1 Dec 2015 Contents Introduction to the esrc dtc core Training Modules Page 3
Week 9: Power, politics and research (Khursheed Wadia)
Download 383.88 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Week 10: Your PhD Viva and Beyond (John Narayan)
Week 9: Power, politics and research (Khursheed Wadia)Is (social) research a moral activity? Does it reflect the realities of our world? Does the knowledge we produce make a difference - for the better? These are difficult questions to which we may not find definitive answers. But it is worth looking at the political context in which we carry out research and ask to what extent our efforts to reflect realities as they are and make a difference to our world are constrained or facilitated by: rival conceptions about our discipline and how its boundaries should be drawn; methodology disputes; institutional hierarchies (in the public university and private sector); competition between researchers; and the state funding of research. These are some of the issues which will be discussed in this session. You will also be asked to think about the political context, institutional and other factors which have influenced your choice of research topic, your theoretical and methodological approach to it and whether you think your research should make a difference and to whom. Essential Reading Martin, B. Information Liberation: Challenging the Corruptions of Information Power, London: Freedom Press, Chapter 7. Biesta, G., Kwiek, M., Locke, G., Martins, H., Masschelein, J., Papatsiba, V., Simons, M. and Zgaga, P. (2009) ‘What is the Public Role of the University? A Proposal for a Public Research Agenda’, European Educational Research Journal, 8(2): 249-254. Further Reading Barstow, S., Dunleavy, P. and Tinkler, J. (2014) The Impact of the Social Sciences: How Academics and their Research Make a Difference, London: Sage. Boyle, P., Smith, L., Cooper, N., Williams, K. and O’Connor, H. (2015) ‘Gender Balance: Women are Funded More Fairly in Social Science’, Nature, 525: 181-183, http://www.nature.com/news/gender-balance-women-are-funded-more-fairly-in-social-science-1.18310. Krebs, R. and Wenk, S. (2005) ‘Disciplinary Barriers between the Social Sciences and Humanities. Current debates about the construction of knowledge in the social sciences and humanities and the impact of these on disciplinization in eight European countries’, Oldenburg: C. Ossietzky University, http://www.york.ac.uk/res/researchintegration/ComparativeReports/Comparative_Report_Construction_of_Knowledge.pdf. Kwiek, M. (2013) Knowledge Production in European Universities: States, Markets and Academic Entrepreneurialism, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, Chapter 1. Reardon, S. (2014) ‘NIH to Probe Racial Disparity in Grant awards’, Nature, 512: 243, http://www.nature.com/news/nih-to-probe-racial-disparity-in-grant-awards-1.15740) Week 10: Your PhD Viva and Beyond (John Narayan)It may seem very early in your PhD career to think about this, but what exactly are you working towards? With this in mind, this session has two purposes: 1). To identify some practical steps that will help you succeed in your PhD examination (known as a viva voce, or simply as a viva); 2). To think about life beyond the PhD and, more specifically, how to move from a PhD into an academic career. The aim of this session, in the first instance, is to address some of the common anxieties that surround the viva. We will discuss how to prepare for this exam. We will also consider different strategies for defending your thesis. Following this, we will turn our attention to the question of employment by looking at the changing nature of the contemporary university. We will focus, in particular, on new metrics for auditing research and publications in the UK, and will ask how these are likely to impact upon those looking to pursue an academic career. Essential Reading Petre, M. and Rugg, G. (2010). The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Especially Chapter 14 (‘The Viva’). Burrows, R. (2012). ‘Living with the h-index? Metric Assemblages in the Contemporary Academy’. Sociological Review, 60, 2, pp.355-72.
