Revised: November 19, 2009

School of Public Health

University of California, Berkeley

First Year DrPH Seminar

PB HLTH 293-01, Fall, 2009

(CC# 76313, section 01)

Wednesday, 2:00 – 5:00, 714C University Hall (4 units)  

 

COURSE FACULTY

 

Norman A. Constantine, PhD

237 University Hall

nconstantine@berkeley.edu

 

Sandra Dratler, DrPH

237 University Hall

sdratler@berkeley.edu

 

 

Syllabus with download links for readings at:   http://crahd.phi.org/PH293-01Syllabus.htm

 

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION

 

The first year DrPH seminar is designed to introduce the incoming DrPH cohort to the importance of public health leadership and their own ability to translate research into action.  The seminar content has three focus area strands:

  1. Foundations of scientific inquiry and research methods
  2. DrPH-in-Action project
  3. Skill-building workshops

 

1. Nine research methods sessions (plus a pre-session) focus on scientific foundations for research, critical appraisal of evidence, and research methods application issues. Topics will include evidence and argument, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, theoretical frameworks, issues in causal inference, and the importance of addressing plausible rival hypotheses and threats to validity. Also included will be a review of common application issues in qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed methods and critical multiplism, and the research review process. These specific methods sessions are not intended to substitute for a more comprehensive class in one or more of the methods covered, but rather to provide an overview of the potential strengths and limitations of each method, and a discussion of key issues in appropriate use and interpretation. A common framework focused on plausible rival hypotheses and threats to validity will help guide our review of each topic.

 

2. The DrPH-in-Action project takes place over two semesters. It is an exploration of a significant “real world” public health problem or issue.  It is a group project that allows students to put public health problem solving and policy formulation models into action.  Fall semester activities will be focused on defining a problem or issue that will be further pursued and developed in Spring 2010.

 

3. The third strand includes skill-building workshops on topics relevant to the DrPH-in-Action project and dissertation process.  Topics include policy analysis, problem solving, and library/research skills.  Three of the sessions will be conducted by staff from the SPH Library.

 

Although these three focus areas are approached in different formats, they are seen as interacting with and complementing one another. It is hoped that students will draw from each as they explore various approaches to successful public health research and action. The seminar is also expected to build early thinking for each student in substantive and methodological areas of interest that might lead to a dissertation topic. 

COMPETENCIES AND OBJECTIVES

 

Participation in this course will provide an opportunity to fully or partially master the following competencies and objectives:

 

1. Foundations of scientific inquiry and research methods

·         Critically appraise public health arguments, claims, and evidence.

·         Understand and apply the guiding principles of rigorous scientific inquiry and scientific reasoning.

·         Describe and illustrate the relationship between research questions and research methods.

·         Explain the importance and use of theoretical foundations for scientific research.

·         Develop, explain, and justify a sound theoretical framework for the student’s own research.

·         Understand and apply the concepts of plausible rival hypotheses, validity evidence, and validity threats to the design and appraisal of both quantitative and qualitative research. 

·         Describe and critique commonly applied criteria for causal inferences in research

·         Explain the justifications for and approaches to mixed methods research

·         Critique common uses of null hypothesis significance testing and proposed alternatives

·         Critique the peer review approach to scientific publication, compare its strengths and weaknesses to potential alternative approaches, and propose and justify ways to improve the current system

·         Systematically critique and defend the student’s own and others’ research, including its theoretical foundation, questions, methods, claims, and conclusions.

2. DrPH-in-Action project 

·         Initiate, organize and pursue the investigation of significant problems in public health practice.

·         Critically review the literature and apply relevant theoretical and conceptual approaches to analyze public health problems at an advanced level.

·         Communicate and present research findings to professional and public audiences in a lucid and understandable manner

·         Explain the relationships between public health and societal agencies whose actions affect the health of people.

·         Identify and analyze policy issues in public health and contribute to policy analysis and decision-making.

·         As part of a group process, analyze a significant public health problem in a domestic or international setting. The analysis will include an identification of the problem or issue during the fall semester.  Then during the Spring 2010 semester, the student groups will develop the issue or problem statement, conduct the necessary research and present recommendations.

·         Understand and communicate foundational public health problem-solving elements and their application to real-world problems.

3. Workshops

·         Develop tools and skills necessary for successful research, oral comprehensive exam preparation and dissertation completion.

