Research Methodology Seminar

Center:

Barcelona

Program(s):

Barcelona - Advanced Spanish Studies [1]

Barcelona - Liberal Arts & Business [2]

Discipline(s):

Research Seminar

Course code:

496

Terms offered:

Fall

Spring

Credits:

Language of instruction:

English

Instructor:

Adil Qureshi

Description:

The objective of this course is the design, development and writing of a scholarly research project. The course will provide the tools and skills required to carry out research. The outcome of the course will be an individual research project on a topic chosen by the student. The seminar is adapted to the individual needs of each student, and will cover the relevant research methodologies, techniques, and theory, as indicated by the specific needs of the student. The course will underlay academic discussion as a basic tool for the development and success of research projects. Since study abroad is a unique opportunity for experiential learning and cultural interaction, special emphasis will be given to those methods and techniques that imply contact and relationship with local people and/or institutions.

The Seminar is organized in two modules:

Module A: Methodology Workshop (from week 1 to week 6)
At the end of this module, the student must deliver a Research Project Proposal. It should be a detailed research program that includes aims, methodology, and research hypothesis as well as a tentative timeline.

Module B: Writing Workshop (from week 7 to week 12). The aim of the Writing Workshop is to help students write scholarly sections of their research project, using accepted style norms and convincing arguments.

Prerequisites:

3.5 GPA or above, letter of recommendation from home school.

Attendance policy:

Attendance is mandatory for all IES classes, including field studies. Any exams, tests, presentations, or other work missed due to student absences can only be rescheduled in cases of documented medical or family emergencies. If a student misses more than three classes in any course half a letter grade will be deducted from the final grade for every additional absence. Seven absences in any course will result in a failing grade.

Learning outcomes:

By the end of the course, the students are able to:
•    set a research question or topic in an appropriate scholarly manner;
•    place a working hypothesis into a real context;
•    use accurate tools for data collection and analysis;
•    test a research hypothesis;
•    write up research projects using scholarly norms;
•    communicate efficiently and consistently the outcomes of the research before an audience.

Method of presentation:

• Assignments-exercises: home-made, class-discussed: Practical exercises related to topic definition, text critique, data collection, research methodologies, research design and timing,
citations and project design. Weekly assignments able to follow the path of the students and their research on a regular basis clarifying practical issues of research.
•    Drafts: Students will develop a research paper calendar with the instructor, and submit the sections
as agreed. The instructor will provide relevant feedback (e.g. writing style; argumentation; concepts;
structure etc.).
• Class debates: based on readings, assignments and students research proposals. Debates will focus on theme delimitation and methodological tools. This is the foundation of the seminar sessions,
emphasizing the relevance of discussion and debate as a research method. Debates foster critical and analytical thought as well as the integration between theory and specific cases.
•    Readings: As required by each student, related to methodology tools, epistemology and theory.
•    Lectures: Adapted to the needs of the students, may include but not limited to: What is research;
qualitative research approaches; what is “data”?, the writing of a scholarly paper.

LANGUAGE OF PRESENTATION: English

Required work and form of assessment:

• Written exercises: 40%. Focus on practical works related to students’ research (design of research chronograms, electronic data bases, scholarship project applications, citation systems) and addressed
to class discussion). Includes the Project Proposal Paper.
• Final Research Paper: 40%. Outcome of the course. The evaluation of the paper will take into account: the insight on the topic, its originality in terms of theme or methodology, its worth (relevant

research), its accuracy and clear organization, its integration of theory, analysis and/or comparative approach and critical thinking.
• Presentation: 20%. Research public presentation and defence. The evaluation will be based in the clear communication of aims, methods and outcomes of the research as well as in its academic accuracy. Presentation must include theory and analytical explanations as well as the self evaluation
of the research.

content:

Session 1: Introduction to the seminar; presentation of students and their research proposal.
Meaning and features of research. Research types.

Session 2: Science, research, and objectivity
Required Reading:
Rorty, R. (1987) Science as solidarity. In
(Nelson, J.S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D.N., eds). The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. (pp. 38-52). University of Wisconsin Press: Madison.

Session 3: Culture and scientific inquiry
Required Reading:
Grobstein, P. (2005). Revisiting Science in
Culture: Science as Story Telling and Story
Revising Journal of Research Practice Volume 1, Issue 1, Article M1, 2005. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/vie [3] w/9/17

Session 4: Scientific and Scholarly research in society. Definitions and features.

