SOCW 516: Research Methodologies (MSWI)

THIS IS A SAMPLE OUTLINE.

ACTUAL COURSE OUTLINE MAY VARY IN STRUCTURE, REQUIRED READINGS,

TEXTS AND ASSIGNMENTS

“…the deeper I submerge myself into tribal knowledge systems the more I resist Western ways

of knowing as a given for all academic research, even though I know that this demands a long

swim against a strong current.”

(Kovach, 2009)

Course Description:

In this course we review the foundations of social research practice (ontology/worldview,

epistemology, paradigm and perspective), with an emphasis on critical, Indigenous, feminist and

poststructural ideas. All students have the chance to learn the basics of some research

methodologies commonly used in social work, and to understand the ethical and political

challenges of socially just research. Students choose either a thesis or evaluation stream for

completion of the course.

Class Time and Location:

SOCW 516 is a distance course taught via Coursespaces. It follows a unit-per-week schedule,

with the expectation that students will move through the course on this basis within outlined time

frames.

Course Intentions:

The course provides you with the basics of a socially just approach to social work research

and/or evaluation. Social work research is an immense area and it is not possible to cover all

relevant approaches to research or evaluation in one course. Students have the opportunity to

consider the opportunities and challenges presented by various approaches to knowledge creation

(ontologies and epistemologies), and explore the fit between their topic(s) (what you are

interested in researching), methodologies (ways of conceptualizing research) and methods (ways

of carrying out research). Course-based students have the opportunity to consider the

opportunities and challenges presented by various ways in which policies, programs and practice

might be evaluated. All students should understand that successfully completing research or

evaluation requires knowledge acquisition and skill development beyond what is offered in this

course. This course provides a solid foundation for beginning exploration and further learning.

By the completion of this course, you will be able to:

1. Critically reflect on your location/positionality (factors such as class, race, gender, ability,

sexual orientation) and life history (with special attention to your previous encounters with

research) and how these influence your perceptions, assumptions, beliefs and attitudes about

research.

2. Critically analyse the basic assumptions and implications of research methodologies: what

assumptions about reality, knowledge and worldview does each entail?

3. Identify and describe a range of research methodologies, including the underlying

assumptions of various approaches, and their strengths and limitations, especially with

reference to their applicability for social justice work.

4. Thesis students:

Identify the tasks and processes required to formulate a researchable topic or

question, to design relevant research strategies, to select pertinent data sources,

data collection and data analysis methods.

Course-based students:

Explain the basics of a socially-just approach to evaluation/needs assessment;

Describe the major uses of evaluation/needs assessment;

Identify the tasks and processes required to: formulate an evaluation proposal or

needs assessment;design relevant data collection and data analysis methods;

and select pertinent data sources.

5. Critically analyse methods for assessing and evaluating qualitative research.

6. Compare and contrast the political and ethical dilemmas posed by various research

approaches, with special attention to the self of the researcher.

7. Critically reflect on your knowledge base about qualitative research, your ability to

understand critique and use relevant research literature, and your plan for additional learning.

Educational method: This course utilizes adult learning principles – students (and instructor)

are expected to think critically, be self-reflective, and take considerable responsibility for their

own learning. While the instructor takes responsibility for the overall structure of the course, for

some content and for student assessment, students are responsible for some of the content and for

actively and continuously engaging in learning. We anticipate that students will contribute to

class learning by sharing their knowledge, experience, ideas and reflections, and by making the

class a safe and respectful place in which others can do the same.

Doing well in the course: Students who hope to achieve a grade of B+ or higher should expect

to work a minimum of 6 – 9 hours per week (on average) on the course – though the amount of

time you spend will of course depend on factors like the reading, writing and analytical abilities

you bring to the course. It is a somewhat packed course, which is necessitated by it being the

only research course most MSW students take.