 

COURSE ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING

 

·         For all seminar sessions, students are responsible for completing assigned readings in advance of the session, and participating actively in group discussions. Each week students should demonstrate good familiarity with and critical thinking about the key concepts and issues covered in the readings, and articulate appropriate questions and insights to help enhance their understanding. (25%)

 

·         Each student will write three critiques, effectively employing concepts and strategies from the class readings and discussions:

·         Due October 7. An opposing reply to a published editorial related to a public health topic. (1-2 pages, 10%)

·         Due November 11. A review of a published qualitative research article as if you were a journal reviewer, reviewing this article for publication. (2-3 pages, 20%)

·         Due December 9. A review of a published quantitative research article as if you were a journal reviewer, reviewing this article for publication. (2-3 pages, 20%)

 

·         For activities related to the DrPH-in-Action project, each group will define the public health issue or problem that it will pursue during the Spring 2010 semester. A draft problem statement or policy issue and action plan will be presented during the final seminar session for discussion with and input from the faculty and other cohort members. (10%)

 

·         Each student will prepare a 2-3 page written dissertation proposal and deliver a 10 minute presentation of the proposal to the class. (15%)

 

COURSE SCHEDULE

Date

Topic

Faculty

Aug 26

Overview of course

Introduction to public health leadership

Introduction to evidence and inquiry

Sandra, Norm

Sept 2

Methods Session 1: Evidence and argument; Research questions and research methods

Norm

Sept 9

DrPH-in-Action: Overview; Policy analysis; Problem solving frameworks; selection of action groups 

Sandra

Sept 16

 

Methods Session 2: Principles of scientific inquiry; The role of theory in scientific research

Norm

Sept 23

Workshop: Finding the information you need - Introduction to the UCB libraries 

Michael Sholinbeck

Sept 30

 

Methods Session 3: Critical thinking; Motivated reasoning

Norm

Oct 7

 

Methods Session 4: Critical appraisal of evidence

First critique due

Norm

Oct 14

DrPH-in-Action: Group work

Workshop: PubMed basics

Sandra

Judy Bolstad

Oct 21

Methods Session 5: Issues in causal inference; plausible rival explanations and validity threats

Norm

Oct 28

DrPH-in-Action: Group presentations of potential policy issue(s) or problem to be pursued (20m each) and discussion and input by cohort

Workshop: EndNote

Sandra

Karen Edwards

Nov 4

Methods Session 6: Issues in qualitative research methods - How might you be wrong?

Norm

Nov 11

(Administrative Holiday – no class)

2-3 page dissertation proposal due

 

Nov 18

Student presentations of proposed dissertation topics (10m each)

Second critique due

Sandra, Norm

Nov 25

(Pre-holiday – no class)

 

Dec 2

Methods Session 7:  Critical multiplism and mixed methods research

(Methods Session 8 to be rescheduled for spring, 2010)

Norm

Dec 9

Methods Session 9:  Publish and prosper - Issues in peer review

DrPH-in-Action: Group presentation of issue or problem, and workplan 

Third critique due; Wrap up and course evaluations

Sandra, Norm


 

I.  READINGS FOR DRPH-IN-ACTION STRAND

 

Required  Text

 

  • Bardach, Eugene. (2008, 2005 edition may be used). A practical guide to policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (3rd edition). Washington DC: CQ Press.

 

Assigned Readings

 

August 26, 2009 – part 1 (Introduction to public health leadership)

 

  1. Institute of Medicine (2002).  The Future of Public’s Health in the 21st Century, Report Brief.  http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4720/4304/4165.aspx

 

  1. National Center for Healthcare Leadership (2005). Health Leadership Competency Model Summary. http://www.nchl.org/ns/documents/CompetencyModel-short.pdf

 

September 9, 2009 (DrPH in Action)

 

  1. Neuhauser, L., Richardson, D., Mackenzie, S., & Minkler, M. (2007). Advancing transdisciplinary and translational research practice: Issues and models of doctoral education in public health. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2).  http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/103/97  

 

  1. Johns Hopkins Methodology for Problem Solving in Public Health (will be posted on b-space)

 

  1. Bardach, Eugene (2008). Introduction and Part I.

 

 

II. READINGS FOR SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY AND RESEARCH METHODS STRAND

 

Required  Texts

 

  • Browne M. N. & Keeley, S. M. (2006). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. (8th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

 

 

Recommended Texts:

 

  • Aneshensel, C.S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. (we will not cover this topic this semester)

 

  • Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Assigned Readings (subject to change)

 

Introduction: August 26, 2009 (Introduction to evidence and inquiry)

 

  1. Jessor, R. (2005). Remarks on the changing nature of inquiry.  Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 9-10. (2 pages) View

 

  1. Begley, S. (2009). When studies collide: Rethinking the evidence on BPA. Newsweek. June 29, 2009.  View

 

  1. Singer, N. (2009). Medical papers by ghostwriters pushed therapy. New York Times, August 5, 2009. View

 

Methods Session 1: September 2, 2009 (Evidence and argument; Research questions)

 

  1. Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 1-3. (Asking the right questions, Issues and conclusions, Reasons).

