CCTP-723 Mixed Methods in Cross-Cultural Research FALL 2011 GEORGETOWN CCT Monday, 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm Car Barn 309

Dr. Katy Pearce kep63@georgetown.edu Office hours before class (4pm-6pm) and by appointment (or Skype/Google chat) Description: This course is designed to provide students with exposure to cross-cultural social scientific research as well as social scientific research which utilizes mixed methods (research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or program of inquiry). Students will learn about these lines of research, how to evaluate them, as well as design cross-cultural mixed-methods studies and evaluate the validity of inferences resulting from their own work. Goals: In this course, we will: examine the problems associated with cross-cultural research; discuss the types of inquiries best suited for mixed methods research; introduce students to qualitative and quantitative methods, including data analysis; discuss how to integrate and triangulate methods and findings; critique mixed methods and cross-cultural studies, as well as studies that could be improved with the use of mixed methods; and plan studies for future implementation that fit into students own program of study. Readings: These will cover methodological issues, with a particular focus on research conducted outside of the United States as well as between-country comparative research. Students will also be presented with examples of cross-cultural mixed methods studies. Readings are available in PDF form on Blackboard, but you are welcome to buy the books via Amazon or elsewhere if you want a physical copy. Each week empirical studies that illustrate the course concept will be presented by a member of the class whom will also lead a short class discussion of the study. Students are encouraged to create a handout with a summary of the article as well as talking points for the discussion. Sign up for 2 readings here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkBcvCnrJVudG9qQnhEVlRtQ051OXhHQnNGLTlucGc&hl=en_US#gid=0 Id recommend that you try to spread them out and try to choose from two different methodological perspectives. (Each presentation/discussion is worth 15% of your final grade.) Assignments: The primary way that you will be evaluated in this course is through three prospectus study proposals. Between 13-20 pages in length (not including cover page, references, tables, or figures), these prospectuses will allow you to explore a phenomenon from a quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods perspective. You will write an abbreviated literature review and propose a study guided by course materials. Each prospectus will be workshopped in class. Further, you will hand in a draft to the instructor and your final grade will reflect the overall work as well as the response to the instructors comments on your draft. (Each mini prospectus is worth 20% of your final grade.) All students are expected to adhere to GUs academic integrity and code of conduct policies. __ Accommodations: Students with disabilities should register with GUs Academic Resource Center (arc@georgetown.edu) and meet with the instructor about accommodations.
1

Schedule:
WEEK 1 DATE W 8/31 (no class on M 9/5) TOPIC INTRODUCTION READING Reiter, S., Stewart, G., & Bruce, C. (2010). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in cross-cultural research. 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-8). Lima, Peru. Baron, N. S. (2010). Introduction to special section: Mobile phones in cross-cultural context: Sweden, Estonia, the USA and Japan. New Media & Society, 12(1), 3-11. doi:10.1177/1461444809355109 Shoemaker, P., Tankard, J., & Lasorsa, D. (2004b). Introduction. How to build social science theories (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2009e). What the hell am I doing here? I dont belong here. Discovering statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and Rock n Roll) (pp. 2-6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2008). Writing lab reports & APA format. Retrieved from http://www.statisticshell.com/writinglabreports.pdf Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. (2009b). Steps in quantitative research. Quantitative research in communication (pp. 14-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2009d). Data collection 2: How to measure. Discovering statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and Rock n Roll) (pp. 1215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuendorf, K. (2010). Content analysisA methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles, 64(3-4), 276-289. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9893-0 Student-led discussions: Kopacz, M., & Lee Lawton, B. (2010). The YouTube Indian: Portrayals of Native Americans on a viral video site. New Media & Society, 13(2), 330-349. doi:10.1177/1461444810373532 Esarey, A., & Qiang, X. (2011). Digital communication and political change in China. International Journal of Communication, 5, 298319. Trammell, K. D., Tarkowski, A., Hofmokl, J., & Sapp, A. M. (2006). Rzeczpospolita blogw [Republic of Blog]: Examining Polish bloggers through content analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/trammell.html Shoemaker, P., Tankard, J., & Lasorsa, D. (2004). Theoretical concepts: The building blocks of theory. How to build social science theories (pp. 15-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2009c). Data collection 1: What to measure. Discovering statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and Rock n Roll) (p. 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Student-led discussions: Azam, S. (2007). Internet adoption and usage in Bangladesh. Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 20(1), 43-54. Erdur-Baker, O. (2009). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12, 109-125. Rosen, D., Lafontaine, P. R., & Hendrickson, B. (2011). CouchSurfing: Belonging and trust in a globally cooperative online social network. New Media & Society, 13, 981-998. Shahar, R., & Lev-on, A. (2011). Gender, religion, and new media:
2

