Feminist Measures in Survey Research

Harnois, C. E. (2012). Feminist measures in survey research. SAGE Publications.

From the publisher: How can multiracial feminism inform social science survey research? What would it mean, in practical terms, to bring an “intersectional” approach to survey design and statistical analysis? How might such an approach change our understanding of the social world? Feminist Measures in Survey Research offers a new approach for bridging feminist theory and quantitative social science research. Catherine E. Harnois demonstrates how a multiracial feminist perspective can inform virtually every aspect of the research process, from survey design and statistical modeling to the frameworks used to interpret the results. Harnois argues for an interdisciplinary approach to social research, rooted in multiracial feminist theorizing. Such an approach, she suggests, enables a critical reexamination of the assumptions embedded in everyday research practices. It also provides a new and important framework for critiquing and producing quality survey research.

Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research: Decolonizing the Politics of Knowledge

Denzin, Norman K., and Michael D. Giardina. Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research: Decolonizing the Politics of Knowledge. Left Coast Pr, 2007.

Decolonized methodologies: with key changes in the nature of qualitative research, such as the breakdown of barriers between the researcher and subject, there are emerging ethical issues that researchers have to deal with. Different aspects of ethics in qualitative research are addressed by different experts in the book.These aspects include research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge, relational ethics in research with intimate others, and challenges in ethical research practice.

‘Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from ‘studying up’

Nader, L. (1969) ‘Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives Gained from ‘studying up’’pp. 284–311 inD. Hyms (ed) Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Random House

‘Studying up’ is an approach that includes the perspectives of those at the middle and the upper ends of a stratified society as well as (or rather than) those in the lower end in trying to understand the working of a particular society. To understand how power is exercised, the author recommends that anthropologists study all levels of society including those previously not studied. The main argument is that it is important for the people to understand who shapes attitudes and who controls institutional structures and this can be done through the ‘studying up’ approach. The essay also includes reasons why this approach should be adopted by anthropologists. The author points out what might happen if anthropologists were to study the colonizers rather than the colonized, the culture of power rather than the culture of the powerless and the culture of affluence rather than the culture of poverty. By investigating how the powerful urban society works it is possible to understand how this might have a corresponding effect on the other groups of people at the society. The consequences of not studying up as well as down are also discussed.

Ethical problems that arise while applying the ‘studying up’ approach are mentioned. There often arises confusion when studying one’s own society; the author here asks whether there is one different ethic for studying up and another one for studying down. The ethics that should be applied while studying the public, the private and foreign cultures are discussed in detail.

Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation.

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation.

Participatory design: the book describes new social innovations that can be observed in a changing world where people design projects that generate different or similar solutions causing social transformations.  These new social innovations are characterized by expansive open co-design process in which new solutions are suggested and new meanings are created. The author also explains the differences in design by experts and by other individuals and how these designs interact. He also talks about how design experts can support meaningful social changes focusing on emerging forms of collaboration. The book draws from various projects across the globe and shows how design can trigger social innovation through collaborative action by experts and non-expert designers.

In the shadow of deception: Ethical dilemma, positionality, and reflexivity in ethnographic fieldwork

Liong, M. (2015). In the shadow of deception: Ethical dilemma, positionality, and reflexivity in ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative Research Journal, 15(1), 61-73.

Article discusses the difficulties and potential of leading ethnographic research among people with beliefs that are opposed by the researcher and the importance of reflexivity in confronting ethical issues at the field site. Author found himself in a dilemma of ethical tug of war with the people he was studying and neither staying silent or confronting the subjects was an option. After being intensely self-reflective and self-interrogating the author was able to engage with the subjects and perform ethical and effective research to understand, challenge and change the power structures and relationships. The value of this paper expresses bureaucratic ethical guidelines are not always enough to produce ethical ethnography.

Three Models of reflection

Greater Manchester AHP/HCS Life Long Learning Project Team.  3 Models of reflection. Available URL www.afpp.org.uk/filegrab/Johnsmodelofreflection.pdf?ref=45. Accessed 24th January 2016.

Document defines John’s Model of Reflection. The model is based on 5 questions allowing the researcher to reflect on the process and outcome of research and also breakdown the experience of the practicing reflective researcher/practitioner. John’s model of reflection asks the researcher to: Describe the experience and the significant factors, reflect by asking what they were trying to achieve and what were the consequences, influencing factors that effected decision making, what were the other choices in the project and the consequences of not using, and finally what will change because of this experience and how did the scientist feel about the experience. John’s model asks how those experience change the researcher’s way of knowing in the following areas: Empirics- Scientific, Ethics- moral knowledge, Personal- Self-awareness, and Aesthetics- the art of what we do, and our own experiences. John’s model is based on the works of Carper (1978).

A Conceptual Roadmap for Social Science Methods in Human Rights Advocacy

Satterthwaite, Margaret L.  & Justin C. Simeone, An Emerging Fact-Finding Discipline? A Conceptual Roadmap for Social Science Methods in Human Rights Advocacy, NYU. 

This article argues that there is little work done on the research components and methodological standards in the field of human rights. To contribute to this discussion the authors first analyze the methods and components of researchers from two human rights organizations then they interrogate the nature of social scientific research and the degree to which it overlaps with human rights fact-finding research by comparing principles, components and methodological standards in research. The article also looks at the possibility of a Social Science discipline of human rights fact-finding given that the two overlap in methodology and objectives though not without divergence in other aspects such as perspectives.