Registration is now open!

N.B. Please register for the waiting list if the course is full. This also signals the demand for the course.

6 sessions, mostly on Mondays 10:00-13:00, but session 5 takes place on Friday 14:00-17:00

Monday 19 October 10:00 - 13:00 in the UB
Monday 26 October 10:00 - 13:00 in the UB
Monday 2 November 10:00 - 13:00 in the UB
Monday 9 November 10:00 - 13:00 in the UB
Friday 13 November 14:00 - 17:00 in the OMHP NB change of date, time and location for this session!
Monday 30 November 10:00 - 13:00 in the UB

The course runs as six three-hour sessions in which participants work on their own project throughout. Each session pairs guided discussion of a shared theme with sustained workshop time on participants' own material, and closes with a short piece of writing that feeds the next stage.

Across the six sessions, the course takes up the elements of a research design: the research problem, the selection of material (objects, cases, data), the relevant literature and theoretical frames, the methods, and the structure and scope. These are treated not as a sequence to be completed in turn but as parts that have to be brought into conversation, so that participants see how the elements shape one another. A recurring feature is cross-examination between disciplines, where participants explain and defend their choices to colleagues who do not share their assumptions. The work is drawn together into the set-up and early writing of the pilot study and a work plan for the coming years.

• Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams et al., The Craft of Research, 5th ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2024)
• Mats Alvesson and Jörgen Sandberg, "Generating Research Questions Through Problematization" Academy of Management Review 36, no. 2 (2011)
• Howard S. Becker, Tricks of the Trade (University of Chicago Press, 1998)
• John Law, After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (Routledge, 2004)
• Donna Haraway, "Situated Knowledges" Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988)
• Joseph Harris, Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts (Utah State University Press, 2006)
• Umberto Eco, How to Write a Thesis (MIT Press, 2015)
• Estelle Phillips and Derek Pugh, How to Get a PhD (Open University Press)
• Paul Silvia, How to Write a Lot (American Psychological Association)

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Distinguish a researchable problem, understood as a puzzle, from a mere gap, and explain why gap-spotting is weak on its own.
  • Locate the project within a scholarly conversation it intends to intervene in.
  • State the research problem in a single defensible formulation.
  • Differentiate Context, Relevance, Literature Review
• Readings
  • Required. Booth, Colomb, Williams et al., The Craft of Research, 4th ed. (University of Chicago Press, 2016): the chapters on framing problems and the question of significance. Chapter 3, 4
  • Required. Alvesson and Sandberg, “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization”, Academy of Management Review 36(2), 2011: read for the gap-versus-problem argument
• Homework
  • Write a three-paragraph research problem statement, refined from the three formulations workshopped in class.
  • Bring three copies for peer review in the next session.

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Explain what theoretical concepts do in the analysis rather than treating theory as ornament.
  • Identify the core concepts the project depends on and operationalise each one.
  • Translate a discipline-specific concept for colleagues outside the field.
• Readings
  • Required. Becker, Tricks of the Trade (University of Chicago Press, 1998): on concepts, imagery and thinking while doing research.chapter 2, 4
  • Optional. One theoretical text central to your own project, brought to test against the session.
• Homework
  • Draft the conceptual-framework component: list the core concepts, with a sentence or two per concept on the analytical work it does.

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Distinguish methodology, as epistemological justification, from methods, as concrete procedures.
  • Map a coherent chain from research question through method to evidence.
  • Treat positionality and reflexivity analytically rather than as confession.
• Readings
  • Required. Law, After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (Routledge, 2004): on the madeness of method. Chapter 1, 2, 8
  • Required. Haraway, “Situated Knowledges”, Feminist Studies 14(3), 1988: on partial perspective and reflexivity that does analytical work.
• Homework
  • Draft the methodology-and-methods component: map the chain from question to method to evidence, and flag the weakest link.

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Specify what will count as evidence and where it is located.
  • Assess access, ethics and the politics of the sources.
  • Identify the silences and limits in the evidence base.
• Readings
  • Required. Harris, Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts (Utah State University Press, 2006): on working rigorously with the texts of others. Chapter 1, 2, 3
  • Optional. A methods or archive text from your own field, to compare disciplinary conventions in class.
• Homework
  • Draft the sources-and-evidence component: a map of the corpus or archive, where it lives, and a note on access, ethics and silences.

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Sketch how the chapters relate and how they build a single argument.
  • Judge the feasibility of the project against the time available.
  • Reduce an over-scoped design to a size one researcher can complete.
• Readings
  • Required. Eco, How to Write a Thesis (MIT Press, 2015): on structure, scope and the shape of an argument, in a humanities-native idiom. Chapter 2, 4
• Homework
  • Draft a chapter outline with a one-line rationale per chapter.
  • Produce a revised version cut to a feasible scope, noting what was removed and why.

• Objectives (by the end of the session, participants can):
  • Build a realistic timeline with milestones, dependencies and contingencies.
  • Treat project management as part of the research design, not an afterthought.
  • Defend the complete design aloud and give structured peer feedback.
• Readings
  • Required. Phillips and Pugh, How to Get a PhD (Open University Press): on the doctoral process and planning. Chapter 4, 5, 6
  • Required. Silvia, How to Write a Lot (American Psychological Association): on writing as a managed habit. Chapter 2, 3 ,4
• Homework
  • Assemble the full proposal and project plan from the weekly components and submit within [two weeks of the final session].
  • Prepare a three-minute defence of the design for the closing session.