On the PhD Viva: Murray, R. (2009). How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Trafford, V. and Lesham, S. (2008). Stepping Stones to Achieving Your Doctorate: By Focusing on Your Viva from the Start. Maidenhead: Open University Press. On life beyond your PhD: Collini, S. (2012). What are Universities For? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Kelly, A. and Burrows, R. (2011). ‘Measuring the Value of Sociology? Some Notes on Performative Metricization in the Contemporary Academy’. Sociological Review, 59, s2, pp.130-50. Murray, R. (2009). Writing for Academic Journals. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Roberts, L. (2006). After You Graduate: Finding and Getting Work You Will Enjoy. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Department of Politics and International Studies (PAIS), E2.13 (Social Sciences), e.a.page@warwick.ac.uk Office Hours: Tuesdays 1130-1330 & Thursdays 1100-1200 Dr Milena Kremakova Institute for Employment Research (IER), C0.13 (Social Sciences), m.kremakova@warwick.ac.uk Office Hours: Mondays 3—4 pm or by appointment Lecturers: Dr Milena Kremakova, IER, C0.13, m.kremakova@warwick.ac.uk Dr Edward Page, PAIS, E2.13, E.A.Page@warwick.ac.uk Professor Michael Saward, PAIS, D1.10 (Social Sciences), M.J.Saward@warwick.ac.uk Seminar tutors: Dr Milena Kremakova, IER, C0.13, m.kremakova@warwick.ac.uk Dr Edward Page, PAIS, E2.13, e.a.page@warwick.ac.uk Introduction This module introduces students to some of the standard methodological and theoretical problems posed by social inquiry. Many of the issues to be discussed relate to one key question: are the methods of the social sciences essentially the same or essentially different from those of the natural sciences? The topics to be addressed include: introduction to social research; questions in the philosophy of knowledge relating to science, realism, language and materials; objectivity in the social sciences; challenges to objectivity via standpoint epistemology; and the feminist and postmodern/postcolonial challenges to objectivity. Although the issues will be illustrated in specific texts, you are also encouraged to pursue parallel arguments in different sources from your own disciplines and across disciplines. The reading list is designed to encourage the consultation of diverse sources in order to identify common concerns and problems. There is 'Essential reading' for each session in order to provide a focus to discussion which all students are required to read in advance of each seminar. The ‘Further reading’ offers an opportunity to locate the topic in a wider context or to pursue more specialised aspects for essays. Schedule The lectures for Philosophies of Social Science will take place in the Humanities building on Tuesdays, 2—3pm, in room H0.60. Seminars will take place at 3-4 and 4-5pm in H0.60 (led by Ed Page and Milena Kremakova).
Background Readings
These very useful and wide-ranging books are available from the bookshop or Amazon for around £15 and multiple copies are in the library. Benton and Craib is more accessible and fairly sociological, whereas Hollis’s book has a more philosophical orientation. Whilst both of these are textbooks, Delanty and Styrdom is essentially an anthology of short excerpts from classic texts in the philosophy of social science, but with the addition of a very useful introduction and linking discussions. Outhwaite is an excellent introduction to alternative approaches to the understanding of social science. Other useful texts include the following (starred items are particularly useful): *Chalmers, A. F. (2000) What is this Thing Called Science? An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Methods. Milton Keynes: Open University Press (available in several editions with supplementary chapters. Any edition is worth purchasing and reading as a whole). *Elster, J. (1989) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: CUP). Elster, J. (1989) The Cement of Society (New York: Cambridge University Press). *Elster, J. (2007) Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Fay, B. (1996) Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science (Oxford: Blackwell). Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave). *Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon) Hollis, M. (1996) Reason in Action: Essays in the Philosophy of Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kellstedt, P.A. and Whitten, G.D. (2008) The Fundamentals of Political Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). *Little, D. (1991) Varieties of Social Explanation: an introduction to the philosophy of social science (Boulder: Westview). *Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). *Moses, J.W. and Knutsen, T.L. (2010) Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Popper, K. (1991) The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge). Pratt, V. (1978) The Philosophy of the Social Sciences (London: Methuen).Root, M. (1993) Philosophy of Social Science (Oxford: Blackwell). *Rosenberg, A. (1995) Philosophy of Social Science (Boulder: Westview).
