Last update: February
5, 2007
School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley
Reading List for PH293-02: DrPH Dissertation Research
Methods Seminar
|
Prepared
by: |
Norman A. Constantine, PhD
Clinical Professor of Community Health and
Human Development 237 University Hall
(925) 284-8118
|
A. Cross-topic books (These three exceptional
books are widely applicable, and might be worth owning.)
1. Phillips, D.C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Amazon
This
volume explores modern approaches to philosophy of science in a readable and
accessible manner (relatively speaking, given the topics). The chapters are
presented in alphabetical order, as each chapter can be read on its own without
regard to sequence. Several of Phillips’ chapters have been selected as
background reading for two of the sessions below, and these chapters also will
be available as printed copies: chapter 6 (New philosophy of science), chapter 8 (Popperian rules for research design),
chapter 10 (Qualitative research and its
warrant), and chapter 12 (Theories and
laws).
Phillips
is heavily influenced by the great philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper,
although of course he updates Poppers philosophy to more modern times. However,
reading this book -- or taking this course for that matter -- does not require
a commitment to a particular epistemological view or methodological approach.
In the true post-positivistic critical-realist spirit, argument, disagreement,
and criticism are not only welcomed and valued, in fact they are viewed as the
essence of good scientific inquiry and discourse. The only article of faith
required is belief in a real world out there somewhere (otherwise there would
be no reason for science), the rest can always be argued.
2. Trochim,
W. M. (2000). The research methods knowledge base, 2nd Edition.
Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. Link
This is available in both web and print
versions. Quick-reads and other selections for several of our special topic
sessions will be taken from this excellent reference. It also contains succinct
overviews of various other methods topics that would be worth reviewing over
time. Just like Phillips, Trochim is readable, accessible, makes the complex as
simple as possible, and writes in an engaging and fun to read style.
Everyone should
become familiar with what is available here by visiting the section titled Navigating the
Knowledge Base. Take a few minutes to explore, and be sure to play
around with the Yin-Yang Map and the Road Map. Also, it might be
worthwhile to review the section titled The
Language of Research and
see if any of your basic understandings need brushing up.
3. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design:
An interactive approach, 2nd edition. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
This brief, thorough, and engaging introduction to
qualitative research design has no equal. Maxwell avoids the superficial and
confused paradigm discussions that so many qualitative authors engage in. He
takes a pragmatic and rigorous approach that builds on the potential strengths
of qualitative research while promoting well-accepted principles of scientific
validity and integrity.
The chapter on validity is especially noteworthy,
recognizing that “Validity is a
goal not a product; it is never something that can be proven or taken for
granted” and that “Validity is also relative: It has to be assessed in
relationship to the purposes and circumstances of the research, rather than
being a context-independent property of methods or conclusions. Finally
validity threats are made implausible by evidence not methods; methods
are only a way of getting evidence that can help you rule out these threats.”
Amen.
The following topics are included below:
6. Mixed
Methods (qualitative and quantitative)
1. Principles of Scientific Inquiry
Shavelson,
R. & Towne, L. (Eds.) National Research Council Committee on Scientific
Principles for Education Research (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Executive summary. View
Phillips (2000) and Haack (2003). Brief
excerpts from New
philosophy of science, and Clues to the puzzle of scientific evidence: A more
so story. View
Trochim, W. M. (2000). Philosophy of research (including the four subsections). In The research methods knowledge base. (2nd Edition). Link
Basic
Readings
Haack, S. (2003). Preface, and
Chapter 3 (Clues to
the puzzle of scientific evidence: A more so story). View
Shavelson, R. & Towne, L.
(Eds.) National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for
Education Research (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press. Chapters 2 and 3. View
Phillips, D.C. (2000). Preface, and Chapter 6 (New philosophy of science). View
Other
References
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, Calif.: Sage.