Session 5: Choosing a topic (What). Prospecting, delimitation (when and where), sources, and resources. Hypothesis and
outcomes. Causality (variables). Inference diagram.
Required Reading:
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002).
Getting started (chapter 2, How to do research. (pp. 21-52) Open University Press

Session 6: Research approaches (How).
Subject and Object. Discipline/Multidiscipline. Qualitative/Quantitative. Sources/Resources. Subjectivity/Objectivity. Particular/General
(case study), field/non-field work. Research ethics
Required Reading:
Blichfeldt, B. S., & Andersen, J. R. (2006).
Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2(1), Article D2. Retrieved [15.07.2007], from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/23/69 [4]

Session 7: Preparatory Research Work.
- Bibliography about topics and methodology. Review of the literature.
- Beyond Google: Catalogues and repertories,
specialized libraries, on-line resources.
- Research Agenda, chronograms, Project Map and outline: Organizing research work.
Becoming realistic.
Required Reading:
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002).
Reading for research (chapter 4), How to do research. (pp. 97-129). Open University Press

Session 9: The data: Data definition and types
(primary/secondary, direct/indirect, qualitative/quantitative, objective/subjective).
Data analysis/management, critique and
validation.
Required Reading:
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002).
Collecting data (chapter 6), How to do research. (pp. 97-129). Open University
Press.

Session 10: Data collection. Datasets, statistical data, interviews (focus and discussion groups) data, iconological data. Design of data collection process (defining the project subtopics, variables and diagrams)

Session 11: Data collecting design.

Session 12: Data Classification (files) (I). Register types: contents (and reference systems) and contents registers.

Session 13: Data classification (text and hypertext) (II). Processing qualitative data. Organizing and grouping and connecting meaning units. Use of hypertext.

Session 14: MODULE B: Writing Workshop Students Research Project Proposal delivery, presentation and discussion. Self-criticism,
discussion (brainstorming) and re-structuring as part of the research process.
Required Reading:
Janossy, J. (2005). How to write an academic paper using method instead of madness. Downloaded from
http://www.ambriana.com/C298_website/How_to_write_a_paper.pdf [5]

Session 15: Types of scholarly writing (I). Research Project, Scholarly paper, Reflection
papers.

Session 16: Types of scholarly writing (II). Rhetoric.
Required Reading:
McGee, M.C. & Lyne, J.R. (1987) What are nice folks like you doing in a place like this?
Some entailments of treating knowledge
claims rhetorically. In (Nelson, J.S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D.N., eds). The rhetoric of
the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. (pp. 97-111). University of Wisconsin Press:
Madison.

Session 17: The structure of a paper. Outline. Title, Abstract, Prologue, Introduction, Paper
core, Conclusion, Appendix, Index

Session 18: Quotations, references and footnotes. Copyright, styles (MLA, APA . . .),
e-references, interviews and image references. Reference lists. Tables, Graphics, Illustrations, interviews and the appendix.

Session 19: Writing Styles. The Audience
(Scholarship applications, scientific journals, business plans, etc.) The writer, the language, the wording. The voice of the subject.
Required Reading:
Bridges, David, (1999) 'Writing a research paper: reflections on a reflective log',
Educational Action Research, 7:2, 221– 234
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650799900200084 [6]

Session 20: Writing the paper (I). Prologue, introduction and conclusions. Closing the
circles with coherence. Which should I write first?
Required Reading:
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002).
Writing up (chapter 8), How to do research.
(pp. 227-251). Open University Press

Session 21: Writing the paper (II). The core of the work. Logical structures in writing:
paragraphs and punctuation. From general to
specific. The chapter/sections structure. Closing ideas, summing up sections.
Required Reading:
Dartmouth Writing Project. Writing: Considering
Structure & Organization. Available online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/ac_paper/write.shtml [7]

Session 22: The final draft. Re-reading the paper. Hypothesis/answers; Structure
consistency. Detecting strong and weak points.

Session 23: Presenting the research: Oral and graphic tools. The audience, the speech (pre-,
on-, post-), rhetoric, edition (image works),
the researcher experience (reflection).
Required Reading:
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2002).
Finishing off (chapter 9), How to do research. (pp. 253-270). Open University Press

Session 24: Oral presentation rehearsal and discussion.

Required readings:

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (2002). How to do research (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University
Press. (pp. 21-52, 97-129, 227-251, 253-270)

Blichfeldt, B. S., & Andersen, J. R. (2006). Creating a wider audience for action research: Learning from case-study research. Journal of Research Practice, 2(1), Article D2. Retrieved [15.07.2007], from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/23/69 [4]

Bridges, David, (1999) 'Writing a research paper: reflections on a reflective log', Educational Action
Research, 7:2, 221– 234 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650799900200084 [6]

Dartmouth Writing Project. Writing: Considering Structure & Organization. Available online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/ac_paper/write.shtml [7]

Grobstein, P. (2005). Revisiting Science in Culture: Science as Story Telling and Story Revising Journal of Research Practice Volume 1, Issue 1, Article M1, 2005. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/9/17 [8]

Janossy, J. (2005). How to write an academic paper using method instead of madness. Downloaded from
http://www.ambriana.com/C298_website/How_to_write_a_paper.pdf [5]

McGee, M.C. & Lyne, J.R. (1987) What are nice folds like you doing in a place like this? Some entailments of treating knowledge claims rhetorically. In (Nelson, J.S., Megill, A., & McCloskey,
D.N., eds). The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. (pp. 97-111). University of Wisconsin Press: Madison.

Rorty, R. (1987) Science as solidarity. In (Nelson, J.S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D.N., eds). The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. (pp. 38-52).
University of Wisconsin Press: Madison.