Pre-requisite skills: In order to benefit from and succeed in this course, you need some key

skills. The units are intended to contribute to your existing abilities to:

1. Read academic texts effectively; i.e., understand within reasonable time;

2. Write academic essays;

3. Summarize extensive pieces of academic writings;

4. Paraphrase extensive pieces of academic writings.

5. Synthesise information from different sources.

Required Texts:

Strega, S. & Brown, L. (2015). Research as resistance: Revisiting critical,

Indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches, 2nd edition. Toronto: Canadian Scholars

Press.

Readings posted or linked on the course site or (in the case of some journal articles)

accessible through the UVIC library site. If no link is provided, please search through the

UVIC library system (use SUMMON or Google Scholar database OR search on journal

name, then choose correct volume and issue).

Request for Accommodation: If you need assistance in order to fully participate and complete

the assignments due to disability or for any other reason, please discuss this with me as close to

the outset of the course as possible. Accommodation requests received on or after the due date of

an assignment are not accepted and late penalties will apply. All School policies on

accommodation, grading, submitting assignments, participation, course evaluation, grading, etc.

can be accessed at: http://www.uvic.ca/hsd/socialwork/current/msw/policies/index.p

Please note Faculty of Graduate Studies policies that apply to all graduate students:

http://web.uvic.ca/calendar2014-09/GRAD/index.html

Plagiarism and Academic Integrity: Plagiarism involves using other people’s work without

due acknowledgement, irrespective of the site where the author’s work is published or posted

electronically. Plagiarism may be done deliberately or unwittingly. Either way, it constitutes a

serious act of academic misconduct and will result in failure in the course – NO EXCEPTIONS.

Students at this level of study should understand this very well. If you are unclear about what

constitutes plagiarism and how you might prevent it from occurring, consult the most recent

edition of the university calendar.

Multiple submission: Students cannot submit work that they have previously used in identical

or similar form in other courses to fulfill any assignment in this course.

Submitting Assignments: This course has three assignments, as shown in the table. Students

are welcome to submit assignments in advance of the posted due dates. Submit all assignments

electronically to the appropriate Assignment Dropbox on the course site as a Word document

file. Assignments submitted using other file formats will be returned for resubmission and late

penalties will be assessed. Please use the assignment number and your last name as the name of

the file. For example, when I submit Assignment #1, the file name would be: 1 Strega.doc.

Late Assignments: A student who is unable to meet an assignment deadline due to illness,

accident, or family affliction may be eligible for an extension. Except in exceptional

circumstances, extensions must be negotiated prior to the assignment due date or the penalty for

late assignments will be applied: a grade level penalty during the first week (or portion) of

lateness (e.g. from A- to a B+, or B+ to a B) and a further grade level penalty during the second

week (or portion) of lateness. Assignments are not accepted two weeks after the due date (hence

a failing grade of N assigned for the course).

Please note that extensions CANNOT be given for the final assignment due to university

deadlines for submission of marks. If you are unable to complete the final assignment by

the due date, you will need to apply for an academic concession and provide the

appropriate supporting paperwork for a deferral prior to the assignment due date.

Assignment Basics: While each assignment has specific grading criteria, all your work should

demonstrate that you are familiar with and able to integrate course and outside material; that you

are able to understand and critically analyse the material and your learning experiences; that you

have critically self-located; and that you have addressed the individual components of the

assignments with intellectual honesty.

Papers should be thoroughly proofread and corrected before submission. Papers must

adhere to APA formatting requirements (i.e. 12-point font, double-spaced, 1 inch

margins, page numbers, running header, etc.). Correct APA style and referencing system

is required for all in-text and bibliographical references. Grammar, style (organization,

flow, cogency and coherency) and referencing are considered in grading. If you are not

familiar with APA referencing and style, please consult the APA guide on the UVIC

library website.

Please review the Writing Expectations document on the course site. Resources to

support writing and critical reflection are provided or linked on the course site.