 

  1. Trochim  & Donnelly (2006). Chapter 1.  (Foundations, 3rd edition pp. 4-30, or 2nd edition pp. 3-37, or on the web: Link.)

 

  1. Shavelson, R. & Towne, L. (2003). What drives scientific research in education? Questions, not methods, should drive the enterprise. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17(4). View

 

  1. Cummings, S.R., Browner, W.S., & Hulley, S.B. (2001). Conceiving the research question. In Designing clinical research. (chapter 2). View

 

Methods Session 2: September 16, 2009 (Principles of scientific inquiry; The role of theory in scientific research)

 

  1. Shavelson, R. & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Guiding principles for scientific inquiry. In Scientific research in education. National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (Chapter 3). View

 

  1. Phillips, D.C. (2000). Preface, and Chapter 6 (New philosophy of science, pp.101-115). View

 

  1. Trochim  & Donnelly (2006). Chapter 3.  (Theory of Measurement, 3rd edition pp. 56-97, or 2nd edition pp. 63-105, or on the web: Link.)

 

  1. Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice. [editorial]. Health Education Research, 15(2), 125-129.  View

 

Recommended:

 

·         Hughes, J. N. (2000). The essential role of theory in the science of treating children: Beyond empirically supported treatments. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 301–330. View

 

·         Campbell, D. T. (1984) Can we be scientific in applied social science? In R. F. Conner and others (eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. View

 

·         Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

 

Methods Session 3: September 30, 2009 (Critical thinking; Motivated reasoning)

 

1.   Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 4-7. (Ambiguity, Value assumptions, Descriptive assumptions, Reasoning fallacies).

 

2.   Horton, R. (1998). The grammar of interpretive medicine. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 159, 245-249. View

 

3.   Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.

 

Recommended

 

  • Phillips, D.C. (2000). Chapter 8 (Popperian rules for research design). View

 

  • Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584. View

 

  • Evans,  JSBT. (2002). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific thinking. In Carruthers, P., Stich, S., and Siegal, M. (Eds.) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

  • Faust, D. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

 

Methods Session 4: October 7, 2009 (Critical appraisal of evidence)

 

1.   Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 8 and 9. (How good is the evidence: Intuition, personal experience, testimonials, and appeals to authority; and How good is the evidence: Observations, research studies, case examples, and analogies).

 

2.   Constantine, N. A & Braverman, M. T. (2004). Appraising evidence on program effectiveness. In M. T. Braverman, N. A. Constantine, and J. K. Slater (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. (Chapter 12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. View

 

3.   Gorman, D.M. (2003). Prevention programs and scientific nonsense. Policy Review, 117. View

 

4.   Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696-701. View

 

Recommended

 

  • Gruner, A., Murphy-Graham, E., Petrosino, A.,& Weiss, C. H. (2007). The devil is in the details: Examining the evidence for "proven" school-based drug prevention programs. Evaluation Review, 31, 43-74. View

 

  • Haack, S. (2003). Defending science -- Within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. New York: Prometheus.  Preface, and Chapter 3 (Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence: A more so  story). View  

 

 Methods Session 5: October 21, 2009 (Issues in causal inference; Plausible rival hypotheses and validity threats)

 

1.      Browne & Keeley (2006). Chapters 11 through 13 (Statistics; Omitted information; Possible reasonable conclusions). 

 

2.      Rutter, M. (2003). Poverty and mental health: Natural experiments and social causation. (Editorial). Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 2063-2064. View

 

3.      Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300. View 

 

4.      Joint Report of the Study Group on Smoking and Health (1957). Smoking and health. Science, 125, 1129-1133.  View

 

5.      Smith, G.C.S. & J.P. & Pell, J.P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 27, 1459-1461. View

 

Recommended

 

·         Campbell (1989) in Yin (2003). Plausible rival hypotheses: Core of the scientific method. View

 

·         Cornfield, J. (1959) Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 173-203. View (large scanned pdf file, might take three or more minutes to download).

 

·         Constantine, N. A. (2005). Do virginity pledges cause virginity? (Web discussion, View).

