being called on to justify their field of inquiry and to perform acts of intellectual gymnastics by bridging various sub-fields and the so-called natural, spatial and social worlds.

In this class, we will discuss some of the basic theoretical and practical tools for designing a research project. Although the immediate goal is to write your own research proposal, the general goals are much broader. As students of any science (social spatial, and environmental), we should understand the nature, purpose and value of doing and communicating research.

Note: you do not need to be working on your dissertation project or proposal in this class if you are not yet at that stage in your studies! This class is for your own benefit and to explain some of the aspects of research design considered integral to the discipline and to this department. If you do not want to work on your dissertation proposal, just pick a project that will sustain your interest for the semester and allow you to develop a workable proposal. If you do intend to develop a dissertation proposal, you will need to engage your committee chair to help frame research questions and to structure your proposal.

Course Objectives:

1) To understand the theoretical and practical implications of designing a research project;
2) To examine different perspectives on knowledge, science, objectivity, and the purpose of research;
3) To establish a position on the purpose of scientific inquiry and know how this affects research design;
4) To formulate research questions and tie them to the appropriate literature fields, methods and theoretical framework;
5) To understand how research proposals, as living documents, shape our work in the field and after;
6) To learn how to write a research proposal that will secure outside funding;
7) To write a research proposal.

Good questions to ask yourself:

a) What is good science?
b) What is the purpose of scientific inquiry?
c) Is there a “real world” about which you can make factual statements?
d) Can we be objective about the world we study? (If not, why and so what?)
e) How much do (and should) the expectations held by ourselves, funders and the scientific community in general shape our research?
f) What has led you to your research questions or field, and how does this shape your work?
g) What, if any, are our obligations to the scientific community? (Does our work have to be “useful,” “intelligible,” or reproducible?)
h) How do you determine the best methods for investigating a particular problem?
i) How do we account for our own role in the research process?
j) What do you hope to get out of your research? (Or, what would it mean to be “successful?”)

NOT required, but essential reading:

Becker, Howard S.  (1986). Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish your Thesis, Book, or Article.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas (1996, third edition) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lodge, David (1995).  Small World: An Academic Romance.  Penguin Books.

Assignments:

This course will involve several hours a week of reading, research and writing.  Much of this work will be targeted towards thinking through your own research, however, so time invested will hopefully pay off in terms of progress towards the thesis or dissertation.  You will be graded throughout the semester in three areas: a) informal participation in class, which is a combination of physical and mental attendance; b) weekly assignments that will include readings, leading discussions, and various exercises; and c) a final research proposal to be submitted both as a written document and presented to the department in the form of a 15 minute talk.

The last three weeks of class we will be presenting our proposals to each other in class.  These presentations will have the following format: papers will be submitted to the whole class one week prior to their presentation.  Everyone in class will read the papers and come to class prepared with questions for the authors.  For the write ups these three weeks, everyone will devote a short paragraph to each proposal addressing the following points: is the research project interesting, are the questions clearly stated, does it appear feasible, are the literatures reviewed clearly linked to the research questions and hypotheses?  During class, each student will have 25 – 30 minutes dedicated to their proposal.  Initially, the author will be asked to sit quietly while the other students ask questions about their proposal, and then the author will have a chance to respond and interact. 

Important note: as the immediate goal of this class is to design a viable research project, you will need to be meeting regularly with your advisor(s) in order to discuss your research questions, literature fields, methods and timetable.  Your advisor (if you already have one) should be involved throughout the semester - don't waste the opportunity! 
Grading:
Participation: 20%
Weekly assignments: 50%
Final proposal and presentation: 30%

Outline of Readings and Lecture Topics

Week One, August 23: Overview, Introductions and Academic Romance(s)

Reading (at some point)

Wolford, Wendy (2001).  “Research as a Process” on the UC Berkeley-SSRC website

Homework: come to class with a question - your most favorite research question, one that underlies a seminal or dear-to-your-heart paper, or even one that underlies a whole research field - one that after you read it or think of it, it seems so simple and so obvious. For example, a couple of my favorites: 1) why don't really poor people protest more? and 2) why do Development projects fail so consistently and so spectacularly when they seem to be a win-win situation (some people give money, other people get it)?

