Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative Research Methods

ARCH 567, Prof. Robert Mugerauer, Spring 2021 – See Syllabus

This advanced course looked to introduce students to traditional and innovative research methodologies appropriate for both archival research and fieldwork. It covered both the theoretical foundations and the applications of the most important methodological strategies for a variety of disciplines, such as planning, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, forest resources, geography, anthropology, public health, law, public policy, social work, environmental-cultural studies, and more.

The course covered major theoretical and critical approaches, such as Actor-Network theory (ANT), Complexity Theory, Feedback-Loop Analysis, Assemblage Theory. Moreover, it explored a number of specific Field Work and Archival Methods, such as close observation and description (including the theory of ethnomethodology, phenomenology, and life-world method), interviews, and cognitive & mental mapping. Finally, Professor Bob introduced us to Coding and Thematic Analysis as the most common methods for analysis in qualitative research.

I initially chose this course to take a deeper dive into ANT as a possible research methodology for my research. However, by the end of the course, I had realized that the Intellectual History’s discursive contextual approach would be a better methodological approach than ANT. While ANT looks to trace changes, giving a full and complete description of what led to what and how different actants interacted in the process, the discursive contextual approach allows me to illuminate the communicative context in which ideas are articulated and evolve over time. In that sense, although I ended up rejecting ANT as my research methodology, this course was fundamental in helping me make that decision. Likewise, the introduction I received in this course about qualitative analysis with coding has turned out to be very valuable in my archival analysis.

Final Products

I used the final project of this course to advance a phenomenology of the 2021 Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC), which took place on June 3-4, 2021 over Zoom. As a course exercise that did not require IRB approval and was not intended to be published or reproduced somewhere else, I conducted this exercise to understand the relationships between the conference and the community of scholars that I intended to study in my research project. As I describe in the methodology of my paper,

“Phenomenology entails the direct observation and description of certain phenomena of the life-world, as consciously experienced through a most basic empirical encounter, without going to the conceptual level. In that sense, rather than being guided by theoretical concepts and preconceived assumptions, phenomenology is directed by the intuitive identification of structures, themes, and patterns that run through what is observed and that were initially implicit or tacit. Therefore, it is not only about being conscious of the world and life-experience, but about being self-conscious of that consciousness, and describing it through appropriate language that is not purely ordinary, but that is not conceptual either.”

I saw this exercise as an unparalleled opportunity to observe, describe, and better understand the Conference, and therefore, the “community of discourse” that I am studying in my dissertation. As I described in my paper:

“I considered that understanding the Conference, and the interactions that take place there, would give me tools to better understand and contextualize the discussions between scholars that I will probably encounter both with the archival investigation and with the semi-structured interviews.”

The results of this exercise were reported using the three-step format proposed by Miles Richardson (1982), namely: i) The preliminary definition of the material setting; ii) The interaction taking place in the setting; and iii) The image that completes the definition.

References

Richardson, M. (1982). Being-in-the-Market versus Being-in-the-Plaza: Material Culture and the Construction of Social Reality in Spanish America. American Ethnologist, 9(2), 421-436.

Selected Readings

Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (2004). “After Method: An Introduction” in After Method. Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
Ernstson, H. and S. Sörlin. (2009). Weaving protective stories: connective practices to articulate holistic values in Stockholm National Urban Park. Environment and Planning, A 41(6), 1460–1479.
Callon, M. (1984). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196-233.
Dugdale, A. (1999). “Materiality: Juggling Sameness and Difference” in Actor Network Theory and After (John Law & John Hazzard eds.). Blackwell Publishing.
Silverman, R.M. & Patterson, K.L. (2015) Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development. London: Routledge.