1 Dec 2015 Contents Introduction to the esrc dtc core Training Modules Page 3

‘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).

This week, we take a closer look at a prominent set of ‘atomistic’ theories of social science explanation. Such approaches make sense of social facts, events, and states-of-affairs in terms of how they result from the aggregated effects of individual agents. After further exploring the concept of explanation in terms of different forms of inference, we explore atomist accounts of explanation - such as rational choice, collective action and game theory - make sense of a wide range of social phenomena including social conflict, social cooperation, and environmental degradation.

Seminar questions:

1. 
   Sometimes people fail to satisfy the conditions of ‘rational action’. Is this a problem for the theory or a problem for the people?
   
2. 
   What is a ‘tragedy of the commons’? To what extent can such tragedies be avoided?
   
3. 
   What are the implications of game theory for our understanding of global climate change and other environmental problems?
   

Axelrod, R. (1997) The Complexity of Cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 3-29.

Benton and Craib, Ch. 4.

Binmore, K. (2007) Game Theory: A very Short Introduction (Oxford: OUP).

Brams, S. (2000) ‘Game theory: pitfalls and opportunities in applying it to international relations’, International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), pp.221-232.

Dawkins, R. (1989) The Selfish Gene (2nd edition) (Oxford: OUP).

Elster J. (1990) ‘When Rationality Fails’ in Karen S. Cook and M. Levi, The Limits of Rationality (Chicago: Chicago University Press), pp. 19-59.

Gardiner, S. (2001) The Real Tragedy of the Commons, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30(4), pp.387-41.

Hardin, G. (1998) ‘Extensions of "The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science 280(5364): 682-83, 1 May.

Hargreaves, S. Hollis, M., Lyons, B., Sugden, R. Weale, A. (1992) The Theory of Choice: A Critical Guide (Oxford: Blackwell), Ch. 1, 3.

Hargreaves, S.P. and Varoufakis, Y (1995) Game Theory: A Critical Introduction (electronic) (London: Routledge), pp.1-40.

Hindmoor, A. (2006) Rational Choice (New York: Palgrave).

Hollis and Smith, ‘The Games Nations Play (2)’, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, pp.171-95.

Hollis, M. (1996) ‘The Ant and the Grasshopper’ and ‘A rational agent’s gotta do what a rational agent’s gotta do!’, in Reason in Action (Cambridge: CUP), pp.60-1; 80-87.

Hollis, Reason in Action, Ch.2, 3 and 5.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 3-20.

Little, Ch.3, ‘Rational Choice Theory’, pp. 39-67.

Olson, C. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Osbourne, M.J. (2004) An Introduction to Game Theory (New York: OUP).

Oström, E. (1992) ‘Covenants with and without the sword: Self-governance is possible’, The American Political Science Review, 86(2), pp.404-17.

Oström, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., and Policansky, ‘Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges’, Science, 284, 9 April 1999, pp.278-82.

Root (1993) Ch5, ‘Rational choice theories in positive and normative economics’, pp.100-23.

Rosenberg (1995) Ch. 6, ‘Individualism’s Invisible Hands’, pp. 153-87.

Schelling, T. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), Ch.1 (pp.3-20) and Ch. 10 (pp.230-54).

Sen, A. (1982) ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory’ in his Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford: Blackwell).

Stone, R.W. (2001) ‘The use and abuse of game theory in international relations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(2), pp.216-44.

Ward, H. (2005) ‘Rational Choice’ in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds) Theory and Methods in Political Science (Basingstoke: Macmillan), Ch.3.

Week 5

Interpretation and understanding in social science (Milena Kremakova)

‘Is the meaning of others’ behaviour what they mean by it? (Fay 1996: 136)In this session, we discuss alternatives to positivist social science: interpretative approaches which distinguish it from natural science, and critical realism which seeks the middle ground between rationalism and interpretativism. Interpre(ta)tive sociologies have their origins in the neo-Kantian critique of sociological positivism and economic deretminism in the social sciences. The umbrella term ‘intpretativism’ (German: verstehende Soziologie, from ‘verstehen’: understand, comprehend) includes a range of very different approaches which are unified by the argument that, unlike natural science which studies a domain of objects lacking intrinsic meaning, the meanings and understandings of actors play a central part for social science. Interpretative social scientists see social science as intertwined with the reality which it studies. They see the social and cultural world as a milieu of meaning, are especially interested in those elements of reality which are conflicting or contested by different societal agents. Examples of authors in the interpretative tradition include Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Alfred Schütz, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Peter Winch, Howard Becker, Claude Levi-Strauss and others.

