SMU Identity Repair Through Rituals In Mental Health Court Discussion Your learning portfolio must include two parts. The first part will be an informal pi

SMU Identity Repair Through Rituals In Mental Health Court Discussion Your learning portfolio must include two parts. The first part will be an informal piece of writing in which you will reflect on the work you have done in this class, the things that you have learned, and the changes in your thinking that has occurred over the course. The second part must be material from the class (notes, assignments, reflections, whatever) that help illustrate these changes (think of the second part of the learning portfolio as evidence that helps support or illustrate how your thinking as changed). You are free to reflect on whatever you like, as long as it demonstrates the intellectual journey you have taken in this class. If you are having difficulty starting, consider some of the following prompts (these questions are guides—it is likely that you will find some of these questions more useful or engaging than others—and no one should be answering all of them):

1.Look at what you have produced (in this class as well as in others). Do you still feel the same way about the material now as you did when you started? Why or why not?

2.Did you overcome any fear or anxiety about the material or the course?

3.Have your attitudes toward any particular component in the course changed? What is different and why? If nothing has changed, why is that the case?

4.If you could give yourself advice at the beginning of the term, what advice would you give yourself?

5.Do you feel like you’ve developed any particular skills? Why or why not?

6.Were there areas where you did not meet either my expectations or your own expectations? Why or why not?

7.Do you still need to learn more about something? What is it? How can you go about doing this?

I want to encourage you not to write what you think I want to hear. You will not do well if you do not actually reflect on your particular intellectual journey in this course. This means that your reflection must fit only the material in your learning portfolio; if I am able to apply your generic statements to someone else’s portfolio, then you haven’t done your job. To this end, you must be specific in your reflection by pointing to particular issues and ideas or experiences, as evidenced in your assignments or class discussions, so that I can see what you are reflecting on.

Comfort Zone

You are not required to divulge anything that you do not wish to share with me. The objective is not to weird you out; the objective is to get you to think about how you have progressed in this class.

To Submit

1. An informal personal reflection of 2000 words. As a personal reflection of your intellectual journey, I expect that you will use the word “I”—you can’t reflect on something without using this word. You must, however, use full sentences and well-rounded paragraphs. Informal does not mean sloppy or without form.
2. All the material from class that provides evidence of the change you document in the informal reflection. This material must be organized in a meaningful way and be legible in order for you to receive a grade. This does not mean that you have to type things that you wrote down by hand—it just means that things have to be neat and organized. If I can’t find an example or observation or note that you are referring to, then I can’t assess your discussion. To this end, I recommend that you use dividers and a table of contents to help keep material organized in meaningful sections.