“What are we doing when we attempt to study human social life in a systematic way?” (Benton and Craib 2001). “If even in science there is no a way of judging a theory [but] by assessing the number, faith and vocal energy of its supporters, then this must be even more so in the social sciences: truth lies in power” (Lakatos 1978). The very idea of a ‘social’ science implies two things. First, that it is somehow distinct from ‘natural’ science; second, that it is some sort of ‘science’. This leads to further questions. What is science? What is distinctive about social reality? Why is there such disagreement across the social sciences about how to study social reality? What can we know about social reality? In this introductory session, we discuss some of the contrasting approaches to studying the social world and chart the main debates across the social sciences based on assumptions of the nature of social reality (ontology) and what we can know about it (epistemology). Seminar Questions:
Essential Reading: Hollis, M. (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science (Colorado: Westview), Ch.1,Ch.2,Ch.3. Chalmers, A.F. (1982) ‘The Theory-Dependence of Observation’. Chapter 3 of What is this Thing Called Science? (2nd edition) Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, ‘Theory and Observation in Science’: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/ Further Reading: Adorno, T. W. et al 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology (Heineman) Benton, T & Craib, I. 2001. Philosophy of Social Science Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Ch.1. Elster, J. (2007) Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Ch.1,3. Hammersley, M. (1995). The Politics of Social Research. London: Sage. Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Ch.2. Hemple, C. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press), essay 12. Kemp, Steve 2007. ‘Concepts, Anomalies and Reality: A Response to Bloor and Feher,’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38 (1): 241-253 Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (U of Chicago Press) Lakatos, I. 1978. 'Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes' in Collected Papers, Volume I (Cambridge UP) Laudan, L. 1996. ‘“The Sins of the Fathers...”: Positivist Origins of Postpositivist Relativisms,’ Beyond Positivism and Relativism (Westview Press) Laudan, L. 1989. ‘If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It,’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (3): 369-375 Popper, Karl 1963. Conjectures and Refutations (Routledge and Kegan Paul) Chs 3, 10. Rosenberg, A. (1998) Philosophy of Social Science. 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Ch.1 (pp.1-27). Winch, P. 1976. The Idea of a Social Science (Routledge and Kegan Paul). Week 3: Explanations in Social Science I (Ed Page and Milena Kremakova) ‘In the long run it is the theory that is supported by the successful explanations it generates, not the other way around (Elster 2007: 20). ‘To explain a social fact it is not enough to show the cause on which it depends; we must also, at least in most cases, show its function in the establishment of social order’ (Durkheim 1950: 97). ‘A rational agent’s gotta do what a rational agent’s gotta do!’ (Hollis 1996:60). In this week, we take a closer look at some prominent theories of social science explanation. Explanatory approaches make sense of social facts, events, and states-of-affairs in terms of how they result from other social facts, events, and states-of-affairs. Such theories can be separated into those that work at the level of the group or society (holist accounts) and those that work at the level of the individual agent or organism (artomist accounts). After exploring the concept of explanation, we explore holist accounts of explanation - such as functionalism and structuralism - make sense of a wide range of social phenomena including social conflict and social cooperation.
Essential Reading: Elster, J. (2007) Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts of the Social Sciences (Cambridge: CUP), Ch.1 (pp.9-31). Little, Ch.5, ‘Functional and Structural Explanation’, pp.90-113. Hollis, M. (1994) 'Systems and Functions', in The Philosophy of Social Science (Cambridge: CUP), 94-114. Further reading: Dore, R.P. (1973) ‘Function and Cause’, in A. Ryan (ed) The Philosophy of Social Explanation (Oxford: OUP), pp.65-81. Durkheim, (1950[1895]) The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by S. A. Solovay and J. H. Mueller. New York: The Free Press. Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C. (1979) ‘The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 205 (1161): 581-598. Kellstadt and Whitten (2008), ‘Evaluating causal relationships’, in The Fundamentals of Political Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp.45-66. Marx, K. (1977) Preface to The Critique of Political Economy, in D. McLellan (ed) Karl Marx’s Selected Writings (Oxford: OUP), pp.388-90, available electronically here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Society (New York: Free Press), pp.133-211. Root (1993) Ch.4, ‘Functional theories in sociology and biology’, 78-99. Rosenberg (1995) Ch. 5, ‘Functionalism and Macrosocial science’, pp.124-152.
Directory: fac -> cross fac fac -> Building: 300 Subjects/Programs to be Housed fac -> Plo timeline fac -> Personal Information Name: Maha Al-Ammari Nationality: Saudi Relationship Status fac -> Course overview fac -> Curriculum vitae wei chen professor fac -> Digital image warping fac -> Samples of Elements Exam Question III contains All Prior Exam Qs III except cross fac -> A submission to Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research Cover page Full name of author cross fac -> Emma Johnson department of classics and ancient history Download 383.88 Kb. Share with your friends:
|