DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD

PuAd 6831. Research Methods in Public Administration I

Fall 2001 Dr. Dvora Yanow

Tuesdays MI 4122, (510) 885‑3282

Prerequisites: 4800, 4830, 5000 T 5:30‑6:30 and by appt.

However, I'm becoming more and more convinced that,

at best, survey research illuminates a piece of reality

through one prism. ...[It] usually falls short

in uncovering process and change, deeper meanings,

and social patterns between groups and individuals.

There is a real need to round out survey techniques

with...methods such as participant observation,

in-depth interviews, and case studies.

--H. Edward Ransford, "On 'isolation, powerlessness, and

violence'," in M. Patricia Golden, ed., The Research

Experience (Itasca IL: F. E. Peacock, 1976), p. 314.

This course reflects 20^th-21st century developments in the history and philosophy of social science. Most MPA (and many other social science) programs treat "research methods" and "statistics" as synonyms. Other forms for the generation and validation of knowledge – including the interpretive methods that are the subject of this course -- are typically not taught and not sanctioned (whether for thesis research or in the publication of research results), based on an understanding of what it means to be "scientific" and to do "science." Since the late 1970s, more social scientists have begun (again) to access data through conversational interviews, observation (with various degress of participation), and document analysis. These methods of accessing data and other methods for analyzing those data retain their word-based form, rather than converting them into numbers. They are becoming more recognized for their power to contribute to administrative (and social scientific, more broadly) knowledge.

Often, these two broad classes of method are referred to as "quantitative" and "qualitative." But the conceptual distinction is mis-named: researchers using "qualitative" methods also count, and those analyzing numbers also interpret their data and their findings. What is being captured in those two terms is a difference in philosophical presuppositions, based on different understandings of the nature of human or social reality and whether and how that reality might be known. This is the methodological counterpart to other philosophical distinctions between positivist science and interpretive science (explored in PuAd 6811 and 6812). We focus in this course on interpretive methodology and methods. Since public administration- and policy-related knowledge is still being claimed through quantitatively-oriented, positivistically-informed methods, those are taught in PuAd 6832, Research Methods II.

Course philosophy and objectives

Why, and what, do public administrators need to know about research methods? At the Master's level, we are primarily not training students to be academic researchers. However, as policy analysts, agency administrators, and in other roles, MPA graduates are called on to understand and use research produced by others and, at times, to do research themselves. Public administrators also often use many of the methods we will explore here (observation, conversational interviewing, and document analysis) in various areas of professional practice. This suggests a different philosophy of methods instruction from the one designed to produce researchers: a shift from training researchers to educating informed "readers" and analysts of research. It is the aim of this course to provide an introduction to particular methods from the point of view of the practitioner. This is learned through "hands on" exercises, as well as through reading research done by others. After initial lectures, this course will proceed largely through in-class and field exercises. We will learn inductively, through experience and practice.

Were we to engage in this course in training you in the actual production of research, we might well begin with some of the problems of "entering" (gaining entree and/or acceptance into) the "field" (a particular organization, a community, or some other research site). As we are not doing so, we will largely pass by those very important (to researchers and the research process) issues. Similarly, we will not engage at length many of the questions associated with choosing a research topic or with the writing up of results (from the researcher's point of view). We will instead explore some of the ways in which data may be accessed ("collected") and analyzed, their advantages and limitations, and what an administrator or analyst needs to understand about them in order to evaluate research reports based on them. You may have the opportunity to engage in the production and writing of field-based research in other courses in this program, which will provide you with experience in the constraints that characterize research in policy (e.g., PuAd 6803, Interpretive Policy Analysis, or 6806, Policy Design for Sustainable Futures) or organizational (e.g., PuAd 6765, Organizational Diagnosis) settings. Those of you who choose to write a thesis based on field research will engage these other issues with your thesis advisor.

One other principle guides my approach to this subject matter. I firmly believe that research should be driven by what the researcher wants to know -- the "research question" -- rather than by the choice of method. Some methods are more appropriate to some questions than to others. A researcher in public administration and other "applied" social sciences should decide what question s/he is trying to answer and then choose the appropriate method(s), rather than letting the choice of method drive the selection of the question. In this course, however, we will proceed differently: for training purposes in particular methods, the exercises will determine the choice of research topic.

Course readings balance general methods readings with those that are organization- and policy-focused. The following 3 books are on order at the bookstore and on reserve in the library:

Stephen Barley and Julian Orr, eds., Between craft and science: Technical work in the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Dvora Yanow, How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996.

Dvora Yanow, Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press, 2000.

In addition, a course “reader” (a collection of journal articles and chapters from other books, marked * in the reading list) is on order at Copy Pacific and on reserve in the library. There will be a small supplemental reader with 2 late additions to the syllabus (marked S*).

Additional/optional: For another full-length example of an organization-based ethnography, see Julian Orr, Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996 (a copy is on reserve in the library).

Course requirements: Read; think; do the exercises; come to class prepared to discuss the readings and exercises, having reflected on both.

