SBSF 8417 Syllabus

Course Home Page 9/15/08 3:05 PM
Walden University
COMPLETE ONLINE SYLLABUS
SBSF 8417 - Research Seminar I: Human Inquiry and Science
Course Support and Calendar Information:
So you have all key information available to you off-line, it is highly recommended that you print
the following items for your reference:
This Syllabus
Term Calendar
Instructor and Course Support Info
Description of Course:
This seminar focuses on students’ acquisition of substantive, foundational knowledge of the

philosophy of science, including the construction, use, and critique of concepts and theories.
Qualitative and quantitative frameworks for inquiry are introduced. Ethical, social, and political
aspects of conducting research, producing knowledge, and engaging in scholarship in the
American academy, including the role of the professorate are examined.
Course Prerequisites:
AMDS 8000, PPPA 8000, PUBH 6000 or SBSF 8005. Students who take and successfully
complete SBSF 8005 must complete one additional full quarter of enrollment before enrolling in
SBSF 8417.
Learning Objectives stated in Terms of Learning Outcomes:
Introduction
All knowledge is socially constructed. What we consider reality may be differently interpreted,
understood, and explained by different people in different social and cultural contexts. Science is a
generalizing discipline that tries to find relationships between discrete elements, discover general
rules or principles to explain these relationships, make predictions about the future course of
events, and if necessary, suggest intervention strategies to alter the course of these events. Many
historians, social science scholars, and philosophers now view science as one form of modern
human culture, though an important, powerful, and evolutionary one, which contains all the
characteristics of any human culture.
Traditionally, the scientific method is based on principles of causality, objectivity, and verifiability.
These principles are, in turn, informed by certain basic assumptions about the nature of the reality
under investigation. More recently, less traditional methods such as description, representations
and images, tentative theories, experiments, observations, metaphors, and analogies have
become accepted as ways of explaining reality. Hence, one can say that there is no single
‘scientific’ method or system of human inquiry.
http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3090837&Survey=1&47=4007317&ClientNodeID=404183&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Page 1 of 14
In this seminar, the learner will be confronted with several topics pertaining to the systems of
human inquiry and the nature of science:
1. What distinguishes science from other sorts of inquiry?

2. What are the nature and processes of scientific discovery, explanation, confirmation, and
theory development?
3. What is/are the relationship(s) among the processes of logic, reasoning, causation,
evidence, experience, shared understanding and meaning, and theories in science?
4. Can (is/should) science be "value free" or "neutral?"
Objectives
Upon completion of the seminar, the learner will be able to:
1. Identify the role of philosophy in establishing a conceptual framework for conducting

scholarly inquiry;
2. Differentiate the broad-based nature of scientific inquiry as compared to other forms of
inquiry;
3. Describe the construction, use, and critique of theories and conceptual frameworks in
systems of human inquiry;
4. Analyze concepts, theories, and logic of the arguments in published scholarly research;
5. Accept the ethical, social, and political aspects of the production of scholarly knowledge;
6. Debate the connection between inquiry, theory, and knowledge application.
Required Texts to be Furnished by the Student:
1. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. New York, NY; Routledge.
2. Trochim, W. M. K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2 nd ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomson. Online-interactive textbook available from AtomicDog:
http://www.atomicdogpublishing.com/home.asp .
In place of required textbook 2, the following textbook may be used:
Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3 rd
ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson.
Students should also have a copy of the following reference book from other courses, and
should refer to it as necessary in this course:
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (5 th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Required Text(s) Available Free Online:
3. National Academy Press. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research (2 nd