EPISTEMOLOGY HOW RESEARCH WORKS

M 9/12

QUANTITATIVE

CONTENT ANALYSIS

M 9/19

SURVEY/CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH

Attitudes and behaviors related to the Internet among ultraOrthodox women employed in computerized environments. Journal of Communication, 5, 875-895. Ghassemzadeh, L., Shahraray, M., & Moradi, A. (2008). Prevalence of Internet addiction and comparison of Internet addicts and nonaddicts in Iranian high schools. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 731-733. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0243 Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Levels of measurement. Reasoning with statistics (pp. 23-30). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education. Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. (2009a). The nature of variables and data. Quantitative research in communication (pp. 9-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2009a). Levels of measurement. Discovering statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and Rock n Roll) (pp. 8-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, A. (2003). Designing a questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.statisticshell.com/designing_questionnaires.pdf Field, A. (2009b). Validity and reliability. Discovering statistics Using SPSS (and sex and drugs and Rock n Roll) (pp. 11-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ember, C., & Ember, M. (2009b). The basics of statistical analysis. Cross-cultural research methods (pp. 123-151). Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press. Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Correlation. Reasoning with statistics (pp. 127-141). Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education. Field, A. (2000). Relationships between variables. Retrieved from www.statisticshell.com/correlation.pdf Ember, C., & Ember, M. (2009a). Sampling. Cross-cultural research methods (pp. 89-95). Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.

MEASUREMENT

VALIDITY 4 M 9/26 NITTY GRITTY OF QUANTIATIVE CORRELATION

SAMPLING 5 M 10/3 (no class on M 10/10) M 10/17 Assignment for mini prospectus Workshop mini prospectus Mini prospectus draft due 10/7, final mini prospectus due 10/19 QUALITATIVE ETHNOGRAPHY

Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010a). Planning research projects. Qualitative communication research methods (pp. 71-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010c). Participating, observing, and recording social action. Qualitative communication research methods (pp. 133-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Student-led discussions: Takahashi, T. (2010). MySpace or Mixi? Japanese engagement with SNS (social networking sites) in the global age. New Media & Society, 12(3), 453-475. doi:10.1177/1461444809343462 Farnsworth, J., & Austrin, T. (2010). The ethnography of new media worlds? Following the case of global poker. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1120-1136. doi:10.1177/1461444809355648 Garcia, A., Standlee, A., & Bechkoff, J. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the Internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 5284. doi:10.1177/0891241607310839 Horst, H. A. (2006). The blessings and burdens of communication: Cell phones in Jamaican transnational social fields. Global Networks, 6(2), 143-159. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00138.x Kendzior, S. (2011). Digital distrust: Uzbek cynicism and solidarity in the Internet age. American Ethnologist, 38(3), 559-575. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2011.01323.x Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010b). Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative communication research methods (pp. 170-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3

M 10/24

INTERVIEWING & FOCUS GROUPS

Student-led discussions: Chib, A., & Chen, V. H.-H. (2011). Midwives with mobiles: A dialectical perspective on gender arising from technology introduction in rural Indonesia. New Media & Society, 13(3), 486501. doi:10.1177/1461444810393902 Do, J., Kim, D., & Kim, E.-m. (2009). When mobile phones meet television: An FGI analysis of mobile broadcasting users in Korea. Media, Culture & Society, 31(4), 669-679. doi:10.1177/0163443709335282 Kriem, M. S. (2009). Mobile telephony in Morocco: A changing sociality. Media, Culture & Society, 31(4), 617-632. doi:10.1177/0163443709335729 Tenhunen, S. (2008). Mobile technology in the village: ICTs, culture, and social logistics in India. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14(3), 515-534. doi:10.1111/j.14679655.2008.00515.x Xie, B. (2008). Multimodal computer-mediated communication and social support among older Chinese Internet users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 728-750. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00417.x Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010). Analyzing material culture and documents. Qualitative communication research methods (pp. 217240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Student-led discussions: Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and A SmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1-2), 199-220. doi:10.1177/1461444808099577 Shirazi, F. (2011). Information and communication technology and women empowerment in Iran. Telematics and Informatics, 1-11. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.02.001 Shaw, A. (2010). What is video game culture? Cultural studies and game studies. Games and Culture, 5, 403-424. Lindgren, S., & Lundstrom, R. (2011). Pirate culture and hacktivist mobilization: The cultural and social protocols of #WikiLeaks on Twitter. New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444811414833 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS Assignment for mini prospectus Workshop mini prospectus Mini prospectus draft due 11/11, final mini prospectus due on 11/21 EFFECT OF CULTURE ON RESEARCH Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2010). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. Qualitative communication research methods (pp. 241-281). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