Additional resources and support is available through the Centre for Academic

Communication: http://www.uvic.ca/learningandteaching/home/home/centre/

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are welcome to draw from your discussion posts (including

“cut-and-paste”) when completing any assignment in the course. Material from

discussion posts by your colleagues can also be used, and should be cited in APA format.

Assignment and

Description

Due Date and Time Percent of

Final Mark

#1 – Critical Reflection 15%

#2 – Literature Review 25%

#3A – Research

Proposal OR

#3B - Evaluation

Proposal

40%

Participation &

Contributions

Ongoing – Assessed after Unit 5 and at end of the

course

20%

Assignment #1 – Critical reflection: What ground am I standing on?

Intentions: The purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to consolidate your

learning from the first three units into an exploration of your beliefs and attitudes about research

and the sorts of research questions and topics that interest you. It can provide a basis for your

work in other assignments in the course.

Length: 6-8 double-spaced pages, exclusive of references.

Instructions: Drawing on the course materials in the first three units to support your work, write

a critically reflective piece describing:

The sorts of research or evaluation questions that particularly interest you, and how these

interests are shaped and influenced by your social location/positionality;

How you position yourself in relation to research/as a researcher, including where you

locate yourself ontologically and epistemologically – and why;

Your understanding of a socially just approach to research, and how this understanding is

impacted by your social location/positionality.

Grading criteria:

Extent to which your paper addresses each assignment component (approximately equal

attention to each of the 3 components)

Extent to which your engagement with course materials is demonstrated within your

paper (no minimum or specified number of materials)

Extent to which your paper demonstrates the application of principles of critical

reflection

Extent to which your writing is clear, succinct and well-organized, including correct

grammar, spelling, and APA referencing style

Assignment #2 – Brief Literature Review

Length: 8-10 double-spaced pages, exclusive of references;

Intentions: This assignment develops your skills in finding, analysing, and using published

research. It is intended to assist you in exploring your questions and ideas around research

methodologies through a critical analysis of existing research on a topic that interests you. This

assignment allows you to:

Critically analyse assumptions about reality, knowledge, politics and values underlying

and embedded within research and scholarly writing;

Begin to understand the tasks and processes required to formulate research or evaluation

questions, design relevant research strategies, and select pertinent data sources, data

collection and data analysis methods

Begin to critically analyse methods for assessing and evaluating qualitative research

Compare and contrast the political and ethical dilemmas posed by various research

approaches

Overview: In this assignment you are asked to locate, summarize and synthesize some of

the existing empirical knowledge about the topic or question or policy or program or

intervention that will be the focus of your final assignment. The ability to effectively

navigate, analyse and summarize relevant published research is a key practice skill that,

post-graduation, will be useful on all levels from the micro to the macro.

What is a literature review? It is a synthesis and critical analysis of significant literature

published on a particular issue or topic. A literature review is not an annotated bibliography,

which is simply a sequential list of relevant publications, each of which is briefly summarized.

The writer of a literature review is thinking about all the surveyed research at once, rather than

sequentially, so that areas of agreement and disagreement can be talked about together.

Additional information about literature reviews is posted on the course site. Note: your literature

review can be included in a condensed form in your final assignment.

Recommended Steps

1. Find existing information relevant to your interest by scanning the literature using the

databases accessible via the UVIC library (though you are welcome to go further afield).

2. Identify among the published literature a minimum of 3-5 readings that significantly inform

your topic, e.g. information that is adds to, confirms, and/or challenges your existing

thoughts. Students are welcome to use theses or published evaluation reports for some or all

of their readings.

3. Critically analyze these readings, with particular attention to areas of agreement and

disagreement.

a. Identify any trends in what has been published about your topic: what

“conversations” are taking place in the literature?

b. Explain briefly what is and is not known, discussed or not discussed about the

topic.

c. Note whether the topic is being written about by insiders to it, or by those who are

outside the experience or phenomenon.

i. Consider the impact of researcher positionality on choice of methodology,

report of findings and researcher analysis (often called “discussion” in

journal articles)

ii. Show what consideration if any has been given to the ethical and political

issues involved with conducting research or evaluation in this area/on this

topic.