In turn, Realism, notably a strand of it known as Critical Realism, seeks a middle ground between positivism and interpretivism. Critical Realism seeks to provide a theoretical underpinning for social science that has stressed its affinities with the natural sciences without losing the grasp on interpretation of meanings. Critical realists acknowledge that the existence of human agency and the limited possibilities for experiment in social science make it difficult to locate and identify these structures. In this session, we discuss realist arguments, on the example to a debate between Andrew Sayer and John Holmwood about the relationship between capitalist and bureaucratic structures, on the one hand, and gender structures, on the other.
Seminar questions

1. Are there aspects of social life which are not socially constructed? What are they?

2. Is it possible to incorporate a concern with actors’ meanings while still allowing that there are causes operating in the social world?

3. Can social action be explained as rule following?

4. Is ‘Verstehen’ a form of ‘empathetic’ understanding, or something else?

4. Are realists correct that experiments cannot be a key tool for social science? Are there alternatives to experiment that social science can employ?

5. How persuasive is Holmwood’s critique of Sayer?

Essential Reading:

[Good all-round summary] Benton, T & Craib, I. 2001. Philosophy of Social Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Ch.5.

[Interpretivism] Berger, P. and T Luckmann, 1966. The Social Construction of Reality (Anchor), ch. 1 (a PDF of the whole book is available online here: http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reality.pdf)

[Critical Realism] Sayer, Andrew 2000. ‘System, Lifeworld and Gender: Associational versus Counterfactual Thinking,’ Sociology 34 (4): 705-725.

Further Reading:

Good general treatments of 'hermeneutics' or 'interpretative' social inquiry are:

Benton and Craib, ‘Rationality as rule-following’, Chapter 6, pp.93-106.Berger, P. L. (1963) Invitation To Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. (chapter 1 is available online here http://www.sociosite.net/topics/texts/berger.pdf)

Outhwaite, W. 1975. Understanding Social Life: the Method Called Verstehen (Allen and Unwin) Chs 2, 5, 6

David, M. (2010) Methods of Interpretive Sociology (SAGE Benchmarks in Social Research Methods), SAGE (ch.1 which has a historical timeline of interpretative approaches is available online here http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/35377_Davidvolume_1.pdf

Delanty, G. and Strydom, P. (2003) (eds) Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings, texts from Dilthey, Simmel, Winch, Gadamer and Ricoeur (pp.99-181).

Fay, B. (1996) Ch.7, ‘Is the meaning of others’ behaviour what they mean by it? Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science (Oxford: Blackwell).

Gadamer, H-G 1986. ‘The Historicity of Understanding’ in K. Mueller-Vollmer (ed) The Hermeneutics Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp.216-250.

Hollis, ‘Understanding Social Action’ (pp.142-162) and ‘Self and Roles’ (163-182).

MacIntyre, A. ‘The idea of a social science’, in A. Ryan (ed) The Philosophy of Social Explanation, pp.15-32.

Mottier, Veronique. 2005. The interpretive turn: history, memory and storage in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative social research, vol.6, No.2, May 2005. Available online here: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/456/972.

Rosenberg, Ch. 4, ‘Interpretation’, pp.90-123.

Warnke, G. 1987. Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition and Reason. Oxford: Polity

Weber, M. 1922. ‘Science as a Vocation’. (Wissenschaft
 als 
Beruf, ‘
from
 Gesammlte
Aufsaetze
 zur 
Wissenschaftslehre’ 
(Tubingen,
 1922), 
pp.
524‐55.
 Originally
 delivered
 as 
a 
speech 
at 
Munich
University, 
1918. English translation available online here: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/X/WeberScienceVocation.pdf

Weber, Max The Nature of Social Action in Runciman, W.G. 'Weber: Selections in Translation' Cambridge University Press, 1991. p7.Winch, P. (1990 [1958]) The Idea of a Social Science and its relation to philosophy, (electronic) (2nd edition) (London: Routledge), Ch.1, pp.1-39 (see also Winch, P. 1974. ‘The idea of a social science’ in B.R. Wilson (ed) Rationality, Oxford: Blackwell).