Also, there is a fair bit of reading for next week, so you might want to get a jump start on it.

In class: Introductions and discussion of research questions.

Week Two, August 30: What is science, and how does it change?  

Reading (This list may look oppressive, but the articles are almost all very short):

Newton, Isaac (1968 [1729]).  “Newton's Principles of Natural Philosophy,” from The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Dawsons of Pall Mall. 

Einsten, Albert (1949).  “Einstein’s Reply to Criticisms in relation to Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics,” from Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), from The Library of Living Philosophers Series Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Popper, K.  (1963) “Science as Falsification,” in Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, pp. 33-39.

Lakatos, Imre (1970).  “Science as Successful Prediction,” from Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-195

Feyerabend, Paul (1975).  Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, Analytical Index and concluding chapter. [Note: if you are interested in Feyerabend, also see: Broad, William J. (1979). "Paul Feyerabend: Science and the Anarchist," in Science, New Series, 206(4418): 534-537]

Kuhn, Thomas (1996, third edition).  “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions,” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [for more on Kuhn, along with interesting commentaries, see:http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html)]

Buroway, Michael (1990).  “Marxism as Science: Historical Challenges and Theoretical Growth,” American Sociological Review 55: 775-793.

In class: Discuss readings. 

Week Three, September 6:  Debating Science in Geography                                                                                                       

Reading:

Sayer, Andrew (1997).  “Critical Realism and the Limits for Critical Social Science,” in Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, Volume 27, Number 4, December 1997, pp. 473-488.

Kwan, Mei Po (2002). “Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research,” in Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92.4: 645-661.

Rhoads B.L. (1999).  "Beyond Pragmatism: The Value of Philosophical Discourse for Physical Geography," in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4): 760-771.

Turner, Billie Lee (2002). “Contested Identities: Human-Environment Geography and Disciplinary Implications in a Restructuring Academy,” in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(1): 52-74.

David Demeritt. 2001. "The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” in the Annals of the AAG, Volume 91, Number 2 (June 2001) 307- 337 and the response by Steve Schneider pp 338-348, and back-at-you-again by Demeritt.

Also, consult the webpage for the National Academies' Press book on Rediscovering Geography for a popular understanding of scientific practice in the discipline.

Homework: Interview a faculty person on the topic of, “what is science?” and send the answers out to the rest of the class at least 24 hours prior to class.  Also, for an interesting journey through “what is science, what is truth?” visit the definitive source: http://www.quackwatch.org/

In class: Discuss readings; interviews.

Week Four, September 13: The Proposal as Political: Incorporating Ethics in Science

Reading:

The American Association of Geographers’ Professional Statement on Ethics.

Chronicle of Higher Education, Special Report on Plagiarism: “Four Academic Plagiarists You've Never Heard Of: How Many More Are Out There?  December 17, 2004.

Sokal, Alan (1996). “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” Social Text 46/47: 217-252.  

Also see Sokal’s helpful little webpage promoting the so-called Sokal Affair: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

Mitchell, Timothy (2004).  “The Invention and Reinvention of the Egyptian Peasant,” in The Rule of Experts.

Tierney, Patrick (2000).  “The Fierce Anthropologist,” in The New Yorker, 6 November. 

Homework: write your own answers to the same interview conducted the week prior. Hand in a one-page outline of a potential research proposal today. You will develop this proposal further during the rest of the semester.

In class: Discussion of self-interviews and ethical issues.

Week Five, September 20: Asking Questions, Formulating Hypotheses and doing Science

Reading:

One page proposals from students in class

In class: compare proposals and discuss.

For assistance with formulating proposals see:

Geever, Jane and Patricia McNeill. 1997. “A Proposal-Writing Short-Course.” Excerpt from The Foundation Center’s Guide to Proposal-Writing, New York: The Foundation Center.

Przeworski, Adam and Frank Salomon. 1995. “The Art of Writing Proposals: Some Suggestions for Applicants to Social Science Research Council Competitions,” Science Research Council.

Proposals from the SSRC website, examples and commentaries.

