Michaelmas Term 2016 SOCIAL EXPLANATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice Michaelmas Term 2016 SOCIAL EXPLANATION AND DATA ANALYSIS Course Tutors: Dr Alpa Parmar NOTE: This Option runs on Wednesdays from 14:00 15:30 in, starting on Wednesday 12 th October Except Session 6 which will be held on Thursday 10 November (Week 5) from in Seminar D. Students who have a strong background in Research Methods can request to take this course instead of Research Design and Data Collection course, also offered in Michaelmas term. This will need to be approved before the start of Michaelmas term. Students must take one of these courses, and can take both. Description of the option This option introduces students to the philosophy of social science, different methods of data analysis and theory testing, and in particular methods of interpreting meaning in data and the philosophical underpinnings of different analytical strategies. The aim is to provide students with a knowledge base from which to choose methods of data analysis best suited to answer their research question. Students with an interest in proceeding to a research degree following completion of the MSc, and who intend to use any of the methods covered in this course, are strongly encouraged to take this option. Teaching Arrangements Students should come prepared on Week 1. The class will meet on Wednesdays, from 14:00 15:30, for the first seven weeks of Michaelmas Term. Assessment There are two methods of assessment for this option, and both must be satisfactorily completed by all candidates. First, each candidate will be required to complete four short assignments in weeks 2-5 (the assignments sheet will be handed out in class). Candidates should hand in the complete assignment no later than 10am on Monday before class (you may use ). The assignment will be marked on a pass/fail basis, and a candidate who fails may be required to re-submit it, normally within 7 days. secondly, at the end of term, each candidate will be required to submit an essay of 2,500 to 3,000 words. A choice from three titles will be offered. Any submission should be the product of the candidate s individual work.

2 Schedule of Seminars Week Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Topic The Philosophical Bases of Social Explanation () Narrative Analysis (Dr Alpa Parmar) Analysing survey data () Causality () Experimental research designs () Mixed Methods (Dr Alpa Parmar) Constructing arguments, developing theory, and presenting research () 2

3 The Philosophical Bases of Social Explanation Week 1 In this session we will consider philosophical issues concerning the nature of social scientific explanation. The session will explore questions about nature of society and social action and how we might best understand social phenomena. We will look at different approaches and ways of seeing and consider how these perspectives inform approaches to research and to the analysis of data. We will consider some of the key philosophical problems in the social sciences and the assumptions about knowledge underpinning particular approaches to criminological research. We will return to some of these themes throughout the course as we examine some very different examples of analysis and social explanation. Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, 2 nd ed. Chapter 1 Finding a Focus and Knowing Where you Stand, pages Hollis, M. (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Chs 1 4 and Chapter 12. Further Reading Chalmers, A.F. (1999) What Is This Thing Called Science? 3 rd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapters 1-6. Hollis, M. (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. Remaining chapters. Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press (or later editions). Martin, M. & McIntyre, L. (1994) (eds) in the Philosophy of Social Science. MIT Press. 3

4 Narrative Analysis Dr Alpa Parmar Week 2 In this seminar we look at how we might make sense of one particular type of qualitative data, narrative accounts. We will consider some of the fundamental assumptions underpinning narrative analysis and explore what we can learn from narrative data in criminology. We will explore how the process of constructing accounts has been conceptualised and consider some practical ways of analysing narrative data. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (2009) Analyzing Narrative Reality. Sage Publications. Parts I & II Presser, L. (2009) The Narratives of Offenders Theoretical Criminology 13: Presser, L. (2010) Collecting and Analyzing the Stories of Offenders Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(4). Stevens, A. (2012) I am the Person I was Always Meant to be : Identity Reconstruction and Narrative Reframing in Therapeutic Community Prisons Criminology and Criminal Justice, 12(5): Further Reading Crewe, B. and Maruna, S. (2006) Self-narratives and ethnographic fieldwork in Hobbs, D. and Wright, R. The Sage Handbook of Fieldwork. Sage Publications. Shaw, C.R. (1930; 1966) The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boys Own Story. The University of Chicago Press. Kohler Riessman, C. (2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage Publications. Presser, L. (2012) Getting on top through mass murder: Narrative, metaphor, and violence Crime, Media and Culture, 8(1):

5 Analysing Survey Data Week 3 This workshop session will critically examine the use of statistical data analysis to explain social phenomena. The session will begin with a discussion about the benefits of analysing quantitative survey data such as that provided by the Crime Survey of England and Wales, in order to identify patterns/trends, explore relationships between variables, and generate and test theories. The remainder of the session will involve practical example of ways in which individual s ideas, perceptions and characteristics can be measured via survey analysis. The example used will be trust in the police. What does trust mean in this context, and how can we construct measures of trust using survey data? How can we assess the factors that might affect levels of trust among different population groups? Bachman, R. and Schutt, R. (2011) The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Fourth Edition. London: Pine Forge Press. Chapter 3, 4, 7 and 9. Hough, M. and Roberts, J. (2005), Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Chapter 1, 3, 4 and 8. Further Nardi, P. (2006), Interpreting Data: A Guide to Understanding Research, London: Pearson Education. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S., Widdop, S., Fitzgerald, R., Yordanova, M. and Galev, T. (2011), Developing European indicators of trust in justice. European journal of criminology, 8 (4): Jackson, J. and Bradford, B. (2010), What is trust and confidence in the police? Policing: a journal of policy and practice, 4 (3):

