Advanced research methods in Science and Technology Studies (STS): Laboratory Studies
28-30th October 2015, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff Unviersity.
This short course is the first in series of training events, funded by the ESRC, offering advanced methods training relevant to Science and Technology Studies. In contrast to debates around different schools of thought (e.g. Sociology of Scientific Knowledge or Actor Network Theory), STS training tends to pay less attention to methodological issues. This course aims to remedy this, focusing on three different STS-specific methods: Laboratory studies, Interviews with scientists and Imitation Games.
This first course focuses on Laboratory studies, one of the first distinct points where the sociology of science began to develop its own methodological approaches, leading to such classic studies as Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar) or Changing Order (Collins).
Drawing on the extensive experience in ethnographic and qualitative methods at the Cardiff School of Social Science, this course will cover a theoretical component, contrasting the varying methodological positions underpinning classic laboratory studies (such as ‘naïve observation’ and ‘informed observation’) as well as a practical element, spending time carrying out observations in a lab. A key aspect of the course will be encourage students to develop ideas about those sites in which they plan to carry out their research.
Course staff include: Professor Harry Collins
Professor Adam Hedgecoe
Dr. Jamie Lewis
The course is suitable for PhD students and more experienced researchers.
This course is free of charge and travel bursaries are available for non-Wales DTC PhD students.
To reserve a place on this course, please contact Adam Hedgecoe <email@example.com>
Traditionally theories of entrepreneurship have been mostly based on either quantitative research or hypothetical cases. The quantitative approaches either take the start-up as a black box and look at patterns of new venture formation in the economy as a whole or describe some aspects of starting up and small business management on the basis of information extracted by the means of a survey from a sample of entrepreneurs. However, in the last couple of decades qualitative research has been gaining ground in entrepreneurship studies as well, and this is an area where actor-network theory with its ethnographic and anthropological sensibilities could make some further contributions. Hence the EIASM workshop below might be of interest to our readers.
2ND WORKSHOP ON IN-DEPTH STUDIES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Brussels, 8-9 December 2011
In this second workshop of qualitative studies on in-depth studies on entrepreneurship we welcome papers that deal with entrepreneurship and small-business management and use qualitative research methodology. Especially papers with some methodological appraisal and use of innovative research approaches are in focus.
Over the past 15-20 years business economics research has experienced a rise in approaches labeled qualitative. This is the case at least in the Nordic countries and elsewhere in Europe. Many of these studies share similar challenges and opportunities: the position of the researcher in the research process, the special features of data gathering and, even more importantly, the analysis and interpretations of the data in the search for new understanding and contributions to the field. Positioning oneself as a researcher in the study, sometimes being part of field one studies himself/herself, as well as various ethical considerations are everyday life questions are faced by researchers during the process of research.
The production of knowledge and scientific “facts” has lately gained growing attention in scientific discussions and also in the study of enterprising and small business. From one point of angle, studying business and enterprises this even more apt to this pondering, because enterprises cannot be perceived directly, experienced as such, but only through theory and conceptualizations. The many lenses of seeing organizations are evident and have a profound impact on how we approach them, how we form the study design and not at least, which kind of study results we gain.
The whole field of organizations study is therefore highly determined by earlier knowledge, metaphors and concepts. Moreover, the position of the researcher in the study process is focused, and the whole process where the studies get done are seen in the vain of complex interactional relations where the subject of the research in fact gets done, and is not there ‘as such’. These tendencies open up room for researchers, who use qualitative approach, especially in-depth studies and cases as an empirical basis of their investigations.
Because qualitative studies do not usually start from a strict theory or model, reflexivity on the researcher’s part is required from the very beginning. The qualitative approach has sometimes been criticized for not being able to add to the knowledge in the studied field and ending up with isolated bits of knowledge and pieces of understanding. Formost it is easy to reply to these doubts. For instance we can say that the aim of this research usually is to outline contextual knowledge and overrid the requirements of generalizations, and that the subjectivity of the researcher is not a threat but a necessary starting point for a good social science based analysis. However, self-reflection is needed also in using qualitative research methodology and some of the critics should be taken seriously. For instance, without any methodological knowledge the researcher might be attracted to use qualitative research and do its data analysis in naïve ways. Questioning one’s own knowledge creation basics is part of good research.
In many US journals of management the majority of work is done using the quantitative approach, but more and more take in also qualitative good research papers. As well there is a growing number of journals that are based on qualitative research. Moreover, the polarity of quantitative and qualitative does not exist in a pure form but many ways is a simplification. This has always been the tradition in business case studies, which use several kinds of data and its analysis, qualitative as well as quantitative. The main aim is to understand the ‘case’ however it is restricted, and it is not just the use or non-use of numbers that differentiates research. The whole research process is important, starting from covering data collection, and ending to analysis and interpretation using also earlier theory.
CALL FOR PAPERS
We invite papers in the broad field of in-depth studies on entrepreneurship and small-business management. Themes include:
- Findings of studies on entrepreneurship and small—business management using qualitative research methodology
- Innovative approaches in qualitative research
- In-depth studies and mixed methods
- How to gain good theory out of qualitative in-depth studies? The challenge of theory building
- Position of the researcher in the research process
- Reflexivity and the production of the research subject
- Subjectivity, rich data and analysis
- The research community and the legitimization process of the study
- Companies as partners: challenge and ethical questions
- Using in-depth interviews
- Diversity aspects: gender, ethnicity, age, culture as a basis of diversity
- Female managers as leaders in small business
- Cultures of companies as a in-depth study object
- Triangulation and other sources for reliability
- Study process: Thoughts on data collection, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions
To present a paper authors should submit a 2 page abstract that will be refereed by October 1 , 2011
Author notification will be sent before 15 October, 2011
Deadline for full papers is 18 November, 2011
- Iiris AALTIO, Jyväskylä University and Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
- Elisabeth SUNDIN, Linköping University, Sweden
- Tarja RÖMER-PAAKKANEN, Jyväskylä University, Finland
More information on how to submit is here.