Week Six, September 27: Labors of Love: Gender, Research, and the Academy

Reading:

Mason, Mary Ann and Marc Golden (2003).  “Marriage and Baby Blues: Re-Defining Gender Equity,” paper presented October 30, 2003 at the ‘“Mommies” and “Daddies” on the “Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions’ conference held at the University of Pennsylvania.

McDowell, Linda (2004).  “Work, workfare, work/life balance and an ethic of care,” in Progress in Human Geography 28(2): 145-163.

Articles on “Women in Geography in the 21st Century,” (2000, November) Professional Geographer 52(4): 697-760.  Introduction and articles by: Mona Domosh, Joni Seager, Julie Winkler, and Susan Hanson.

Just for fun: “The Opt-Out Revolution,” by Lisa Belkin, New York Times Magazine 10/26/03

Correll, Shelley and Stephen Benard (2005). “Getting a Job: Is there a Motherhood Penalty?”

Homework: write a one page essay on the readings and addressing the question: how does and will gender matter to you in your work?  If you think that gender concerns do not affect you because you are a man, feel free to come and speak with me, or read: Joan Scott, The Gender Politics of History.

In class: finish discussing proposals; discuss gender.

Week Seven, October 4: Methods: Ethnography and Qualitative Fieldwork  (Students present overview)

Readings:

Geertz, Clifford (1973).  “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight,” in The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books: 412-53.  

Wolford, Wendy (2006) “The Difference Ethnography Makes,” in Qualitative Sociology.

Cravey, Altha J. (forthcoming). “Commuting to ‘El Otro Lado’ and Transnational Geographies,” in Adam Tickell, Eric Sheppard, Jamie A. Peck and Madison and Trevor Barnes (Eds). Politics and Practice in Economic Geography. Sage Publications. Forthcoming 2006.

Crang, M.  (2003). “Qualitative Methods: Touchy, Feely, Look-See?” in Progress in Human Geography 27(4): 494-504.

Optional Reading

“Doing Fieldwork,” a special issue of the Geographical Review 91(1 and 2), 2001.

Kobayashi, Audrey (1994).  “Coloring the field: gender, race, and the politics of fieldwork,” Professional Geographer 46(1): 73-80.

*** Note: By this date, you should have sketched a fuller outline of your own proposal - questions, literature and methods - and discussed it with your advisor(s)!

Week Eight, October 11: Methods: Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing, and Coupled Human-Natural Systems (Students present overview)

Readings:

Walsh, S.J., Rindfuss, R.R., Prasartkul, P., Entwisle, B., Chamratrithrong, A., 2005. Population Change and Landscape Dynamics: The Nang Rong, Thailand Studies. In: Research Directions: Population, Land Use, and Environment (Entwisle, B. and Stern, P.C., editors). Washington, DC: National Academies of Science, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, National Research Council, 135-162.

Quattrochi, D.A., S.J. Walsh, J.R. Jensen, M.K. Ridd, 2004. Remote Sensing: Prospects, Challenges, and Emergent Opportunities .In: Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century (G.L. Gaile and C.J. Willmott, editors), Oxford University Press, 376-416.

Rindfuss, R.R., Walsh, S.J., Turner II, B.L., Fox, J., Mishra, V., 2004. Developing a Science of Land Change: Challenges and Methodological Issues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(939): 13976-13981.

Walsh, S.J., Malanson, G.P., Messina, J.P., Mena, C.F., Page, P.H. 2005. Complexity, Spatial Models, and Land Use Dynamics in the Northern Ecaudorian Amazon. GeoForum, in review.

Week Nine, October 25: Methods: Quantitative Analysis and Modeling (Students present overview)

Reading:
***By October 25: First draft of a research proposal due
Week Ten, November 1: Methods: Historical Analysis and Social Theory(Jason Moore and Wendy Wolford)

Reading:

Week Eleven, November 8: Practicing I: Evaluating Proposals

Week Twelve, November 15: Practicing II: Evaluating Proposals

Week Thirteen, November 29: Practicing III: Evaluating Proposals

Final Week: Presentations to Faculty