4. Overall you are seeking to explain some ways the topic has been researched, looking

especially for those ways likely to be compatible with what you are proposing to do OR

identifying a gap in how a topic has been investigated.

Grading criteria:

Extent to which your paper addresses each assignment component (approximately

equal attention to each of the 3 components listed in Step #3)

Extent to which your engagement with course materials is demonstrated through

your critical analysis of the literature (no minimum or specified number of

materials)

Extent to which your writing is clear and succinct and well-organized, including

correct grammar, spelling, and APA referencing style

Assignment #3 – Thesis or evaluation proposal

Recommended Length: 12-14 double spaced pages, excluding references

3A – Thesis Proposal

Assignment #3A provides an opportunity to “try out” one research methodology as preparation

for your thesis work. It requires that you demonstrate familiarity and expertise with one

methodology and apply it to a research topic of your choice. In order to prepare for writing this

assignment, please review the guide to preparing a thesis proposal on the School of Social Work

web site:

http://www.uvic.ca/hsd/socialwork/assets/docs/msw/QualitativeSocialWorkThesis.pdf

Recommended steps

o Identify a topic you are interested in researching.

o Prepare a research proposal that uses one of the research methodologies covered in the course.

The proposal must include:

o A clear statement of the research question (your topic)

o A clear statement of your relationship to the topic: Why are you interested? What are the

implications of who you are for taking up this research?

o A very brief statement on the purpose and significance of the proposed research in the

context of the existing literature (= very brief literature review)

o This is where you explain why your research is important

o Keep this section short – recommended length 2 pages

o A description of the research design, with emphasis on describing the methodology (include

methods of data collection and data analysis) (this is the “heart” of your proposal). Note:

Once you’ve decided on a methodology, be sure to read/view all of the materials provided in

that unit.

o A rationale for the methodology chosen: explain how the methodology “fits” your

topic.

o A brief description of how the research might be evaluated or assessed

o A brief critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of the methodology, including

issues of social justice politics, research ethics and the self (location/positionality) of

you as the researcher

3B – Evaluation/Needs Assessment Proposal

Because they engage with vulnerable populations, social workers have an ethical obligation to

ensure that programs and/or interventions (for individuals, families, or communities) are needed

and that they are effective. The neoliberal political climate has led to an increased emphasis on

accountability and thus on evaluation. Social workers must be prepared to demonstrate that a

policy, program or intervention is needed, or that a policy, program or intervention is effective.

From a social justice perspective, the political and organizational context of evaluation must also

be taken into account. This assignment provides you with an opportunity to prepare an

evaluation proposal or a needs assessment, using one of the research methodologies covered in

the course, in order to evaluate an existing policy, program or intervention, or to demonstrate that

a proposed program, intervention or policy change is needed.

Recommended steps

Identify a policy, program or intervention that you are interested in evaluating. This can be an

existing policy, program or intervention or a program, policy or intervention for which you want

to demonstrate a need. Keep your focus narrow – for example, evaluate a program within an

agency, not an entire agency.

o Introduce your proposal by providing:

o A clear description of the policy, program or intervention you propose to evaluate. Include

enough information on the organization in which the policy, program or intervention is

currently delivered (or where it might be delivered, if you are making a case for a new

program or policy) that the context is clear to the reader.

o A clear statement of the objectives of your evaluation. Explain here your connection to this

policy, program or intervention.

o A very brief review of the existing literature on the policy, program or intervention (or

policies, programs or interventions that are closely related). You can include prior evaluation

findings (if they exist).

o This is where you explain why the policy, program or intervention is important.

o This is also where you explain the social justice connection.