ed.). Washington, DC: Author. This text is available online at:
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/ (html with hyperlinks) or
http://www.empowermentzone.com/science.txt or
http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/SOW/being_scientist.htm
4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research. (2008). Protecting human
research participants [Online training course]. Available
from http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php.
5. MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual
Review of Psychology, 49(1), 259-287. Available from http://ist-
socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/MacCoun_AnnualReview98.pdf , or
http://projectimplicit.net/nosek/teaching/761/maccoun1998.pdf , or
http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec6342/week_02/macCoun98research_bias.pdf .
6. Other readings: Two research articles to be selected by the student, one reading on Thomas
S. Kuhn and scientific revolutions.
Ordering Textbooks and Reading Packets:
Textbook orders should be placed immediately following confirmation of course registration.
The Sayer text may be available from a variety of online vendors.
The Trochim text can be obtained in hard copy from a variety of vendors. It is also available as an
online-interactive book through Atomic Dog Publishing at
http://www.atomicdogpublishing.com/home.asp .
The Course Geography:
Your course is organized through eCollege. Below are the tools in your class, how we will be
using them, and expectations associated with each. Take some time to get used to using the tools
and contact me if have questions.
The Navigation bar:
The Navigation bar allows you to access all course content and is located on the left hand side of
your online classroom window. The course materials are divided into two major sections: Course
Home and Weekly Course Information.
Course Home: Contains the overall content that pertains to your entire course
Syllabus: Part I of the Walden Course Syllabus, which includes the course description and
all weekly expectations for your course
Calendar: This function is for personal use
Syllabus II: Part II of the Walden Course Syllabus, which includes Walden University
policies and information
policies and information

Term Calendar: Outlines the course dates for the current term
Instructor/Course Support: Includes course support information
Course Info: May include rubrics and/or general information related to your course
Class Café: A place to introduce yourself and get to know your colleagues
Walden Links: Links to useful Walden University web sites
Weekly Buttons: Provide access to the weekly home page and include a statement of purpose
and objectives for each weekly lesson or topic
Study Notes: Commentary based on the weekly topic

Assignments: Outlines detailed assignment descriptions for each week
Discussion: Read and respond to topics in each weekly discussion
Your course may also contain other areas such as groups or quizzes.
The Tabs: Tabs at the top of your online classroom window provide you with access to important
course tools including: the course Gradebook, email, assignment Dropbox, Document Sharing
(where you may upload and download files and share them with your colleagues), the
Webliography (which contains important hyperlinks), and real-time communication areas, such as
chat rooms.
Click on the Help button in the upper right corner of your screen for reference to common
questions.
Course Assignments:
Please note that all course assignments must be completed and submitted to the instructor
according to schedule. No assignments will be accepted after the final date of the course, for
whatever reason. See the Weekly Course Schedule at the end of this syllabus for a list of
assignments and due dates.
Point potentials from assignments are as follows:
ASSIGNMENT POINTS
Discussion Weeks 2-11 (10 @ 4 points each) 40
Assignments: Weeks 2, 4, 5, and 8 (4 @ 10 points each) 40
Assignments: Weeks 1, 6, 7, and 11 (4 @ 5 points each) 20
TOTAL 100
Course Grading Criteria and Total Components of a Grade:
Grades will be assigned based on the following formula:
90-100% (90-100 pts.) A

80-89% (80-89 pts.) B
<80% (<80 pts.) F
Note that a grade of B or better is required to pass this course.
Final Grading Procedures:
The instructor will evaluate student performance and award a grade of A or B to those who
successfully complete the course. Students who do not complete the course successfully, i.e.,
with work less than B, will receive a grade of F. The registrar makes these notations on the
student’s academic record and awards the appropriate credits. Grades are submitted within five
days of the last day of the course. Each Foundation Research course, including SBSF 8417
Human Inquiry and Science, carries a credit value as specified in the University Catalog.
Participation Standard/Communication Requirements:
Students are expected to participate at by posting materials and contributions to discussion