I am going to attach notes took from class and reading we were provided to read in class for you to add. and also i will provide the class syllabus to see the structure of the course Sociology 3100
Qualitative Research Methods
Dr. Augie Westhaver
Monday/Wednesday: 4:00 pm to 5:15 pm
Loyola 173
Office: MS 414
Office Hours: Monday/Wednesday: 1:30 to 3:00 (or by appointment)
augie.westhaver@smu.ca
Course Description
We will focus on qualitative methodology, research strategies, designs and methods of
qualitative data collection and analysis. We will focus on how to interpret and present
qualitative data, focusing on participant-observation/ethnography and in-depth interviews.
Course Schedule
January 13: Introduction and Overview
January 15: Group Discussion: van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 1 (to page 6) and 2
January 20: Group Discussion: van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 1 (to page 6) and 2
January 22: Group Discussion: Anestis and Carbonell (2014) and Snedker (2015)
January 27: Group Discussion: Anestis and Carbonell (2014) and Snedker (2015)
January 29: Group Discussion: Humphreys (1970)
February 3: Group Discussion: van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 4
Group Discussion: Humphreys (1990) Debate Set up and Research
February 5: Group Discussion: Humphreys (1990) Debate Set up and Research
February 10: Group Discussion: Humphreys (1990) Debate Set up and Research (25 minutes)
Humphreys (1990) Debate (40 minutes)
February 12: Group Discussion, van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 3
Heads up for Group Discussion, van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 5 (Court Visit
Exercise, questions 1 and 2)
February 24: Group Discussion, van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 3
February 26: Group Discussion, van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 5 (Court Visit Exercise,
questions 1 and 2)
Aim to conduct the Field Research Exercise this week
March 2:
van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 6 (interviewing)
March 4:
van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 6 (interviewing)
Aim to conduct the Field Research Exercise this week
March 9:
Group Discussion, Developing an Interview Guide
March 11:
Class-time for In-depth Interviews
Aim to conduct the Field Research Exercise this week
March 16:
van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 9
March 18:
Class-time for data analysis and paper discussion
March 23:
March 25:
March 30:
April 1:
April 6:
Aim to conduct the Field Research Exercise this week
Class-time for data analysis and paper discussion
van den Hoonaard (2019), chapter 10
Fieldnotes and Interview Transcripts due
Class-time for data analysis and paper discussion
Buffer
Final Assignment Due
Group Discussion, Self-assessment Exercise
Readings
van den Hoonaard, D. (2019). Qualitative Research in Action: A Canadian Primer (Third ed.).
Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Anestis, J. C., & Carbonell, J. L. (2014). Stopping the Revolving Door: Effectiveness of Mental
Health Court in Reducing Recidivism by Mentally Ill Offenders. Psychiatric Services,
65(9), 1105-1112. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.2013003051878686 [pii]
Snedker, K. A. (2015). Unburdening Stigma. Society and Mental Health, 6(1), 36-55. doi:
10.1177/2156869315598203
Humphreys, Laud. 1970. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company (pages 16 to 46)
Assignments, Due Dates, and Weight
Assignments
Debate (G)1
Fieldnotes Transcript (I)
Interview Transcript (I)
Final Project (G)
Course Participation Self-Assessment (I)
Learning Portfolio (I)
Due Date
February 05
March 25
March 25
April 06
April 06
April 12
Value
15%
5%
5%
25%
25%
25%
In-class Group Discussion Activities
1. van den Hoonaard (2019), Chapter 1 and 2
1. Share with each other any misgivings, questions, or puzzles you have about social
research in general and qualitative research in particular. You do not need to try to solve
or answer these issues—just share them and keep note of them.
2. In chapter 2, Van den Hoonaard (2019) distinguishes qualitative and quantitative
research styles by comparing and contrasting a number of interrelated concepts. These
concepts include positivism, a realist perspective, causal knowledge, deductive
reasoning, operationalization, verstehen, the definition of the situation, symbolic
interactionism, looking-glass self, ethnomethodology, breaching experiments, and
1
“G” designates a group project, “I” designates an individual project.
generic social processes. She also compares these two styles of research with related
ideas in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. In group discussion, please do two things:
a. Help each other understand these ideas by providing examples for each one. This
example can be from this class, other classes, or from issues outside the
classroom.
b. Complete a “quote, comment, connect” exercise: 1) identify a quote from the
text that stands out to you; 2) comment on this quote, explaining to your groups
why it stands out to you; and 3) connect this quote/comment to some aspect of
your lift (school-related or otherwise).
3. Have a look at Appendix A in Van den Hoonaard (2019), which offers a list of qualitative
research. What reactions do you have about the scope, nature, or topics in this list?
2. Anestis and Carbonell (2014) and Snedker (2015)
1. Consider the articles by Anestis and Carbonell (2014) and Snedker (2015) in light of the
terms and ideas van den Hoonaard (2019) uses to help us distinguish between
qualitative and quantitative research styles. Identify elements, ideas, processes, or
moments in each article that capture, correspond to, illustrate, or otherwise offer an
example of the concepts laid out by van den Hoonaard (2019). This should take the form
of a short paragraph in which you explain why you think a bit of text or material from
one of the articles expresses or exemplifies one of the concepts. Most, but not all, of
these ideas will be relevant to this exercise.
2. I’d also like you to think about the way the qualitative and quantitative researchers
organize their projects and the way they present and use data. Here your objective is to
identify, describe, and comment on the argumentative and methodological structure of
the article. The key here is to focus on how the author is making his or her claim and
what they are doing rather than focus on the content of the claim. A hint: if you find