o Keep this section short – recommended length about 2 pages.

o Explain how you will evaluate the policy, program or intervention OR, in the case of a needs

assessment, how you will assess the need for the policy, program or intervention (this is the

“heart” of your proposal)

o Identify the type of evaluation are you proposing (e.g. process, outcome, needs

assessment, client satisfaction study).

o Identify your evaluation design (e.g. survey, questionnaire, qualitative interviews

using one of the methodologies in the course).

o Describe and provide a rationale for your choice of methodology, data collection

(sampling) and data analysis methods.

o Explain the ethics and politics of the methodology. How does it fit with the organizational

and political context? How does it address social justice concerns?

o Briefly describe how you will evaluate or assess the evaluation.

o Briefly describe the strengths and limitations of the proposed evaluation.

Grading criteria:

Extent to which your paper addresses each assignment component

Extent to which your engagement with course materials is demonstrated through

appropriate use of them in preparing your proposal

Extent to which you make a clear and convincing rationale for each of your

choices

Extent to which your writing is clear, succinct and well-organized, including

correct grammar, spelling, and APA referencing style

Active and Ongoing Participation in the Course: The fourth “assignment” is your ongoing

participation and contributions to the class. This assignment requires that you post, dialogue and

discuss readings, podcasts and other course materials with your colleagues in the virtual

classroom within required time frames. Participation and contribution comprise 20% of your

grade and will be assessed at the mid-point and at the end of the course. Because there are many

students in the class, students will be divided into separate discussion groups early on in the

course and will work in these groups throughout the course, though forums will be open so that

you can “drop in” to other groups. Unless students specifically request otherwise (which it is fine

to do!), the instructor may occasionally also participate in discussions.

Instructions

Post at least one substantive original contribution to your group’s weekly discussion:

your critical analysis and reflection on the week’s course materials (readings, lecture

notes, podcasts and videos), including any questions you wish to discuss or clarify. You

may want to reflect on what you find useful, intriguing or challenging in course materials.

Substantive posts are due no later than 4:30 pm PDT/PST of the Thursday pertaining to a

unit. For example, Unit 2 begins on January 9, so your substantive post must be posted no

later than 4:30 pm January 12. Exception: Substantive posts for the first unit in the

course are due by Sunday, January 8.

Recommended length: 250 words maximum (fewer is fine)

Post at least two brief (= 150 words maximum - fewer is fine) substantive responses to

other students’ postings within your group discussion. Responses must be posted no later

than 8:30 am PDT/PST of the Monday when the following unit begins. For example, Unit

2 responses must be posted no later than 8:30 am January 16. Exception: response posts

are optional for Unit 1.

Grading criteria

Active use of course materials in posts – relevant and contextualized use of materials is

more important than the number you use. Please do not directly quote a resource unless it

is essential to your argument or comment.

o No formal referencing is required though if you are quoting or referencing

specific resource, please make that clear.

Evidence of critical thinking and analysis applied to readings, other course materials

and discussions.

Engagement with, and respect for, other students’ discussion contributions and

perspectives.

o You are expected to build on other student's contributions by respectfully

raising questions or offering comments that contribute to discussions -

including engaging in the respectful interplay of ideas and offering different

perspectives.

Participation within the assigned time frames. Late posts receive 0 marks unless the

requirements of the School’s lateness policy have been met.

Dates, Class Topic, Readings and Links

Week 1: Coming into research: Thinking through what it means to gather, care for

and share knowledge in a good way

Required readings & viewing

Absolon, K. (2011). Chapter 1: Preparing to Search. In Kaandossiwin: How We

Come to Know (pp. 12-22). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Strega, S. & Brown, L. (2015). From resistance to resurgence (Introduction). In

S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-

16). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Potts, K.L. & Brown, L. (2015). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In S.

Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-

41). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text).