assignments. Topics to be discussed are provided in the course syllabus and course Weekly
Assignment areas. You are expected to a) make a posting that would provide a response to the
assigned discussion item(s); b) post a meaningful comment to at least one other posting by a
fellow student
To be counted as participation, the postings need to be thoughtful; that is, they refer to the session
readings, relevant issues in the news, information obtained from other sources, or ideas expressed
in the postings of other class members. For further instructions see the instructor’s guidelines in
the weekly folders.
Make sure to post your participation items during the respective week, and not before or after the
respective dates. Only postings made during the week will count toward your participation grade.
Respond by Day 5 (Friday) to the assigned discussion items. Respond by Day 7 (Sunday) to
postings by fellow students.
Feedback Schedule:
Feedback on assignments will be provided on the paper and returned within one week of the
submission date. Grades will be posted to the online grade book at the same time. To see your
grades click on the Gradebook tab at the top of the eCollege course window.
Course Procedures and Preferred Methods for Delivering Assignments:
Please see the instructions in the Assignment section of the each week. When using the Dropbox
to submit assignments, please include your name in the file name, and make sure your name
appears on the top of the word document you are submitting.
Policy on Late Assignments:
If you anticipate being late with an assignment, please notify the instructor prior to the due date
and agree a mutually acceptable alternative submission date. Late assignments will normally be
and agree a mutually acceptable alternative submission date. Late assignments will normally be
accepted up to three days after the submission date but might not receive feedback. Assignments
more than three days late will receive a failing grade.
Discussion postings after the closing date for the week will be permitted only if they are
continuation of existing threads to which you have already contributed. No work can be accepted
after the final date for the course.
Writing Standards:
This is a doctoral level course; respectively high writing standards appropriate for this level of study
are being applied. Before submitting, make sure that you have spellchecker your document. Work
on improving your writing skills and use of APA if the instructor indicates the need. You can obtain
feedback on drafts by emailing writingsupport@waldenu.edu, but you must allow ample turnaround
time (several days).
WEEKLY COURSE SCHEDULE
Week One Research Ethics, Part 1
Reading: National Academy Press’s On Being a Scientist

Assignments: In On Being a Scientist, read the hypothetical (research ethics-
based) scenarios/case examples in "Allocation of credit" (Ben: Credit
where credit is due) and "Misconduct in science" (May: A case of
plagiarism). Write out your answers to the questions raised at the
end of each scenario. Each answer should reflect a high-level of
critical thinking or analysis and be supported, whenever possible, by
a scholarly citation concerning research ethics.
Send your document to your instructor by using an attachment

in the Dropbox. Please save your document with a file name of
yournameWeek#.doc. So John Doe's week 1 assignment would
be a file named DoeWeek1.doc.
Assignment is due Day 7.
Discussion: Post your introduction (name, academic program, city and state of
residence, professional experience, scholarly interests, etc.) IN THE
CLASS CAFÉ.
WEEK 1 DISCUSSION:
The last section of On being a scientist (pp. 20-21) raises the
question of the scientist’s responsibility to society. How do you
envision your own role? Can your research contribute to the
betterment of society? Explain.
Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Respond by Day 7 to postings by fellow students.
Week Two Scientific Knowledge and the Social Sciences
Reading: Sayer (1992), Introduction and Chapter 1

Assignments: Sayer (1992) begins with the observation that “The status of social
science is seriously in doubt” (p. 1). The doubt that Sayer refers to is
whether the social sciences are actually sciences, or whether they
should be considered some other sort of enterprise. What do you
think?
For this assignment, select the social (or behavioral) science with
which you are most familiar or the one that you are studying at
Walden, and answer the question of whether it should be considered
a science or some other sort of enterprise.
As part of the assignment, you should
· select one social science (or a behavioral science),
· say what science is and how scientific knowledge differs from
other sorts of knowledge,
· explain whether the definition that you give applies to the social
science that you selected,
· present at least one moderately plausible or documented reason
why someone might believe that the social science that you
selected is not a science, and
· evaluate that reason.
Does the answer to the question of whether it is a science have any
implications for the way that you will conduct your dissertation
research? (Be sure to address all of the bulleted issues.)
Your answer to these questions should be included in a well-
written essay between 300 and 600 words long. You can receive full
credit for either a negative or an affirmative answer to the question of
whether the social science that you selected is a social science,
provided that it is clear and reasonably convincing. Points may be
deducted for incorrect APA style.
be a file named DoeWeek2.doc. Assignment is due Day 7.
Discussion: Respond to the two questions below.
1. After reading Sayer (esp. pp. 29-35), give and explain an example
from your own area of interest of a concept-dependent social
phenomenon.
2. What is verstehen, and how is it connected to Sayer’s view that
social science must be critical of its object (toward the end of chapter
1)?