6 Causality Week 4 In this seminar we examine causality, one of the most important, and vexatious, issues in the social sciences. According to Hume causation is the cement of the universe but on what basis can we make causal claims based on our research? Different perspectives on the great American crime decline will be used to illustrate how causal relationships have been explored in criminological contexts and some of the difficulties inherent in such attempts. Bachman, R. and Schutt, R. (2011) The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Fourth Edition. London: Pine Forge Press. Chapter 5. Gerring, J. (2012), Social Science Methodology. A Unified Framework. Cambridge: CUP. Chapters 1 to 4, 8 and 9. Levitt, S.D. (2004), Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not, Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(1): Zimring, F.E. (2007), The Great American Crime Decline. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapters 1, 3, 6 and 8. Further Reading Freedman, D.A. (1991), Statistical models and shoe leather, Sociological Methodology 21: Freedman, D.A. (2008), On types of scientific inquiry: The role of qualitative reasoning, in Box- Steffensmeier et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp Martin, M. (1993), Geertz and the interpretive approach in anthropology, Synthese 97:

7 Experimental research designs Week 5 This seminar will examine some of the key issues involving experimental research in criminology. The discussion will revolve around two case studies : (a) the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) and the follow up Scottish Community Engagement Trial and (b) the Home Office Tackling Knives and Serious Youth Offending Action Programme (TKAP). Key issues will include the design process, the challenges of fielding experiments in criminal justice settings, questions of internal and external validity, generalizability and ethics. Key readings Bachman, R. and Schutt, R. (2011) The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Fourth Edition. London: Pine Forge Press. Chapter 6. Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool's gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice 10(1): Sherman, L.W. (2010). An introduction to Experimental Criminology, in Piqeuro, A.R. and Weisburd, D. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. New York: Springer. pp Case studies Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of the police: main findings from the Queensland community engagement trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), MacQueen, S. and Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: results from a randomized controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology 11(3): Ward, L. and Diamond, A. (2009). Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP) Phase 1: Overview of key trends from a monitoring programme. Research Report 18. London: Home Office. Available at: orr18c.pdf Ward, L., Nicholas, S. and Willoughby, M. (2011). An assessment of the Tackling Knives and Serious Youth Violence Action Programme (TKAP) phase ll. Research Report 53. London: Home Office. Available at: 7

8 Mixed Methods Research This session will be held on Thursday 10 th November in Seminar D Dr Alpa Parmar alpa.parmar@crim.ox.ac.uk Session 6 This seminar will examine some of the key issues that need to be considered when different methods are employed in one study. What does it mean to mix methods? What are the strengths of bringing qualitative and quantitative methods together, and what are some of the challenges that researchers might face? In this seminar we will critically examine some examples of mixed methods research in criminology and consider how these studies have made sense of data generated by different strategies. Brady, B. and O Regan, C. (2009) Meeting the Challenge of Doing an RCT Evaluation of Youth Mentoring in Ireland: A Journey in Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 3, 3: Collins, C.C. and Dressler, W.W. (2008) Cultural Consensus and Cultural Diversity: A Mixed Methods Investigation of Human Services Providers Models of Domestic Violence. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2, 4: Fielding, N. (2009) Mixed Methods Research in the Real World International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(2). Maruna, S. (2010) Mixed Methods Research in Criminology: Why Not Go Both Ways? in Piquero, A.R. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Springer. Shlesinger, T. and Lawston, J.M. (2011) Experiences of Interpersonal Violence and Criminal Legal Control: A Mixed Methods Analysis. SAGE Open. Published 16 th August Further Reading Teddlie, C.B. and Tashakkori, A. (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Sage. 8

9 Constructing Arguments, Developing Theory, and Presenting Research Seminar E, Manor Road Building Week 7 In this final seminar we look at the process of developing theory in research. We will connect back to the topic of the first seminar and consider what it is we are aiming to ultimately produce through the research that we conduct. This will help us to move beyond the nuts and bolts of analysis and to think about seeing a whole, as Richards describes. We will consider how we use data to make convincing arguments and how we develop explanation and understanding in the research process. Bottoms, A. (2007) The relationship between theory and empirical observations in criminology in King, R. and Wincup, E. Doing Research on Crime and Justice. Oxford University Press. Denzin, N.K. (2002) The Interpretive Process in Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. The Qualitative Researchers Companion. Sage Publications. May, T., Gyateng, T. and Hough, M. (2010). Differential Treatment in the Youth Justice System. London: Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Richards, L. (2009) Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications. Chapter 9 Seeing a Whole Wikström, P-O., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K. And Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking Rules. The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People s Urban Crime. Oxford: OUP. Chapters 1 and 2. 9