Note: This course requires fieldwork outside of class for the exercises. Each of the first two outside-class exercises requires about an hour, not counting set-up and/or travel or writing time; the third requires more time, depending on your research design, spread out over a few weeks.

Evaluation for the course will be based on:

1. classroom participation (including mid-term and short final), expressed through knowledge of the assigned course material (25%);

2. exercises (75%).

A word on my philosophy of teaching and learning: Much of this course depends on in-class exercises, often done in groups. That means that if you miss class, you miss assignment-related work. It also means that the schedule needs to be somewhat flexible. Please take what follows as a guide, like the north star, rather than as a target: depending on how our exercises proceed, I may move readings and assignments to dates other than those identified here. If you need to miss more than one class, I suggest you take the course in another quarter.

I believe that we share responsibility for learning. You and I establish a contract. My part is here in this syllabus: an outline of what topics we will cover and what I expect from you. Your part of the contract is implicit when you walk into class the second meeting: you have taken on the obligations of being a student in this course. For example, although I do not "go over" most of the assigned readings, I take them as points of departure for our class sessions, and you are responsible for them. I want to make explicit some other elements of this contract. To that end, before the second class, please write out (for yourself) what you expect of yourself for this course: what do you want to accomplish, what will you contribute and put into it, and how will you do that? At the end of the quarter, you will evaluate your performance in light of this statement.

It is in this context that I have established the following policy on late papers. I suggest you treat coursework due dates much as you would work deadlines. That way, we can both get our work done. Papers are due at the beginning of the class as noted in the syllabus; arrangements to hand in papers at a later date must be made no later than one week prior, except for emergencies. Let's take a page from McGregor's Theory X: unexcused late papers will lose 1/2 grade per half hour late and will earn no more than a B. (Please skip the plastic or other binders and title page; a staple and your name at the top of the first page of text will suffice.)

Also, an Incomplete in a course is not an automatically-given grade. It is a grade that may be given if you have completed all but the last part of the quarter’s work and, because of a work or family emergency, cannot finish the last assignment on time. If this is your situation, you need to discuss this with me as soon as it comes up.

It should go without saying that I expect us to be courteous of and respectful toward one another. That ranges from the quality with which we listen to one another, to not talking while someone else has the floor, to addressing one another directly, and so on. For starters please turn off all electronic devices (or put them on "stun") when you come to class (and if you must answer, please take your conversation outside the classroom).

Lastly, let's have some fun!

ADA: If you have special needs as addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and need assistance, please notify the Student Disability Resource Center and me at the beginning of the quarter. Reasonable efforts will be made to accommodate your special needs.

Academic honesty is fundamental to the activities and principles of a university. All members of the academic community must be confident that each person's work has been responsibly and honorably acquired, developed, and presented. The academic community regards academic dishonesty as an extremely serious matter, with serious consequences that range from probation to expulsion. When in doubt about plagiarism, paraphrasing, quoting or collaboration, consult the professor.

1. 10/2 Overview of the course

2. 10/9 Philosophical underpinnings of interpretive research (Methodology, epistemology, ontology, and the senses)

Symbolic representations of social meaning

Varieties of meaning-focused research data and methods

Read: *Jerome T. Murphy, Getting the facts (Santa Monica: Goodyear, 1980), pp. vii-ix (a good introduction).

The following are good on the philosophical background (read at least 3).

Yanow, How...?, ch. 1, pp. 4-9.

Yanow, Conducting..., ch. 1.

*Donald Polkinghorne, Methodology for the human sciences (Albany: SUNY Press, 1983), Introduction and ch. 1.

*Alan Bryman, Quantity and quality in social research (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988), pp. 104-126.

*Martin Bulmer, "The value of qualitative methods." In Social science and social policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), pp. 180-203.

The following are more specifically methodological.

Yanow, How?, ch. 2 (pp. 34-36 top, 42-56); ch. 1 (pp. 9-22, on symbols).

Yanow, Conducting, ch. 2.

*James P. Spradley and David W. McCurdy, The cultural experience (Palo Alto: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1972), pp. 3-30, 34-37.

*Jerome T. Murphy, Getting the facts (Santa Monica: Goodyear, 1980), pp. 58-72.

Think: What arguments are made for the differences between qualitative and quantitative research? What is it about human social reality that makes it require different methods from the natural or physical world? What do these methods allow us to understand about social reality that positivist (or "quantitative") methods do not?

In class: Handout on observing (w/ exercises I, II, III).

Space exercise (I).

Assign exercise II (field site); due next class meeting.

3. 10/16 No class. Catch up on readings; do and write up exercise.

4. 10/23 Making sense of visual data I: Observing

objects -- spaces and "props"; Categories, prior knowledge, and making sense

Read: *James P. Spradley and David W. McCurdy, The cultural experience (Palo Alto: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1972), ch. 4 (on categories)

*Jerome T. Murphy, Getting the facts (Santa Monica: Goodyear, 1980), pp. 111-121 top.

Note: I advise reading the preceding two before doing the field exercise due tonight.

Yanow, How?, ch. 6.

Yanow, Conducting, ch. 4.