In the conservatism of interpretation, and a critique of that position, see:

Habermas, J. 1970. 'On systematically distorted communication' Inquiry 13 (3)

Gadamer, H-G 1976. 'On the scope and function of reflection' in Philosophical Hermeneutics (U of California Press)

Gadamer, H-G 1986. 'Rhetoric, hermeneutics and the critique of ideology' in K. Mueller-Vollmer (ed) The Hermeneutics Reader (Blackwell)

Outhwaite, W. 1987. New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory (Macmillan) Chs 4, 5

On Critical Realism, see:

Archer, M. 1996. ‘Social integration and system integration: developing the distinction,’ Sociology 30 (4): 679-699.

Collier, A. 1994. ‘Experiment and Depth Realism’ in Critical realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy (Verso)

[Critical Realism] Holmwood, John 2001. ‘Gender and Critical Realism: A Critique of Sayer,’ Sociology 35 (4): 947-965.

For criticisms of ‘Critical Realism’ in social science see:

Kemp, S. 2005. ‘Critical Realism and the Limits of Philosophy,’ European Journal of Social Theory 8 (2): 171-191

King, A. 1999. ‘The Impossibility of Naturalism: The Antinomies of Bhaskar’s Realism,’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29 (3).

‘Critical realism’ has had considerable impact in economics and management. See:

Fleetwood, S. and S Ackroyd 2004. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies (Routledge)

Lawson, T. 1997. Economics and Reality (Routledge)

Reed, M. 2005. 'Reflections on the ‘Realist Turn’ in Organization and Management Studies', Journal of Management Studies, 42 (8): 1621-1644.

Week 6:Reading Week / Presentation Week

In this week, students will be encouraged to give presentations in groups that explore the ontological, epistemological, and methodological debates raised in the module so far for the conduct of research in their disciplines and sub-disciplines. Groups will be assigned in the first two weeks of the module and presentations will also be welcome that bring together a range of disciplinary accounts of a common methodology or theoretical framework such as discourse analysis, game theory, or critical theory.
The session will run 2-3pm in H0.60 and will be for all students (the 3pm and 4pm seminars will be replaced by this session).

Week 7:

Elements of Interpretation: constructivism and the performative (Michael Saward)

“Do our writings and our utterances reflect or describe the world, or do they intervene in it? Do they, perhaps, help to make it? (Loxley 2007).

“To say that ‘representation means this’, pointing to a specific instance or practice, is not the most interesting or important point to make about representation. It is less about pinning down meaning, more about asking how meanings are generated and contested; or … how something absent is rendered as present” (Saward 2010).

A number of approaches in the philosophy of social sciences have stressed the importance of interpreting meanings from social or cultural contexts, including phenomenology, ethnomethodology, constructivism and performativity. In this session, we will focus in particular on the latter two, though many core elements of them derive from the former two. The concept of representation – a critical notion in politics, culture, and other domains – will be used as a case study, specifically Saward’s departure from (a) representation as a social and political feature with a context-independent meaning and reference to (b) a view of representation as a performatively produced social construction.
Seminar Questions:

1. 
   What does it mean to say that a social phenomenon might be ‘socially constructed’?
   
2. 
   What conceptions of language, discourse, and culture are at play in constructivist thinking?
   
3. 
   How can social phenomena, such as gender in the work of Butler, be understood as performatively produced?
   
4. 
   What are the main strengths and weaknesses of constructivist and performative approaches?
   

Hacking, I. 2000. The Social Construction of What? (Harvard University Press), ch.1

Lynch, M. 1998. ‘Towards a Constructivist Genealogy of Social Constructivism’, in I. Velody and R. Williams (eds), The Politics of Constructionism (Sage)

Loxley, J. 2007. Performativity (Routledge),esp. ch.6.

Saward, M. 2010. The Representative Claim (Oxford University Press), chs. 1 & 2.

Further Reading:

Austin, J.L. 1975. How To Do Things With Words (2^nd edn) (Clarendon Press)

Brassett, J. and C. Clarke. 2012. ‘Performing the Sub-Prime Crisis: Trauma and the Financial Event’. Political Sociology 6 (1): 4-20.

Butler, J. 1990. ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution’, in S. Case (ed) Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre (Johns Hopkins University Press).

Butler, J. 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge)

Butler, J. 2010. ‘Performative Agency’, in Journal of Cultural Economy 3 (2): 147-161.

Callon, M. 2010. ‘Performativity, Misfires and Politics’, in Journal of Cultural Economy 3 (2): 163-169.