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Fine, M. (1998). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and Other in qualitative

research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 130-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Week 2: Ontologies, epistemologies and paradigms

Required readings & viewing

Battiste, M. (2011). Knowledge as a key site for decolonization. [video file].

Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=Evxpt0u4tOU (7

minutes)

Hart, M.A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The

development of an Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous

Voices in Social Work 1(1), 1-16.

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/15117

Strega, S. (2015). The view from the post-structural margins: Epistemology and

methodology reconsidered. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as

resistance (2nd ed.) (pp. 119-152). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press.

(Course text) (pages 120-131 will be especially helpful)

Walter, M. & Andersen, C. (2013). Conceptualizing quantitative methodologies.

In Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology (pp. 41-57).

Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Almeida, S. (2015). Race-based epistemologies: The role of race and dominance

in knowledge production. Wagadu: a Journal of Transnational Women's and

Gender Studies, 13, 79-105.

Coburn, E., Moreton-Robinson, A., Sefa Dei, G., & Stewart-Harawira, M. (2013).

Unspeakable things: Indigenous research and social science. Socio. La nouvelle

revue des sciences sociales, 2, 331-348. https://socio.revues.org/524

Moreton-Robinson, A. M. & Walter, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies in

social research. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods: An Australian

perspective (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-18). Melbourne, AUS: Oxford University Press.

Week 3: Locating ourselves: Researcher positionality, critical reflexivity and the

practice of transparency in research

Required readings & viewing

Absolon, K. & Willett, C. (2004). Aboriginal research: Berry picking and hunting

in the 21st century. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 1(1), 5-17.

Daley, A. (2010). Reflections on reflexivity and critical reflection as critical

research practices. Affilia, 25(1), 68-82.

Gooden, A. & Hackett, V.C.R. (2012). “Outsider within”: Reflexivity and

working with African Caribbean immigrants in qualitative research. Southern

Journal of Canadian Studies, 5(1-2), 285-303.

https://journals.carleton.ca/sjcs/index.php/sjcs/article/view/37/36

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity

in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.

Kanuha, V.K. (2000). “Being” native versus “going native”: Conducting social

work research as an insider. Social Work, 45(5), 439-447.

Week 4: Research perspectives

Required readings & viewing

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In

N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 257-

277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moosa-Mitha, M. (2015). Situating anti-oppressive theories within critical and

difference-centered perspectives. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), (2nd ed.)

(pp. 65-96). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Wilson, S. (2013). Using Indigenist research to shape our future. In J. Coates &

M. Gray (Eds.) Decolonizing social work (pp. 311-322). Abingdon, UK/New

York, NY: Routledge.

Manning, E. (2015). AIDS, men and sex: Challenges of a genderqueer

methodology. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance (2nd

ed.) (pp. 199-220). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Hesse-Biber, S. N., Leavy, P. & Yaiser, M. (2004). Feminist approaches to

research as a process: Reconceptualizing epistemology, methodology and

method. In. S. N. Hesse-Biber, M. Yaiser & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist

perspectives on social research (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Ford, C. & Airhihenbuwa, C. (2010). The public health critical race methodology:

Praxis for antiracism research. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 1390-1398.

Parker, L. & Lynn, M. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s

conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and

epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1), 7-22.

Week 5: Research ethics

Required readings & viewing

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering

Research Council & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada. (2010). Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit and

Métis Peoples of Canada. In Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for

research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Authors.

http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-

eptc2/chapter9-chapitre9/

Hugman, R., Pittaway, E. & Bartolomei, L. (2011). When ‘do no harm’ is not

enough: The ethics of research with refugees and other vulnerable groups.

British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1271-1287.

Specific to course-based stream:

Coy, M. (2006). This morning I’m a researcher, this afternoon I’m an outreach

worker: Ethical dilemmas in practitioner research. International Journal of

Research Methodology 9(5), 419-431

Patton, M.Q. (2008). Power, politics, and ethics. In Utilization-focused

evaluation (4th ed.) (pp. 523-557). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Specific to thesis stream:

Bhattacharya, K. (2007). Consenting to the consent form: What are the fixed and

fluid understandings between the researcher and the researched? Qualitative

Inquiry, 13(8), 1095-1115.