Week Three Traditional Research Approaches: Conceptualizing Research

Reading: Trochim’s The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2 nd or 3rd ed.),

Chapter 1
Assignments: No assignment this week. (It would be a good idea to start working
on the readings and assignments for Week 4 and Week 5.)
Discussion: It is often helpful to distinguish between inductive and deductive
reasoning processes in research. (Note that the terms “inductive”
and “deductive” may be used with a variety of different meanings.
For this week’s discussion, use them as they are explained in the
Trochim textbook.)
1. Using your own words and/or examples from your field, please
clarify the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as
the words are used in research.
2. Indicate which type of reasoning you are currently favoring for
your own dissertation work.

Week Four Traditional Research Approaches: Quantitative Methods
Reading: Trochim’s The Research Methods Knowledge Base, Chapter 2

Trochim’s The Research Methods Knowledge Base, Chapter 3
Assignments: This week’s assignment focuses on a quantitative approach. (Next
week’s assignment will examine qualitative approaches.)
Read a quantitative article in a peer-reviewed journal in your
discipline that uses data collection to test some hypothesis. (Since
the purpose of this assignment is for you to look at basic research
methods, do not use a meta-analysis or other sort of paper. To
simplify your task, avoid papers that also employ qualitative methods.
Some articles present quantitative data but not for the purpose of
testing a hypothesis: such articles are not suitable for this
assignment.) Please organize your paper with each of the sections
clearly numbered.
1. Give the bibliographic citation for the article. Use correct APA
style.
2. Succinctly state the hypothesis or hypotheses being tested.
3. List the (main) independent variables. (NOTE: There is a
connection between the variables and the hypothesis.)
4. List the dependent variables.
5. How does the author frame the problem? Are any theoretical
assumptions or biases evident? Explain.
6. Briefly describe the data collection and analysis procedures.
7. What conclusion(s) did the authors reach? Summarize briefly.
8. Were the conclusions supported by the data (and sound
reasoning)? Explain.
9. Did you detect any weaknesses or shortcomings? Was there
anything which the researchers could have done better?
anything which the researchers could have done better?

10. What is your overall evaluation of the research (and of the
article)?

Discussion: Post your responses to the following questions.
1. Distinguish the concept “reliability” from the concept “validity,”
using your own words or examples. (Please use these terms in their
research sense, not their every day meaning. That is, not personal
reliability, but statistical reliability.)
2. Provide an example of either weak reliability or weak validity.
3. Describe the relationship between reliability and validity.

Week Five Traditional Research Approaches: Surveys and Qualitative

Methods
Reading: Either Trochim’s 2nd edition or Trochim’s 3rd edition can be used, but
the division of the material into chapters is different.
Trochim’s 2ND EDITION: Chapters 4 & 5
Trochim’s 3RD EDITION: Chapters 4, 5, 6, & 8
Assignments: Locate and read an article in a peer-reviewed journal in your
discipline that utilizes a qualitative method to address a research
question. (The discussion of qualitative methods and approaches in
the Trochim textbook should be helpful for recognizing the sort of
method used in the article.) Please organize your paper with each of
the following sections clearly numbered.
1. Give the bibliographic citation for the article in APA style.
2. Provide a brief summary of the research question (i.e., purpose of
the study).
3. Describe the author’s (probable) rationale for using qualitative
methods in the study.
4. Describe the data collection and analysis procedures. (NOTE: This
question has two parts.)
5. Did the qualitative researcher also use any quantitative methods,
including unobtrusive ones? (Unobtrusive methods are explained in
the Trochim textbook.) Explain your answer.
6. Was the research purpose of the study achieved? (See question 2
above. In other words, was the research question answered or
partially answered?) Explain your answer.
7. State briefly what the author found.

8. Can you identify any questionable assumptions or biases in the
author’s approach or conclusions?
9. Do you think that another type of qualitative or quantitative method
could have worked better in addressing the research question?
Explain your answer. Compare the method(s) used with at least one
method that was not used in the study.
10. What is your overall evaluation of the study? What are the weak
areas? What are the strong areas? (This is where you get to give
your own opinion. Focus primarily on the quality of the research.)
Send your document to your instructor as an attachment in the
Dropbox. Please save your document with a file name of
be a file named DoeWeek5.doc . Assignment is due Day 7.
Discussion: Respond to the following:
1. Post descriptions of at least two potential dissertation research
topics you may consider exploring further.
2. For each of the topics, indicate whether you would lean toward
using a qualitative or quantitative design and explain why.