Collins, R. 1994. ‘The Microinteractionist Tradition’, in Four Sociological Traditions (Oxford University Press), final chapter.

Schaap, A., S. Thompson, L. Disch, D. Castiglione and M. Saward. 2012. ‘Critical Exchange on Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim’, in Contemporary Political Theory 11: 109–127.

Rosenberg, A. 2012. Philosophy of Social Science (4^th edition) (Westview Press), ch.7.

1. 
   How do marginalised figures (the proletariat, the woman, the subaltern) become the point of view from which criticism can be made? Is it fruitful to rethink academic disciplines from these alternative standpoints?
   
2. 
   Can social research be independent of political values and influences? Can the Marxist, feminist or postcolonial critic avoid replicating that which is being criticised as imperial or colonial in the first place?
   
3. 
   Why do Savage and Burrows say that contemporary social science is in crisis? Can any of the above strands of social science respond to this crisis?
   
4. 
   Is it true that many of methodological tasks once performed by the social sciences are now performed better by commercial agencies situated outside of the academy?
   

Althusser, Louis 1969. ‘Contradiction and Over-Determination’ in For Marx translated by Ben Brewster. London: Penguin Press.

Althusser, Louis 1970. ‘From Capital to Marx’s philosophy’ in L. Althusser, E. Balibar Reading Capital (New Left Books)

Hammersley, M. 2000. Taking Sides in Social Research: Essays on Partisanship and Bias (Routledge) Ch 1

Holmwood, John and Alexander Stewart 1983. ‘The Role of Contradictions in Modern Theories of Social Stratification’, Sociology 17 (2): 234-54.

Marx, Karl 1987 [1845]. The German Ideology: Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy. London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.

Pels, D. 1998. ‘The Proletarian as Stranger’ History of the Human Sci 11 (1): 49-72.
On Feminism:

Grosz, E. 1986. ‘What is feminist theory?’ in C, Pateman, E Gross (eds) Feminist Challenges (Allen and Unwin).

Hawkesworth, M. 1989. ‘Knower, knowing, known: feminist theory and claims of truth’ Signs 14 (3).

Harding, S. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. London: Routledge.

Hartsock, N. 1988. ‘The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism’ in S. Harding (ed) Feminism and Methodology OUP

Spivak, G. C. 1996. ‘Subaltern Studies Deconstructing Historiography’ in D. Landry & G. MacLean (eds) The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Routledge).

Stanley, L. and S. Wise 1993 Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology (Routledge).
On Postcolonialism:

Harding, S. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ch 5

Du Bois, WEB 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. Various imprints

Lemert, C. 1994. 'Dark thoughts about the self' in C. Calhoun (ed) Social Theory and the Politics of Identity (Blackwell)

Collins, Patricia Hill 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Holmwood, John 1995. ‘Feminism and Epistemology: What Kind of Successor Science?’, Sociology 29(3): 411-428.

Phillips, A. 1992. 'Universal pretensions in political thought' in M. Barrett, A. Philips (eds) Destabilising Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates (Polity)

Mohanty, Chandra T. 1988. ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’ Feminist Review Autumn 30: 61-88

Holmwood, John 2010. ‘Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture’. The British Journal of Sociology. 61, 4, pp.639-658.

Holmwood, John and Scott, Scott 2007. ‘Editorial Foreword: Sociology and its Public Face(s)’. Sociology, 41, 5, pp.779-783.

Crompton, Rosemary 2008. ’Forty Years of Sociology’. Sociology, 42, 6, pp.1218-27.

Webber, Richard 2009. ‘Response to “The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology”: An Outline of the Research Potential of Administrative and Transactional Data’. Sociology, 43, 1,

pp.169–78.

Gane, Nicholas 2011. ‘Measure, Value and the Current Crises of Sociology’, Sociological Review, 58, s2, December, pp.151-73.

Burrows, Roger and Gane, Nicholas 2006. ‘Geodemographics, Software and Class’, Sociology, 40, 5, pp.793-812.

Thrift, Nigel 2005. Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage.

Week 9:

Weird science, bad science, and denial (Ed Page)

‘Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons’ (Shermer 2007: 283).