Wiles, R. Crow, G., Heath, S. & Charles, V. (2008). The management of

confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of

Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417-428.

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Lewis, A. G. ( ). Ethics, activism and the anti-colonial social movement research

as resistance. In K. Gillan & J. Pickerill (Eds.) Research ethics and social

movements (pp. 91-104).

Heckert, J. (2010). Intimacy with strangers/intimacy with self: Queer experiences

of social research. In K. Browne & C. Nash (Eds.), Queer Methods and

Methodologies: Queer Theories and Social Science Research (pp. 41-54).

Sussex, UK: Ashgate.

Week 6: Decolonizing and Indigenous Approaches to research

Required readings & viewing

Smith, L.T. (2012). Introduction. In Decolonizing methodologies: Research and

Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-19). London, UK: Zed Books.

Gaudry, A. (2015). Researching the resurgence: Insurgent research and

community-engaged methodologies in 21st century academic inquiry. In S.

Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as Resistance, 2nd edition (pp. 243-266).

Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Kovach, M. (2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In

S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as Resistance, 2nd edition (pp. 43 -

64). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Course-based students may also wish to read:

Crampton, A. (2015). Decolonizing social work “best practices” through a

philosophy of impermanence. Journal of Indigenous Social Development,

4(1), 1-11.

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Wilson, S. (2008). Can a ceremony include a literature review? In Research is

ceremony (pp. 43-61). Black Point, NS/Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood Publishing.

Hsiung, P-C. (2012). The globalization of qualitative research: Challenging

Anglo-American domination and local hegemonic discourse. Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), Art. 21.

Week 7: Reading Week!

Week 8: Storytelling & Narrative Analysis

Required readings & viewing Ahmed, A. & Rogers, M. (2016). Polly’s story: Using narrative structural analysis

to understand a trans migration journey. Qualitative Social Work,0(00), 1-16.

Fraser, H. & Jarldorn, M. (2015). Narrative research and resistance: A cautionary

tale. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance, 2nd edition (pp.

153-176). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Qwul’sih’yah’maht (Thomas, R.A.) (2015). Honouring the oral traditions of the

Ta’t Mustimuxw (Ancestors) through storytelling. In S. Strega & L. Brown

(Eds.), Research as resistance, 2nd edition (pp. 177-198). Toronto: Canadian

Scholars Press. (Course text)

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Baskin, C. (2005). Storytelling circles: Reflections of Aboriginal protocols in

research. Canadian Social Work Review, 22(2), 171-187.

Evans-Campbell, T., Fredriksen-Goldsen, K.I., Walters, K.L. & Stately, A.

(2007). Caregiving experiences among American Indian Two-Spirit men and

women. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 18(3-4), 75-92.

Week 9: Case studies & thematic analysis

Required readings & viewing

Spath, R., & Pine, B. A. (2004). Using the case study approach for improved

programme evaluations. Child & Family Social Work, 9(1), 57-63.

Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S.

(Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 443-466).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Introduction: How to know whether and when to use case

studies as a research method. In Case study research: Design and methods

(4th ed.) (pp. 2-23). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Week 10: Arts-based research

Required readings & viewing Chin, M., Sakamoto, I. & Bleuer, J. (2014). The dynamics of show and tell: Arts-

based methods and language ideologies in community-based research. Journal

of Community Practice, 22(1-2), 256-273.

Flicker, S., Danforth, J.Y., Wilson, C., Oliver, V., Larkin, J., Restoule, J.P.,

Mitchell, C., Konsmo, E., Jackson, R. & Prentice, T. (2014). “Because we

have really unique art”: Decolonizing research with Indigenous youth using

the arts. Journal of Indigenous Health, 10(1), 16-34.

