One-week intensive workshop at the University of Oslo
Place: Eilert Sundts hus, Blindern, room TBA
Time: 10-15pm
This course prepares and guides PhD students in political science for advanced fieldwork. We examine methods and techniques for generating data in the field, broadly defined, and how to apply scientific principles for measurement, analysis and inference using such data. The course is primarily oriented toward qualitative research, but has important applications for quantitative empirical studies as well.
The course is organized as a one-week intensive workshop. Every day will consist of two interactive lectures and one structured class discussion. The lectures will be a combination of discussion of the readings and individual and group exercises to relate the topics of discussion to participants’ own research interests. Each day ends with short presentations of participant’ research notes, followed by comments from the rest of the class.
Only a few years ago there used to be few text books relevant for fieldwork in political science. This has changed, and there are now many books that may be useful for PhD students. The compulsory readings for this course consist of one text book, the NESH guidelines for research ethics, and targeted readings assigned for each session. You must complete the readings prior to the workshop and come prepared to discuss the assigned readings.
We have also listed several recommended readings. You should have a look at the recommended readings, and read more carefully those that are particularly relevant for your own project.
Compulsory readings:
Kapiszewski, D., MacLean, L. M., & Read, B. L. (2015). Field research in political science: Practices and principles. Cambridge University Press. [online access through UiO]
The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) (2022). Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. [online access through the NESH website]
Lecture-specific readings, see schedule below.
Recommended books:
Mosley, Layna, ed (2013). Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University Press, 2013. [online access through UiO]
Fujii, L. A. (2017). Interviewing in social science research: A relational approach. Routledge.
Krause, P., & Szekely, O. (Eds.). (2020). Stories from the Field: A Guide to Navigating Fieldwork in Political Science. Columbia University Press. [partial online access through Google Books]
Simmons, E. S., & Smith, N. R. (Eds.). (2021). Rethinking Comparison. Cambridge University Press. [online access through UiO]
Widner, J., Woolcock, M., & Nieto, D. O. (2022). The Case for Case Studies. [online access through UiO]
Fairfield, T., & Charman, A. E. (2022). Social Inquiry and Bayesian Inference: Rethinking Qualitative Research. Cambridge University Press. [online access through UiO]
Schedule and lecture-specific readings
Monday January 16th
Morning 10-12
- Getting started
- Descriptive and causal inference in qualitative research
Afternoon 13-15
- Selecting cases, sites, and sources
- Discuss proposals
Readings:
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (2021). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton university press. Kapittel 1.
Blatter, Joachim og Till Blume (2008): In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies. Swiss Political Science Review 14, 2: 315–56.
Gerring, John (2017). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3.
Recommended:
Seawright, Jason og John Gerring (2008). “Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options”, Political Research Quarterly 61, 2: 294-308.
Soss, J. (2021). On casing a study versus studying a case. In Simmons & Smith eds. Rethinking Comparison: Innovative Methods for Qualitative Political Inquiry. CUP.
Tuesday January 17th
Morning 10-12
- What is data and how do you choose what to get?
- Interviews
- Positionality
Afternoon 13-15
- Observation
- Discuss proposals
Readings:
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: techniques for semistructured interviews. Political Science & Politics, 35(04):665–668.
Woliver, L. R. (2002). Ethical dilemmas in personal interviewing. Political Science & Politics, 35(04): 677–678.
Fujii, L. A. (2010). Shades of truth and lies: Interpreting testimonies of war and violence. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2):231–241.
Scoggins, S. E. (2014). Navigating fieldwork as an outsider: Observations from interviewing police officers in China. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(02):394–397.
Sirnate, V. (2014). Positionality, Personal Insecurity, and Female Empathy in Security Studies Research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 398-401. doi:10.1017/S1049096514000286
Recommended:
Chauchard, S. (2014). Can Descriptive Representation Change Beliefs about a Stigmatized Group? Evidence from Rural India. American Political Science Review, 108:403–422.
Weeks, A. C. (2018). Why Are Gender Quota Laws Adopted by Men? The Role of Inter-and Intraparty Competition. Comparative Political Studies, 51(14), 1935-1973.
Wednesday January 18th
Morning 10-12
- Working in archives [MBH]
- Using captured and contested sources: challenges for ethics and inference
Afternoon 13-15
- Collecting and recording metadata
- Discuss proposals [FRJ]
Readings:
Christopher Darnton (forthcoming). “The Provenance Problem: Research Methods and Ethics in the Age of WikiLeaks,” American Political Science Review.
Christopher Darnton (Winter 2017/18) “Archives and Inference: Documentary Evidence in Case Study Research and the Debate over U.S. Entry into World War II,” International Security 42:3.
Recommended:
Tilly, Charles. "Why and how history matters." The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis (2006): 417-437.
Rekdal, Ole Bjørn. "Academic urban legends." Social Studies of Science 44.4 (2014): 638-654.
Braut-Hegghammer, Målfrid. "Cheater's Dilemma: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Path to War." International Security 45.1 (2020): 51-89.
Thursday January 19th
Morning 10-12
- Rich description for explanation and conceptualization
Afternoon 13-15
- Access and research ethics
- Discuss proposals
Readings:
Guillemin, Jeanne. Anthrax: the investigation of a deadly outbreak. Univ of California Press, 2001. Preface and pp. 1-49.
Kaminski, Marek M. "Games prisoners play: Allocation of social roles in a total institution." Rationality and Society 15.2 (2003): 188-217.
Recommended:
Bevir, Mark, and Asaf Kedar. “Concept Formation in Political Science: An Anti-Naturalist Critique of Qualitative Methodology.” Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 3 (2008): 503–517.
Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, Unclear Physics: Why Iraq and Libya failed to acquire nuclear weapons, Cornell University Press, 2016, chapter 3.
Wood, E. J. (2007). Field research during war: Ethical dilemmas. In New Perspectives in Political Ethnography, pages 205–223. Springer.
Friday January 20th
Morning 10-12
- Preparing for the field
- Leaving the field / repeat visits
- Data processing after fieldwork
- Writing with and writing about your data
Afternoon 13-15
- Discuss proposals
- Wrapping up the week
Readings:
LaPorte, J. (2014). Confronting a crisis of research design. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 414-417.
Guillemin, Jeanne. Anthrax: the investigation of a deadly outbreak. Univ of California Press, 2001, pp. 240-262.
Symposium: Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, Spring 2015, Vol. 13, No. 1