Here we explore the limits of science and the phenomenon of denial. ‘Conspiracies of silence’, ‘political spin’, ‘being economical with the truth’, ‘turning a blind eye’, ‘seeing what you want to see’, ‘selective memory’: scholars across the social sciences have been exercised by how and why individuals, firms, and governments frequently assert that something didn’t happen, does not exist, or is not true despite being aware that these things happened, did exist, and are known about (Cohen 2001). Is the explanation for such denial a matter of psychology, pathology, culture, or political science?
Seminar Questions

1. 
   What is the difference between contesting a social fact, interpretation, or implication?
   
2. 
   What are the arguments of those who deny evolution or the Holocaust? To what extent do they presuppose the rejection of ‘sound-science’?
   
3. 
   Why do (smart) people believe weird things?
   
4. 
   Should all ideas and points of view, even those that are demonstrably false, be tolerated in a free society?
   

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering (Cambridge: Polity), Ch.1,2,3.

Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. (2010) ‘What’s Bad Science? Who Decides?’, in Merchants of Doubt (New York: Bloomsbury), pp.136-68.
Further Reading: denial, conspiracy and memory

Brockman, J. (ed) (2006) Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement (New York: Vintage Books) (see especially articles by Coyne, Dennett, Attran and Kauffman; and the Appendix on the judgment in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case (223-56).

Fine, R. and C. Turner (eds) (2000) Social Theory after the Holocaust , Liverpool University Press, esp. ch.2, Hannah Arendt: Politics And Understanding After The Holocaust, by Robert Fine (chapter 2 available online here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/emeritus/robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/sociologyofholocaust/ch2_fine_in_fine_and_turner_holocaust.pdf)

Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W. and Malone, P.S. (1993) ‘You Can’t Not Believe Everything You Read’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(2), pp.221-33.

Goldacre, B. (2009) ‘Why clever people believe stupid things’, Bad Science (London: Harper Perennial), pp.242-55.

Halbwachs, M. (1992[1925]) The Social Frameworks of Memory, in Lewis A. Coser (ed.), Halbwachs on Collective Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 37-40, 74-83.

Lipstadt, D. (1993) ‘The Antecedents’, in Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (London: Penguin), pp.31-47.

Lipstadt, D. (2005) History on Trial (New York: Harper Perennial).

McGrath, A. (2005) ‘Proof and Faith’, in Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (Oxford: Blackwell), pp.82-118.

Monbiot, G. (2008) ‘A Crusade Against Science’, Guardian (G2), 22 July 2008, pp7-11.

Monbiot, G. (2006) ‘The Denial Industry’, in Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning (London: Penguin), pp.20-42.

Neisser, U. and Fivush, Robyn (1994) The Remembering Self: Construction and Accuracy in the Self-Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Available as e-book at http://webcat.warwick.ac.uk/record=b2524232~S1

Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. (2010) ‘The Denial of Global Warming’, in Merchants of Doubt (New York: Bloomsbury), pp.169-215.

Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. (2010) ‘What’s Bad Science? Who Decides?’, in Merchants of Doubt (New York: Bloomsbury), pp.136-68.

Shermer, M. (2007) Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: Souvenir Press).

Shermer, M. and Grobman, A. (2002) Denying History: Who says the holocaust never happened and why do they say it? (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Shermer, M. (2006) ’Science Under Attack’, in Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York: Henry Holt & Company), pp.89-105.

Zerubavel, E. (2004) Time maps: collective memory and the social shape of the past. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

‘Imagine a situation in which choosing to blow yourself up along with dozens of other people seems like a great idea. How bad must your life be if you think that it is better to be a sacrifice than to live, have a family, and be a productive member of society. Imagine what goes through the minds of people right before they become suicide bombers. Are they scared, are they angry, do they fully understand what they are about to do?’ (Bloom 2005: 1).

This week, we take a closer look at a social phenomenon that raises profound questions for theories of explanation and interpretation: suicide terror. Researchers from a range of social science disciplines have attempted to explain, understand, and interpret suicide missions. Brainwashing, poverty, kin selection, pathology, organisation theory, coercion, cultural and game theory have all been used in this context and yet a sophisticated theory of suicide terror has yet to emerge. Here we explore a closer look at the nature, scope and historical antecedents of suicide terror in order to test the explanatory and interpretive power of alternative theories of social life.
Seminar Questions

1. 
   Do suicide bombers fully understand what they are about to do?Is ‘dying to kill’ ever be reasonable or rational?
   
2. 
   What is the role of terrorist organizations in the execution of suicide missions?
   
3. 
   To what extent can evolutionary psychology explain the behaviour of suicide bombers and the organisations to which they belong?
   

Elster, J. (2005) ‘Motivations and Beliefs in Suicide Missions’, in D. Gambetta (ed) Making Sense of Suicide Missions (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp.233-58.