yourself agreeing or disagreeing with statements or ideas or arguing for or against the
arguments made in the articles, then you are probably on the wrong track. Focus on
what the authors do and how they organize their project rather than on whether or not
you agree with what they did. To stay on the right track, consider the following
questions:
a. Consider the first few pages of the article, where the author sets up the direction
of their project.
i. Identify the context of this argument. Where is the “context” located in
the paper? Where does it begin and end? Circle it, highlight it, or
otherwise mark it off so that it is visible to you. What does the author do
by introducing us to the broader “intellectual conversation” of which the
article is a part? How do you feel about how the author has presented
this context to the reader?
ii. Identify the research question. Keep in mind that a research question
might not (frustratingly enough) be explicitly a question—it might be a
problem statement. If this is the case, identify the problem statement.
How do you feel about how easy/difficulty it is to identify this research
question? Circle it, highlight it, or otherwise mark it off so that it is visible
to you.
iii. Can you explain the relationship between the context and the research
question? What is the author using the research question/problem
statement to do in relation to the context? Identify the point in the
article where the authors do this most visibly or explicitly. Circle it,
highlight it, or otherwise mark it off so that it is visible to you.
iv. Identify the main thesis or argument that responds to this question or
problem. Are there multiple thesis statements? Circle it, highlight it, or
otherwise mark it off so that it is visible to you.
b. Consider the remainder of the paper
i. Identify what each section of the paper tries to illustrate, do, deliver to
the reader, or otherwise accomplish. For the most part, you can probably
rely on heading and sub-headings to sort through this. Again, focus on
what the authors are doing rather than what they are arguing. If you find
yourself trying to sort out what the author meant or if you find yourself
disagreeing or disagreeing with statements, you are probably on the
wrong track.
ii. Identify the data used by the author. What did the authors do to collect
their data? Describe this collection process. What did they do? Did they
talk to anyone? How did they do this? If they did not talk to people, what
did they do? What does the data look like? Can you describe the data in a
general sense? How do the authors present this data? Do they use the
data directly (where you can see it) or do they use it indirectly (where
they summarize it in some way without direct reference)? Is it easy to
identify the data? Circle it, highlight it, or otherwise mark it off so that it
is visible to you. What is your reaction to their data?
iii. Identify where they authors connect their data to their research
question/problem statement. Where do they do this in the paper? Do
you find their argument compelling given the way the data is presented?
To what degree is your reaction to their argument and data a reflection
of your understanding of methodology? In your opinion, is there enough
data to support the argument? What, if anything, would have made the
argument more compelling for you?
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although I
recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that you
have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete your
Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
3. Humphreys (1970)
The work of Laud Humphreys (1970) was both revolutionary in terms of its focus and very
controversial in terms of its methods. For today’s discussion, I would like your group to focus on
three things:
1. Chart out what it is that Humphreys (1970) did in order to conduct his study. What steps
did he follow? Why did he follow them? As best you can, list these steps in a kind of
chronological order. What did he do first and what was his last step?
2. What is your reaction to the way Humphreys (1970) conducted this project?
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although
I recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that
you have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete
your Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
4. van den Hoonaard (2019), Chapter 4 and Humphreys (1990) Debate Set up and
Research
Consider Humphreys’ (1970) research in light of the arguments and material presented in
chapter 4. What, according to these ethical guidelines, did Humphreys (1970) fail to do? What is
your reaction to Humphreys’ (1970) now that you have considered his work in light of more
recent approaches to ethics in research? Do you think the benefits outweigth the risks? Has
there been longstanding benefit to his work? Has there been longstanding harm to his work?
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although
I recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that
you have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete
your Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
5. Humphreys (1990) Debate Set up and Research
As a group you will have an opportunity to prepare for and then debate a motion about
Humphreys’ (1970) research in relation to the ideas described in chapter 4 of the van den
Hoonaard (2019) text. I will assign each group to either supporting or challenging the debate—
and as a group you will develop arguments to this end. Each group will identify a spokesperson
who is comfortable taking on the role of debater.
The motion you will be debating is as follows: Laud Humphreys’ (1970) research in the Tearoom
Trade produced little benefit.
To prepare for this, I suggest that you review any relevant information you can find on line
about Humphreys’ (1970) research as well as what you have discussed in class. The Wikipedia
entries for Laud Humphreys and the book The Tearoom Trade are good resources (follow the
various links and footnotes).
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although
I recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that
you have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete
your Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
6. Humphreys (1990) Debate
For the debate, each of the group’s spokespersons shall form two teams (one for the motion;