View
Cohen, J. (1994). The
earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49,
997–1003. View
Gorman, D.M. (2003). Prevention
programs and scientific nonsense. Policy
Review, 117. View
Kreider, H. (2004). The Evaluation Exchange special
report on scientifically based research. The Evaluation Exchange, 9(2):
10-14. View
Phillips,
D.C. (2000). Chapter 8 (Popperian rules for research design). View
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
Cummings, S.R.,
Browner, W.S., & Hulley, S.B. (2001). Conceiving the research question. In Designing clinical research.
(chapter 2). View
Meltkoff, J. (2001).
Research questions and hypotheses. In Critical thinking about research.
(chapter 2). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC. View
Haack, S. (2003). Defending science -- Within reason: Between scientism and cynicism. New York: Prometheus. Amazon
Phillips, D.C. (2000). The expanded social scientist’s bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic social science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Amazon
Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Amazon
2. Critical Appraisal of Evidence
Altman, D.G. (2002). Poor quality medical research: What can journals do? Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2765-2767. View
Campbell
(1989/2003) and Yin (2000). Brief excerpts on Plausible rival hypotheses:
Core of the scientific method. View
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. (pp. 236-258). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. View
Constantine, N. A. (2005). Do virginity pledges cause virginity? (Web
discussion linked to above chapter). http://crahd.phi.org/VirginityPledgesFAQ.html
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.
Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why most published research findings are
false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 696-701.
View
Other References
Constantine, N. A. (2008).
Converging evidence leaves policy behind:
Effectiveness of and support for school-based sex education programs.
[editorial]. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 42(4). 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. http://crahd.phi.org/Cornfield1959SmokingLungCancer.pdf
(large scanned pdf file, might take three or more minutes to download).
Gorman, D. M. & Conde, E. (2007). Conflict of interest in the
evaluation and dissemination of ‘‘model’’ school-based drug and violence
prevention programs Evaluation and
Program Planning, 30, 422–429.
Hill, A. B. (1965).
The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300. View
Rutter, M. (2003).
Poverty and mental health: Natural experiments and social causation. [editorial].
Journal of the American Medical
Association, 290, 2063-2064. View
Trochim, W. M. (2000). The research methods knowledge base. (2nd Edition), Construct Validity
(and seven brief subsections) Link
Phillips,
D.C. (2000). Chapter 12 (Theories and Laws). View
Constantine, N. A. & Curry, K. (1998, November). Collaborative development of a theory-based student assessment for a violence prevention program evaluation. Paper presented at the 1998 American Evaluation Association annual conference, Chicago. View
Other References
Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based
health promotion practice. Health Education Research, 15(2), 125-129. View
Krieger, N. (2001). Theories for
social epidemiology in the 21st century: An ecosocial perspective. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 30(4), 668-677. View
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks
and tabular asterisks - Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and slow progress of soft
psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4),
806-834. (advanced) View
National Cancer Institute
(1997). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. View
Other References [Concepts] Download
all four
Excellent overviews …
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual
structure. American Psychologist, 1469-1481.
Solomon, K. O., Medin, D. L., & Lynch, E.
(1999). Concepts do more than categorize. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
99-105.
More detailed …
Gerring, J. (1999).
What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept
formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357-393.
Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are
there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology, 121-147.
Advanced Readings [for the exceptionally
motivated and brave]
Bunge, M. (1997). Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy
of the Social Sciences, 27(4), 410-465. (see me for a copy)
Meehl, P.E. (1967).
Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy
of Science, 34, 103-115. View
Books
DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., & Kegler, M. C. (Eds.)
(2002). Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research:
Strategies for improving public health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Amazon
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Lewis, F. M. (Eds.) (2002). Health
behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Amazon
Koslowski, B.
(1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Order from Amazon
Quick Read
Pages ix – xi (Campbell’s foreword View), and 33 – 39 (quality criteria View) from Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Basic Readings
Yin, R. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In L. Bickman and D. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods. (pp. 229-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. View
Constantine,
N. A. & Nevarez, C. R. (2006). Multiple-case study on evidence use in the
sex education debates: The interacting roles of values, beliefs, and collateral
information (theory, hypotheses, and methods). Excerpts from funded proposal to the W.T.
Grant Foundation. View
Curry, K. & Constantine, N. A. (1999, April). Implementation of a peer mediation program in six rural elementary and middle schools: A comprehensive qualitative evaluation. Paper presented at the 1999 American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada. View paper, and optional full 40-page set of data displays
Yin R. (2000) Rival explanations. In L. Bickman (Ed.) Validity and social experimentation: Donald Campbell’s legacy. (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Books
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M.
(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
5. Qualitative Research Methods
Quick Reads
Trochim, W. M. (2000). Qualitative measures (and five subsections). In The Research Methods Knowledge Base, (2nd Edition). Link
Maxwell, J. A.
(2005). Chapter 6. Validity: How might you be wrong? View
Basic
Readings
Patton,
M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd
edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (purposeful sampling:
pp.230-246. View
(large scanned file)
Other
References
Morgan, D. L.
(1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. View
Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative interviews in medical
research. BMJ. View
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
(Excellent and thorough introduction
to qualitative research design, highly recommended)
Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Frechtling,
J. & Sharp, L. (1997). User-friendly handbook
for mixed methods evaluation. Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
Web text version: Link, PDF
version: View
(A cook book, more
focused on qualitative than mixed).
Strauss, A. &
Corbin, J.M. (1998) Basics
of qualitative research. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Amazon
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J.M. (1997) Grounded
theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
Dey,
D. (1999) Grounding grounded theory. New York: Academic Press. (advanced)
Amazon
Quick Reads
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
(This is an excellent brief introduction. One perhaps ironic note is that the authors present the alleged hoax played on Margaret Mead by her Samoan research assistants as if this is the current consensus on her most famous work, while, in my reading at least, the debate was never settled and probably will never be. To me the hoax evidence does appear strong, however the American Anthropological Association defended Mead (posthumously) against the charges and essentially endorsed her methods and conclusions (politics vs. science?).
Maxwell, J. A.
(2005). Chapter 6. Validity: How might you be wrong? View
Greene, J. C., et al. (1989). Table 1. View
Basic Readings
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (mixed methods: pp.12-13, 247-257, 555-562) View (large scanned file)
Letourneau,
N. & Allen, M. (1999). Post-positivistic critical multiplism: a beginning
dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
30, 623-630. View
(Letourneau
provides a well-written and brief overview, however she does not appear to have
a thorough grounding in the philosophical underpinnings and makes some silly
errors, such as suggesting that Guba and Phillips share similar or even
compatible epistemological views. Nevertheless I include this 6-page article
rather than Shadish’s excellent and more comprehensive 44-page treatment
(below) in the basic readings as it provides an efficient overview.)
Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. (1989). Evaluation, 7(1), 25-44. View
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combing qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-376. View
Other References
Shadish W. (1993) Critical multiplism: a research strategy and its attendant tactics. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 60,13-57.
Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative qualitative debates - 13 common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75. View
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.) Link
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. View
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207. View
Books
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amazon
(Very good
basic introduction, 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.)
7. Issues in Multiple Regression and
other Linear Models
Quick Reads
Trochim, W. M. (2000). The general linear model. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, (2nd Edition). Link
Katz, M. H. (2003). Multivariable analysis: A primer for readers of medical research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 138: 644-658. View
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). [Prediction and explanation (pp. 195-198, 211).] View
Basic Readings
Victora,
et al. (1997). The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological
analysis: A hierarchical approach. International Journal of epidemiology,
26(1). View
Osborne, J. & Elaine W. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 8(2). View
Davey Smith, G. & Ebrahim, S. (2001). Epidemiology -- Is it time to call it a day? International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 1-11. View
Other References
Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L.
P. (1991). [Multiple regression analysis
(pp. 413-428]. View
Zhang J. & Yu K. F.
(1998). What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratios in
cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA, 280:1690-1. View
Garson, G. D. Multiple regression. In Statnotes: An Online Textbook, View
Other References [Multilevel
analysis]]
Diez-Roux, A. V. (2000). Multilevel analysis in public health research.
Annual Review of Public Health, 21: 171-192 View
Other References [Confounding]]
Greenland, S. & Morgenstern, H. (2001). Confounding In health research. </