Moghadam, A. (2006) ‘The Roots of Suicide Terrorism’, in A. Pedahzur (ed) (2006) Root Causes of Suicide Terrorism: The Globalization of Martyrdom (London: Routledge), pp.81-107.

Further reading

Bjorgo, T. (ed) (2005) Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, Realities and Ways Forward (London: Routledge) (especially chapters by Ahmed and Merari).

Bloom, Mia (2005) Dying To Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror (New York: Columbia University Press), Ch.4 (pp.76-105).

Elster, J. (2005) ‘Motivations and Beliefs in Suicide Missions’, in D. Gambetta (ed) Making Sense of Suicide Missions (Oxford: OUP), pp.233-58.

Gambetta, D. (ed) (2005) Making Sense of Suicide Missions (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp.259-99.

Hafez, M.M. (2006) Manufacturing Human Bombs: The Making of Palestinian Suicide Bombers (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press).

Margalit, A. (2003) ‘The Suicide Bombers’, The New York Review of Books 50(1), pp.1-8. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15979.

Moghadam, A. (2006) ‘Suicide Terrorism, Occupation, and Globalization of Martyrdom’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 29, pp.707-29.

Moghadam, A. (2006) ‘The Roots of Suicide Terrorism: A multi-causal approach’, in A.Pedahzur (ed) (2006) Root Causes of Suicide Terrorism: The Globalization of Martyrdom (London: Routledge), pp.81-107.

Pape, R.A. (2006) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (New York: Random House).

Room R3.23 (Ramphal, until Xmas 2015 only)

Email: Davide.Nicolini@wbs.ac.uk

Phone: +44 (0)24 7652 4282

The module aims to address the practical, analytic and intellectual questions related to the collection and analysis of qualitative data. It will alternate taught sessions on the principles, practicalities and issue of using a specific methods with the practical use of the method. In other words, we will practically ‘have a go at’ different qualitative research methods. At the same time, we will reflect upon theoretical issues relating to the practice of doing qualitative research.

The module will position you as qualitative researchers so that the learning will be directly relevant to your future research. This means that the responsibility to carry out the required activity and to solve the inevitable issues that will likely arise sit firmly with you. This will allow you to decide whether this approach –and possibly this career, is right for you. One topic will be addressed per week. The lectures will be delivered by members of the Social Science Faculty, each of whom supplied a list of pre –readings and recommended sources. There is no single recommended core text.

At the end of the module you should expect:

• 
  To understand what are the available options for conducting a “qualitative” piece of social research and how this orientation differs from other traditions.
  
• 
  To have gained some understanding and first-hand experience of the different ways to collect and analyse qualitative data.
  
• 
  To understand what are (some of) the affordances, challenges and issues associated with each method so that you can make an informed choice when designing your own PhD project.
  

The module is assessed via a 3000 word essay assignment. The question will be issued and discussed during the introductory class on 13^th January. The submission date for the essay assignment is Friday 15th April 2016.

This session poses the simple question, what is ‘qualitative’ about qualitative research? It is a session about practical and intellectual boundaries: what links ‘qualitative researchers’ whilst distancing them from other scholars? This will be addressed positively and critically. Positively, we shall consider similar things qualitative researchers practically do and similar ways they think and talk about their work. We will also think critically about the question and explore the differences among qualitative scholars. Will conclude by problematizing the established but in many ways increasingly problematic label of “qualitative research” noting that this category increasingly brings together very unlikely bedfellows.

Halfpenny, P. (1979). Analysing Qualitative Data. The Sociological Review, 27(4): 799-827.

Silverman ,D. (2007). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Qualitative Research. London: Sage. (At least chapter 1 ‘Innumerable Inscrutable habit: Why Unremarkable Things Matter’).

Jovanovic, G. (2011). Towards a Social History of Qualitative Research. History of the Human Sciences, 24(2): 1-27.

The session will cover three main aspects of case study design: case definition, case(s) selection principles, and study process. The purpose is to offer an overview of relevant considerations when developing a case study design. First, the session will present different ways of thinking and defining the case as an instance of the phenomenon studied. Second, it will give an overview of different case selection techniques and consider the implications of such selection. Lastly, it will cover different ways of organising the case study process.

Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (chapters 2-5, especially 5)

Ragin, C.C. 1992. "Introduction: Cases of "What Is a Case?"," in: What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, C.C. Ragin and H.S. Becker (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-17.
3. Doing Research Interviews – Chris Warhurst

This session is designed to introduce participants to the nature of the qualitative research interview and to provide the practical knowledge and skills that will allow them to use this as a method for gathering data. The lecture will introduce the research interview and discuss different forms of interview. As well as identifying a number of ‘dilemmas’ which can provide the basis for a critical and reflective approach to qualitative interviewing, it will consider ‘parameters of sensitivity’ designed to help participants develop a reflective approach to carrying out, analysing and reporting on qualitative interviews. The workshop will focus on the practicalities of research interviewing (developing an interview guide, setting up, question types and strategies, degrees of directiveness, etc.) and interview evaluation. It will provide the tools not only for conducting interviews but also for improving and refining interview technique.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003) Business Research Methods, Oxford: OUP, chs. 5 & 15.

Gillham, B. (2000) The Research Interview, London: Continuum.

Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2): 1-30.

Warhurst, C. (1999) Between Market, State and Kibbutz, London: Mansell, Appendix.
4. Analysing Interview Data – Gaby Atfield & Sally-Anne Barnes

This session will introduce participants to the interview data analysis and the process of handling, interpreting and understanding data collected through a variety of interview methods. The lecture will introduce different processes, techniques and theories for analysing interview data and summarising the results – both inductive and deductive processes. It will focus on coding, identification of themes, interpretation, testing theory and theory building. The second part of the session will be a practical workshop getting participants to start thinking about the analysis process. To support the practical session, it would be helpful if students could read and bring a copy of the following:

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1964). The Social Loss of Dying Patients, The American Journal of Nursing, 64(6), pp. 119-121.

Pre-readings

Charmaz, C. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory, in Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (eds) Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications (pp.675-694).

Packer, M.J. (2011). The science of qualitative research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Analysing Interview Data (part 2) – Sally-Anne Barnes & Gaby Atfield

This session will focus on different approaches to analysing interview data in practice, namely deductive analysis and grounded theory. Validating qualitative analysis and problems with analysing process will be explored. The debates around manual and computer-aided coding will also be explored, as well as the role of the researcher in the analysis process. The second part of the session will again be a practical session getting participants to work with interview data exploring different techniques for analysing and coding data. Participants will be asked to reflect upon the process in terms of their own research and what methods of analysis would be appropriate.

Participants who have interview data and would like to start analysing are welcome to bring to the session. For those who have not undertaken any interviews, transcripts to be used in the session will be available in week 3.

Pre-readings

Coffey, A., Holbrook, B. and Atkinson, P. (1996). Qualitative Data Analysis: Technologies and Representations, Sociological Research Online, 1(1): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html

Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (2012). (eds) Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, (4th Ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
6. Participant observation and Ethnography - Davide Nicolini

This session explores ethnography; a research approach that focuses on researching everyday processes. Documenting and analysing the mundane elements of social process and human interaction is at the centre of ethnographic inquiry. Ethnography has a long history tied to Anthropology but has been applied extensively in a range of social organisations (school, churches, hospitals and bars) as well as public sector bodies and corporations. We will explore the planning, approaches to data collection, the role of the researcher and application of modern technologies in ethnographic investigation.

Star, S, L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 377–391.

John Van Maanen, J. and Deborah Kolb, D. (1983) The Professional: Observations on fieldwork roles in two organizational settings. In S.B. Bacharach (ed) Perspectives in Organizational Sociology, Vol. 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1-33.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practices, (2nd Edition) London: Routledge. Chapters 1, 8 and 9.

3 hours of general discussion of GTM Paradigm

3 hour hand-on coding workshop

This one-day workshop explores classic grounded theory as a research approach enabling emergent theory development from data. The workshop will explain what grounded theory is, and how it has and can be done. We will go through the steps of Grounded Theory Method (GTM) making sure key concepts of theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, and constant comparison are clarified. In addition tools like “memoing” would be discussed. We will also clarify and debate the strengths and weakness of this method as well as novel developments with the use of mixed-methods. Finally, we will discuss publishing “grounded theory” studies.

The afternoon session is the space for the students to do their own thematic coding of data they have collected previously. Behind identifying themes we will discuss how further data collection would be shaped by emergent findings and the role of extant literature in data analysis and writing. This will be a hands-on workshop where participants will play with their data under the supervision of the faculty involved.