M 10/31

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

M 11/7

10

M 11/14

Braun, M. (2003). Communication and social cognition. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 57-67). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Jowell, R. (1998). How comparative is comparative research? American Behavioral Scientist, 42(2), 168-177. doi:10.1177/0002764298042002004 Livingstone, S. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research. European Journal of Communication, 18(4), 477-500. doi:10.1177/0267323103184003 Hambleton, R., & Zenisky, A. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de
4

Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 4673). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Student-led discussions: Shordike, A., Hocking, C., Pierce, D., Wright-St. Clair, V., Vittayakorn, S., Rattakorn, P., & Bunrayong, W. (2010). Respecting regional culture in an international multi-site study: A derived etic method. Qualitative Research, 10(3), 333-355. doi:10.1177/1468794109360145 Ember, C., & Ember, M. (2009). The research question. Crosscultural research methods (pp. 27-32). Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press. Harkness, J., Mohler, P., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Comparative survey research methods. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 5-15). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Mohler, P., & Johnson, T. (2010). Equivalence, comparability, and methodological progress. Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (pp. 22-24). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Harkness, J., Edwards, B., Hansen, S., Miller, D., & Villar, A. (2010). Designing questionnaires for multipopulation research. In J. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. Johnson, L. Lyberg, P. Mohler, B.-E. Pennell, et al. (Eds.), Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (pp. 46-49). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Harkness, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Johnson, T. (2003). Questionnaire design in comparative research. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 19-34). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Harkness, J. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35-56). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Student-led discussions: Lee, I., Kim, J., Choi, B., & Hong, S.-J. (2010). Measurement development for cultural characteristics of mobile Internet users at the individual level. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 13551368. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.009 Li, Q. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents experience related to cyberbullying. Educational Research, 50(3), 223-234. doi:10.1080/00131880802309333 Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). The nature of mixed methods research. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 53105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Examples of mixed methods designs. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 104-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Writing and evaluating mixed methods research. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 251-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Student-led discussion: Lahsaeizadeh, A., & Yousefinejad, E. (2011). Social aspects of womens experiences of sexual harassment in public places in Iran. Sexuality & Culture. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9097-y Lonkila, M., & Gladarev, B. (2008). Social networks and cellphone
5

CULTURE AND SURVEY RESEARCH

11

M 11/21

MIXED METHODS

12

M 11/28

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

use in Russia: local consequences of global communication technology. New Media & Society, 10(2), 273-293. doi:10.1177/1461444807086473 Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., Sarkar, S., & Jayasena, A. (2007). Assessing adolescents understanding of and reactions to stress in different cultures: Results of a mixedmethods approach. School Psychology International, 28(2), 163178. doi:10.1177/0143034307078092 13 M 12/5 Assignment for mini prospectus Workshop mini prospectus Mini prospectus draft due 12/8, final mini prospectus due on 12/15

Evaluation:
Contributes to class discussions Below expectations Contributes to the discussion by raising questions and comments that reflect little understanding of the material, sometimes builds on others ideas and seldom challenges assumptions and ideas. Presents simplistic critique. Presentation quality lacking. Leads class discussion. Meets expectations Sometimes contributes to the discussion by raising questions, making sometimes relevant comments, builds on others ideas and sometimes challenges assumptions and ideas. Exceeds expectations Always contributes to the discussion by raising thoughtful questions, comments are relevant, and often builds on others ideas and most of the time. Challenges assumptions and ideas appropriately. % of final grade 10% of final grade

Empirical study critique and discussion

Presents respectful but simplistic critique. Clearly presented. Leads class discussion.

Mini prospectus 1, 2, 3

Does not bring together literature or find literature gap. Does not write clearly. Organization and style with error. Did not fully respond to draft comments.

Brings together some relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, approaches question/literature gap. Writes clearly. Organization and style with some error. Fully responded to draft comments.

Presents respectful and thoughtful critique. Clearly presented. Leads class discussion in a thoughtful way. Brings in other empirical articles to provide counterexamples. Ties back to other class readings. Brings together relevant literature, identifies gaps in literature, finds novel ways to approach question/literature gap. Writes clearly and persuasively. Organization and style without error. Fully responded to draft comments.

15% of final grade x 2 = 30% of final grade

20% of final grade x 3 = 60% of final grade

Grading scale:
A AB+ B BC F 94-100% 90-93% 87-89% 83-86% 80-82% 70-79% 0-69%
6