Week Six Research Design and Biases
Reading: Again, for Trochim’s 2nd and 3rd editions, the readings are the same
but the chapter numbers are different.
Trochim’s 2ND EDITION: Chapter 6
Trochim’s 3RD EDITION: Chapter 7
MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of
research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 259-287.
Assignments: Complete the open book quiz that is based on Trochim's Research
Design chapter. (The Quiz button can be found under the Week 6
Discussion button at the far left of the eCollege screen.)

Discussion: Please address the following questions:
1. Post again the descriptions of your two potential dissertation
research topics.
2. Just as other researchers have biases, so do we all. For each of
the two dissertation topics you are considering, list your pre-existent
biases for each topic. Why did you pick these topics and not some
other topic?
3. What issues are most salient to you based on your own
experiences?
What definitions/assumptions do you bring?
3. Now, for each topic, indicate how you might address these biases
in the literature review, design, and/or discussion components of
your dissertation.

Week Seven Analyzing and Critiquing Traditional Research Methods:

Theories and Knowledge Development
Reading: Sayer’s Method in Social Science, Chapter 2

Information on scientific revolutions: Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions was written in the late 1940s but first appeared
in a book form in 1962. You may want to obtain a hard copy or get
acquainted with his ideas via the Internet. An internet search for his
name will yield many sites. Especially recommended is
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html .
Assignments: Please organize your paper with each of the following sections
clearly numbered:
1. From your own field, please select and describe an example of a
theoretical revolution. (One famous example from astronomy is
Galileo and Copernicus’s heliocentric construct, replacing the view
that the sun moves around the earth. In a theoretical revolution, the
acceptance of a new theory necessitates the abandonment of some
previously held beliefs from a prior theory.) In your discussion,
identify the new theory and sketch some of the features of the earlier
theory that it supplants.
2. Citing the relevant concepts in Sayer’s Chapter 2, please explain
what factors caused the new theoretical framework in your field to
finally push through and gain acceptance over the old framework.
3. Describe how professionals and scholars reacted to the theoretical
shift at the time.

Discussion: Given Sayer’s comments in Chapter 2, it is clear that he rejects the
view that we each construct our own world, or that what is true for
you may not be true for me. What do you think? Do you accept
Sayer’s reasoning? What are the implications of each view for
science?

Week Eight Research Ethics
Reading: See assignment.

Assignments: Complete the training course Protecting human research
participants, available through the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Office of Extramural Research at http://phrp.nihtraining.com/. When
finished, click “Get Certificate” and save to a file.
Send your certificate to your instructor as an attachment in the
Dropbox. Please save your document with a file name of
yournameWeek#.mht .
Discussion: Post your responses to the following:
1. Consider the following four ethical frameworks and post at least
one example of how you have seen two or more of them conflict in
your field.
-Laws -Professional ethical codes
-Mores/customs -Ethical principles
2. In your example, which ethical framework dominated in the end?
3. Which ethical framework do you think SHOULD generally take
precedence in your professional area?

Week Nine Analyzing and Critiquing Traditional Research Methods:

Abstraction, Structure, and Cause; Systems
Reading: Sayer’s Method in Social Science, Chapters 3 & 4

Assignments: None.
Discussion: Post your answers to the questions below:
1. Assume for purposes of discussion that you don’t want your
dissertation to end with the final defense and publication, but would
like your dissertation research to impact decision-making and
practice in your professional context. Using one or more of the
concepts described in Sayer’s Chapter 3 (e.g., abstraction,
generalization, causal analysis), please describe what pragmatic
steps would need to occur after your successful dissertation
publication in order for the research to have an impact. Discuss
everything from your writing style to your research design and
methodological perspectives. What challenges would you anticipate?
2. Which of the systemic concerns described in Sayer’s Chapter 4
are most relevant to your professional field?

Week Ten Misadventures in the Philosophy of Science: Inquiry Methods

Borrowed from the Physical Sciences

Assignments: None.
Discussion: Post your answer to the questions below:
1. Pick one of the following concepts derived from philosophy of the
physical sciences and discuss how the relevant
assumptions/mechanisms would play out differently in the philosophy
of social science.
-Causation -Necessity
-Essentialism -Deductivism
2. What are the challenges of "borrowing" theories and research
methods from the physical and biological sciences? What are the
benefits?