Sakamoto, I. ( ). The use of arts in promoting social justice. In M. Reisch (Ed.)

The Routledge International Handbook of Social Justice (pp. 463-479).

Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Week 11: Discourse analysis & Foucaldian methods (Thesis stream)

Evaluation methods (Course-based stream)

Required readings & viewing

Bacchi, C. (2004). Policy and discourse: Challenging the construction of

affirmative action as preferential treatment. Journal of European Public

Policy, 11(1), 128–146

Macias, T. (2015). “On the footsteps of Foucault”: Doing Foucauldian discourse

analysis in social justice research. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research

as Resistance (2nd ed.) (pp. 221-242). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press.

(Course text)

Park, Y. (2005). Culture as deficit: A critical discourse analysis of the concept of

culture in contemporary social work discourse. Journal of Sociology and

Social Welfare, 32(3), 11-33.

Tamboukou, M. (1999). Writing genealogies: An exploration of Foucault’s

strategies for doing research. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education, 20(2), 201-217.

Specific to course-based stream:

Morelli, P.T. & Mataira, P. J. (2010). Indigenizing evaluation research: A long-

awaited paradigm shift. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), 1-

12. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/18773

Royse, D., & Badger, K. (2015). Needs assessment planning: Starting where you

are. Australian Social Work, 68(3), 364-374.

Unrau, Y. A., Gabor, P. A., & Grinnell, R. M. (2007). Evaluation in social work:

The art and science of practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Bacchi, C. (2012). Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open

Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 1-8.

Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and

discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521-547.

Mason, C.W. (2014). Theorizing power relations in colonial histories. In Spirits of

the Rockies: Reasserting Indigenous presence in Banff National Park (pp. 13-

21). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2006). Towards a new research agenda? Foucault,

Whiteness and Indigenous sovereignty. Journal of Sociology, 42(4): 383–395.

Owen, J. (2007). The nature of interventions: What we evaluate. In Program

evaluation: Forms and approaches (pp. 22-38). New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.

Week 12: Grounded theory (Thesis stream) Evaluation methods (Course-based stream)

Required readings & viewing

Specific to thesis stream:

Clarke, A. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the

postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 553-576.

Charmaz, K. (2016). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical

inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34-45.

Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for social

work research. British Journal of Social Work, 42(2), 371-387.

Specific to course-based stream:

Holder, J. (2015). Our community action research project: A blueprint for

resistance. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance (2nd ed.)

(pp. 97-118). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press. (Course text)

Myron B. Thomas School of Social Work & the Consuelo Foundation. (2010).

Strengths enhancing evaluation research [video file] Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEubejt8oUg (25 minutes)

Wallace, B., Pauly, B., Perkin, K., & Ranfft, M. (2015). Shifting the evaluative

gaze: Community-based program evaluation in the homeless sector. Gateways:

International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 8(1), 43-58.

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111-124.

van de Sande, A. & Schwartz, K. (2011). Program evaluations. In A. van de

Sande & K. Schwartz (Eds.), Research for social justice (pp. 87-97). Winnipeg,

MB: Fernwood.

Miner-Rubina, K. & Epstein Jayaratne, T. (2007). Feminist survey research

(Chapter 10). In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P.L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research

practice: A primer (pp. 293-325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Week 13: Evaluating qualitative research

Required readings & viewing

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F. & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding

and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-

1614.2002.01100.x/pdf

Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative criteria: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent

qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

http://qix.sagepub.com/content/16/10/837.full.pdf+html

Smith, L.T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the Native in the age of

uncertainty. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. http://www.corwin.com/upm-

data/5316_Denzin_and_Lincoln_Chapter_4.pdf

Suggested/supplementary reading & viewing

Drisko, J.W. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to

promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 185-197.

Anastas, J.W. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues and possible

answers. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(1). 57-65.