Think: What sorts of things do we see when we observe? What senses besides sight might observation also entail? What is the relationship among physical objects and feeling and behavior/ action? Link the Spradley-McCurdy discussion of categories to your observations in the field exercise. What categories have you developed there?

What makes a written (or verbal) description good/not so good?

Due: Observing (exercise II).

In class: exercise -- evaluating descriptive writing; assign writing exercise, due next class.

5. 10/30 Making sense of visual data II: Observing participants and

interactions

Read: Catch up!

Think: Draw a category chart (a taxonomy) for your workplace or for the university.

Due: Writing exercise.

In class: Nonverbal exercise; Observing exercise Part III (Twelve angry men, VHS #6346, ~13 minutes).

6. 11/6 Making sense of linguistic data: Interviewing

Read: *Jerome T. Murphy, Getting the facts (Santa Monica: Goodyear, 1980), pp. 75-107.

*William Foote Whyte, Learning from the field (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984), pp. 97-127 (skip 116-117; note bottom 118).

*James A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium, The active interview (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995), pp. 38-51, 73-80 (an interesting alternative view)

S* Davis Y. Ja et al., From a qualitative perspective: The story behind individual client lives. Presented to the 9^th PSC Meeting of HRSA and HUD HOPWA Programs, San Francisco (April 2000).

Think: How is a purposive conversation different from a casual conversation? How are they the same? Do you find Holstein and Gubrium's view extreme?

How do you write up an interview as part of a research report? How is this different from a transcript? What are the characteristics of a good interview report? of a not-so-good one?

Due: Mid-term (take-home; see last page of syllabus).

In class: Dr. Carl Rogers' "client-centered" interviewing style, in Three approaches to psychotherapy II (VHS #5012, 1978, part 1).

Exercise in conversational interviewing; assign conversational interviewing field exercise; due next week (separate handout).

7. 11/13 Making sense of acts: Participant-observation/ethnography;

8. 11/20 Linguistic data in participant-observation: Document and content analysis, metaphor analysis, category analysis

Read (#7): Barley and Orr, pp. 18-19, 10-15, 24-35, 42, 47-52 for background; ch. 6 (on observation and interviews); ch. 5 (on interviews); ch. 4 (on observation informed by experience and on transcripts of exchanges).

Think: With the Barley-Orr essays, we begin to join observing and interviewing into participant observation, our next topic. As you read the listed chapters, imagine that you are managing a unit of technicians in your actual or desired workplace. To do so effectively, you need to understand what they do in their view of it.

Pay attention to the descriptions of methods used in chs. 6, 5, and 4: what elements do they list? Look at the detail in each chapter: how do the authors use their observational and interview data in writing? in presenting their findings? How do they link data and theory? We will look at these in class.

Due (#7): Conversational interviewing exercise.

In class (#7):The Barley & Orr chapters (bring book to class!); hand out final assignment.

Read (#8): *Herbert Gans, "Personal Journal: B. On the methods used in this study," in M. Patricia Golden, The research experience (Itasca IL: F. E. Peacock, 1976), pp. 49-59.

Barley & Orr, chs. 7, 8, 10 (on participant observation).

Yanow, How?, ch. 7; ch. 2 (pp. 36-42).

Yanow, Conducting, ch. 5.

*Jerome T. Murphy, Getting the facts (Santa Monica: Goodyear, 1980), pp. 121-128 (document analysis).

S*Zara L. Mirmalek, Navigating subcultures: The formation of subcultures in an organizational landscape (Unpublished thesis, Department of Public Administration, California State University, Hayward, 2001), ch. 3.

On metaphors: Yanow, How?, ch. 5, and Conducting, ch. 3.

Optional: Scan Orr, Talking... to see how he puts all the pieces together: ch. 1 (for his statement of methods and to see how he defines his research question); ch. 3 (for a refinement of his research problem); ch. 2 (observations of setting and activities); chs. 4, 5 (actors); chs. 6, 7 (practices or acts); ch. 8 (the significant object [machine] and the actors, their sensemaking in their acts/interactions with it and their language); ch. 9 (Orr's sensemaking).

Think: In what ways are chs. 7 and 8 in Barley & Orr participant observations? How are they different from the "shadowing" described in ch. 10? Fit these into Gans' schema.

Due #8: Research proposal: Identify your research question, site, and methods for a participant-observation exercise (separate handout, part I).

In class #8: Presentation and discussion of research proposals.

Bring Barley & Orr to class!

9. 11/27 Trustworthiness in research; revising research questions

Read: Yanow, Conducting, ch. 6.

In class: Open discussion on questions of research design (the relationship of research question to method); how research changes as you discover new things and get responses. Comparing interpretive criteria to "traditional" criteria for research trustworthiness; writing up field-based research; doing research in the ICCC.

10. 12/4 Issues in narrative (re)presentation and reality construction

In class: Final.

Due: Participant observation exercise. (Note: papers may be handed in up until noon on 12/10; please let me know if you intend to take advantage of this extension. And please: no faxed or emailed papers!).