Week Eleven Analyzing and Critiquing Traditional Research Methods: Aims

of Social Science and Obligations to Society

Assignments: Think about extensive and intensive research, as discussed in
Sayer’s chapter 9. Discuss “extensive” and “Intensive” in terms of
research.
1. For each, describe the benefits and drawbacks that are most
salient to you.
2. Can, or should, they be used at the same time?

yournameWeek#.doc. So John Doe's week 11 assignment
would be a file named DoeWeek11.doc. Assignment is due Day
7.
Discussion: Post your responses to the following question:
Sayer says, “Social science must be critical of its object.” However,

others have maintained that social scientists should simply observe
and describe things as they exist, so as not to compromise their
objectivity and impartiality. Who do you side with in this
controversy? Why?

Week Twelve Lessons for the Future
Reading: Review course readings, assignments, and postings

Assignments: No written assignments this week

Discussion: Please respond to the following:
1. Identify how this course (readings, assignments, discussion
activities) influenced your approach to your forthcoming dissertation.
Did it help you see new issues? Did it give you new ideas or
deeper/different understanding?
2. In the context of your overall learning process, what are you left
with as the most important new knowledge upon completion of this
course?

Course Please complete the online course evaluation that your Online
Evaluation: Concierge sends you.
The aggregate data will be sent to the faculty coordinator and to the
instructor. No student-identity information will be included in the
report.
Thank you for providing your feedback and comments on this
course.

SBSF 8417 Syllabus

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SBSF 8417 Syllabus

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Course Home Page 9/15/08 3:05 PM

SBSF 8417 - Research Seminar I: Human Inquiry and Science

Course Support and Calendar Information:

This seminar focuses on students’ acquisition of substantive, foundational knowledge of the

Learning Objectives stated in Terms of Learning Outcomes:

1. What distinguishes science from other sorts of inquiry?

Upon completion of the seminar, the learner will be able to:

1. Identify the role of philosophy in establishing a conceptual framework for conducting

Required Texts to be Furnished by the Student:

In place of required textbook 2, the following textbook may be used:

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American

Required Text(s) Available Free Online:

3. National Academy Press. (1995). On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research (2 nd

Ordering Textbooks and Reading Packets:

Textbook orders should be placed immediately following confirmation of course registration.

The Sayer text may be available from a variety of online vendors.

The Course Geography:

The Navigation bar:

policies and information

Study Notes: Commentary based on the weekly topic

Course Grading Criteria and Total Components of a Grade:

Grades will be assigned based on the following formula:

90-100% (90-100 pts.) A

Note that a grade of B or better is required to pass this course.

Final Grading Procedures:

Participation Standard/Communication Requirements:

Students are expected to participate at by posting materials and contributions to discussion

Course Procedures and Preferred Methods for Delivering Assignments:

Policy on Late Assignments:

WEEKLY COURSE SCHEDULE

Week One Research Ethics, Part 1

Reading: National Academy Press’s On Being a Scientist

Send your document to your instructor by using an attachment

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Two Scientific Knowledge and the Social Sciences

Reading: Sayer (1992), Introduction and Chapter 1

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Three Traditional Research Approaches: Conceptualizing Research

Reading: Trochim’s The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2 nd or 3rd ed.),

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Four Traditional Research Approaches: Quantitative Methods

Reading: Trochim’s The Research Methods Knowledge Base, Chapter 2

anything which the researchers could have done better?

Send your document to your instructor by using an attachment

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Five Traditional Research Approaches: Surveys and Qualitative

7. State briefly what the author found.

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Six Research Design and Biases

Assignment is due Day 7.

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Seven Analyzing and Critiquing Traditional Research Methods:

Reading: Sayer’s Method in Social Science, Chapter 2

Send your document to your instructor by using an attachment

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Eight Research Ethics

Reading: See assignment.

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Nine Analyzing and Critiquing Traditional Research Methods:

Reading: Sayer’s Method in Social Science, Chapters 3 & 4

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.

Week Ten Misadventures in the Philosophy of Science: Inquiry Methods

Reading: Sayer’s Method in Social Science, Chapter 5

Respond by Day 5 to the assigned discussion items.