 

·         Davey Smith, G. & Ebrahim, S. (2001). Epidemiology -- Is it time to call it a day? International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 1-11. View

 

 

Methods Session 6: November 4, 2009 (Issues in qualitative research: How might you be wrong?)

 

Required readings

 

1.      Phillips, D.C. (2000). Qualitative research and its warrant. In: The expanded social scientist’s bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. View

 

2.      Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Validity: How might you be wrong? In: Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. View

 

3.      Malterud, K. (2001). The art and science of clinical knowledge: Evidence beyond measures and numbers/Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358, 397-400, 483-488. View

 

4.      Barbour, R.S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigor in qualitative research: Is the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322, 1115-1117. View

 

Target articles for critique

 

5.      (November 4): Carnes, D. et al. (2009). Influences on older people’s decision making regarding choice of topical or oral NSAIDs for knee pain: Qualitative study. BMJ, online first. View

 

6.      (November 18): Barry, C.A. et al. (2000). Patient’s unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: Qualitative study.  BMJ, 320, 1246-1250. View

 

Recommended

 

·         Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (types of purposeful sampling: pp. 230-246). View (large scanned file)

 

·         Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman and D. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods. (pp. 69-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. View

 

·         Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Students doing or considering qualitative research should purchase and study this entire book.)

 

Methods Session 7: December 2, 2009 (Critical multiplism and mixed methods research)

 

Brief Overviews

 

1.      One-page overview of deductive and inductive aspects of research, and how they fit together in all types of research. Link

2.      Greene and colleagues’ purposes and analytic strategies View

 

Required Readings

 

1.      Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (1994). The relationship between the qualitative and quantitative research traditions; Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 5-11, 85-91.  View

2.      Letourneau, N. & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: a beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 623-630. View  

3.   Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates - 13 common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning,18(1), 63-75. View

 

4.   Sosulski, M. R. & Lawrence, C. (2008).Mixing methods for full strength results: Two welfare studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 121-148. View

 

Recommended

 

·         Shadish W. R. (1993) Critical multiplism: a research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 60,13-57. View

·         Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Very good overview text, except for the superficial and confused discussion of worldviews/paradigms, which should be ignored.)

·         (I do not recommend Tashakkori and Teddlie’s books on this topic.)

 

Methods Session 8: TO BE RESCHEDULED FOR SPRING, 2010 (Issues in null hypothesis significance testing)

 

1.      Bower, B. (1997). Null science: Psychology’s statistical status quo draws fire. Science News, 151, 356-357. View

 

2.      Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. View

 

3.      McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71(1), 173-180. View

 

4.      Grossman, D. C., et al.  (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized trial. JAMA, 277, 1605–1611. View

 

Review of basics (if needed)

 

·         Excellent primers on Statistical Significance and P Values (View), Type I and Type II errors (View), and Confidence Intervals (View)

 

·         Trochim, W. M. (2000). Hypotheses (Link); The T-Test (Link); Statistical Power (Link). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, (2nd Edition).

 

Recommended

 

·         Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. View

 

 

Methods Session 9: December 9, 2009 (Publish and prosper: Issues in peer review)

 

(Note: don’t panic, all of these readings are short)

 

A. The peer review system

 

1.   Constantine, N.A. (2007). The peer review process, and publication bias. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Epidemiology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. View

 

2.   Goodman S. N., Altman D. G., & George S. L. (1998). Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: Caveat lector? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13, 753-756. View

 

3.   Monastersky, R. (2005). Impact factor: The number that's devouring science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(8), A12. Link

 

4.   Rennie, D. R. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publishing: Setting the balance

right. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300-302. View

 

B. How to peer review

 

6.   Hoppin, F.G. (2002). How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166: 1019-1023. View

 

C. How to survive peer review

 

7.    Roediger, H. L. (2007). Twelve tips for authors. APS Observer, 20(6), 39-41. View

 

8.    Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118,    172-177. View

 

9.    Cummins, P. & Rivara, F. R. (2002). Responding to reviewers’ comments on submitted articles. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 105-107. View (notice the second author)

 

10. Northridge, M. E. & Susser, M. S. (1994). The paper route for submission to the journal: Seven  fatal   flaws in submitted manuscripts. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 717-719. View

 

D. Target article for critique

 

11. Stovitz S.D., Van Wormer J.J., Center B.A., & Bremer K.L. (2005). Pedometers as a means to increase ambulatory activity for patients seen at a family medicine clinic. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 18, 335-343. View