Required Pre-Readings:

Walsh, et al., 2015 “What grounded theory is… A critically reflective conversation among scholars,” Organizational Research Methods, (published online January 2015)

Commentary by Locke, Corley, and Dougherty in Organizational Research Methods (published online in March 2015: )

Rejoinder by Walsh et al. “Rejoinder: Moving the Management Field Forward,” in Organizational Research Methods (published online in June 2015).

Birks et al., 2013 “Grounded theory method in information systems research: its nature, diversity and opportunities” Editorial for European Journal of IS, 22(1):1-8. (skim)

Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. AMR 14(4):532-550.

Holton J., “The Coding Process and Its Challenges” in The Grounded Theory Review (2010), vol.9, no.1
8. Visual Methods in social research - Jeanne Mengis

Nowhere is the inseparability of theory, technology and method more apparent than in the recent rise of visual methodologies in the social sciences. The latest theoretical developments of our fields are co-implicated with the technological developments and media practices that shape our empirical studies. Today, a variety of visual methods are used for data collection and analysis, ranging from photography- and video-based studies to visual mapping techniques, sketching, or direct visualization techniques (e.g. geomedia-based visualizations of social relations).

In this half-day seminar, the student will practically engage with two, more widely used visual methods, namely photography- and video-based research. We will address and experience practical challenges the researcher faces, such as how to use visual material in the interaction with research participants, when and how to video-record (e.g. how to combine with other methods, when to turn camera on/off, who makes the recording, what camera position, angle and camera movement to deploy), and how to analyze the (moving) image. We will then critically reflect upon the implications these merely technical choices have for the manifestation, understanding and theorizing of our object of inquiry.

Selected References

Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. Sage.

Knoblauch, H., Baer, A., Laurier, E., Petschke, S., & Schnettler, B. (2008). Visual analysis. New developments in the interpretative analysis of video and photography. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, (Vol. 9, No. 3).

Mengis, J., Gorli, M., & Nicolini, D. The Video Production of Space: How Different Recording Practices Matter (under review)

Pink, S. (2007). Doing Visual Ethnography. Sage.

Pink, S. (2009). Visual Interventions: Applied Visual Anthropology (Vol. 4). Berghahn Books.

Pink, S. (Ed.). (2012). Advances in visual Methodology. Sage.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. Sage.

Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (Eds.). (2001). The Handbook of Visual Analysis. Sage.

Yanow, Dvora (2014) Methodological ways of seeing and knowing. In: Bell, E., Warren, S. and Schroeder, J. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization, Chapter 11, pp. 165-187, Routledge

Discourse analysis is a transdisciplinary field which investigates the social production of meaning. In this session, we will discuss theoretical orientations and methodological choices available to the discourse researcher. Our focus will be on the social uses that can be made of language, i.e. on the way signs, utterances and texts contribute to the construction of the social.

Angermuller, Johannes/Maingueneau, Dominique/Wodak, Ruth (eds) (2014): The Discourse Studies Reader. Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

http://johannes-angermuller.net/pub/html/AngermullerMaingueneauWodak2014Reader.html

Angermüller, Johannes (2012): Fixing meaning. The many voices of the post-liberal hegemony in Russia. Journal of Language and Politics, 11 (2), 115-134

http://johannes-angermuller.net/pub/html/Angermueller2010FixingMeaning.html

2013a: "How to become a philosopher. Academic discourse as a multi-levelled positioning practice", Sociología histórica 3: 263-289

http://johannes-angermuller.net/pub/html/Angermuller2013Howtobecomeaphilosopher.html
10. Documentary Analysis – David Arnott

Documentary analysis is a collective term for methods of sampling and analysing populations of documentary evidence. However, documents take many forms – public records, the media, private papers, company reports and accounts, case studies, biographies, diaries, narratives, recollections, social histories, to mention just a few, and they may be episodic or continuous in nature. The range of approaches to analysis is equally diverse. This session will focus on two interrelated techniques: Content Analysis and Grounded Theory

Kassarjian, H.H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 4(1). 8-18.

Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 22(1). 28-37.

Binder, M. & Edwards, J.S. (2010). Using grounded theory method for theory building in operations management research: A study on inter-firm relationship governance. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 30(3). 232-259.

Dr Richard Lampard

Sociology

D0.11 (Social Sciences)

024 765 23130

Richard.Lampard@warwick.ac.uk
Sessions:

Thursday 9.30am – 12.45pm

(Break ~11.00am-11.15am)

Term 2 (Weeks 1 to 10)