one against the motion) and debate the motion before the rest of the class. I will provide some
time in class on February 03 and 05 for the newly formed groups to prepare their arguments.
The side I find most convincing will receive 80% for their work; the side I find least convincing
will receive 70% for their work. This grade will trickle down to the subsequent groups who
worked on the winning and losing arguments.
7. van den Hoonaard (2019), Chapter 3:
Chapter 3 provides some direction for developing a research focus. We will spend some time
during class discussion helping you sort out a (somewhat constrained) research focus for this
class.
Individual preparation: Earlier in the term, you reviewed articles by Anestis and Carbonell
(2014) and Snedker (2015) on mental health courts. At that point the focus was to familiarize
yourself with how the authors organized their work. In today’s discussion, I would like you to
think about the content of the articles. What aspect about the arguments put forward by
Anestis and Carbonell (2014) and/or Snedker (2015) peaked your curiosity? What grabbed you?
What did you find yourself agreeing with? Disagreeing with? Wanting to know more about? Did
a question or puzzle emerge for you about the arguments? These issues might be about the
content, conclusions, or the methodology.
Write a small paragraph describing this curiosity and bring it to class. As part of this reflection,
please find 2 peer-reviewed journal articles related to these topics, using them to help think
about these issues.
Group Discussion: To help you sharpen your understanding of your curiosity and provide some
direction for subsequent assignments, you will do three things via group discussion:
1. Share your paragraph with group. Ask for their input, seeking confirmation,
elaboration, challenges, or any other observation about what you raise. Hearing
what others think about your ideas can help you refine what it is that you are
puzzled or concerned about.
2. Next, consider your curiosity in light of the major ideas that van den Hoonaard
(2019) presents to help a novice research find a research idea (page 40 to 46). How
do these factors shape or inform what you find interesting about Anestis and
Carbonell (2014) and/or Snedker (2015)? Hint: all of you have lives outside this
class—and this experience drives what you find interesting and valuable. The ideas
set out by van den Hoonaard (2019) are ways to think about these factors. Write a
few lines or a paragraph to capture your thoughts on each of the suggestions
Hoonaard (2019) makes.
3. After you’ve had a chance to review everyone’s ideas, your group should choose one
curiosity or focus or issue. How you decide among each focus is up to you and your
group—but in the end, you should all agree on which issue is the most interesting.
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although
I recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that
you have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete
your Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
8. van den Hoonaard (2019), Chapter 5 (Court Visit Exercise)
Individual preparation: In your reflections from chapter 3, you should have in mind a curiosity
about court proceedings or experiences in court, one that your group has agreed upon. To
explore this curiosity and get some exposure to ethnographic methods of research, you will be
required to attend court three different times. In concrete terms, this means that you will be
treating Court proceedings as a field site.
In some cases, gaining access to field sites can be quite difficult, challenging, or complex. In
other cases, it can be relatively straightforward. Regardless of the difficulty or the ease with
which you might gain access to a field site, you need to consider two main issues.
On the one hand, you need to think about the logistics of gaining access to the site; on the
other hand, you need to think about the ethical dimensions of doing so. This assignment asks
you to identify and work through these issues as they relate to making observations of regular
and mental health court proceedings. How, then, do you go about observing the proceedings in
Nova Scotia’s courts of law (regular and mental health courts)?
Some questions that you will probably need to consider:
1. Are you allowed to attend Court proceedings?
2. Where are the Courts located?
3. What times are the Courts in session?
4. What are the expectations are made of court observers?
5. Can you take notes in Court proceedings? Can you take recording devices? Laptops? Cell
phones?
You can probably begin working out answers to these questions by looking at the website for:
the Courts of Nova Scotia
www.courts.ns.ca/index.htm
and
the Nova Scotia Mental Health Court
www.courts.ns.ca/Provincial_Court/NSPC_mental_health_program.htm
Once you have sorted out the logistics associated with being a Court observer, please attend a
session (you can do it by yourself or coordinate with a classmate). Ideally, this should take place
before the group discussion outlined below. Please take notes of issues that stand out to you.
WARNING: the mental health court is open only on Thursdays.
Group Discussion: With this experience in mind, I would like you to consider two things:
1. What are the ethical issues associated with being a court observer?
2. Consider your court visit in light of van den Hoonaard (2019) reflections on pages 82 to
92 (Conducting a Field Study) in chapter 5. How are these issues relevant to your own
field site?
What to do with this work: You do not need to hand anything in for this assignment—although
I recommend that you record your thoughts in some detail and mark up the readings so that
you have a good sense of how they do their work. You will be drawing on them to complete
your Learning Portfolio. The more detail you have to draw on as you make this create this final
reflection, the more robust and compelling your assignment will be.
9. In-depth Interview Exercise
While relying on observations made during court can provide valuable information to respond
to your puzzle, it is generally a good idea to rely on multiple data sources. To that end, you will
also need to conduct one interview with someone who you believe may have something helpful
to say about what you’ve witnessed in court. For the purposes of this assignment, you will be
conducting an in-depth interv…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment