PhD course: Mapping the welfare state from below - Approaches to institutional ethnography (SOS9010)

Social inequality is increasing in Norway, and there are many indications that poverty problems affect larger and new sections of the population than before. Figures from Statistics Norway (Hatrem, 2022) show that approx. 11 percent of the population (excluding students) belong to a household that is defined within the "low income" category, and with increased housing costs and general price increases, the term "working poor" has also become common in the Norwegian context. At the same time, the welfare provision has also undergone gradual changes over a long period of time, towards, for example, new forms of conditionalities and a welfare mix where charity-based benefits from voluntary organizations make up an increasingly large proportion. This withdrawal of the welfare state is particularly visible in the reports of increased food queues, and social services which increasingly refer to voluntary-based charity. The Norwegian Health Association (NHA, 2021 p. 2) claim that ‘the inequalities we see in society today are unintended consequences of many small and large measures taken over time across sectors.

Ethnographic methods and institutional ethnography are well suited for investigating the local, lived experiences of welfare services, both from the perspective of users of the welfare services and professionals in the front line. These methods provide a particular viewpoint for exploring and mapping how these lived experiences are formed by institutional practices. The PhD course, Mapping the welfare state from below, will provide PhD students with more in-depth knowledge on ethnographic welfare studies, with particular focus on institutional ethnography, ethnographic methods as well as ethical issues and challenges.

The coursework consists of a combination of lectures, seminars and discussions. Course participants will write a course paper presenting a literature revies on an elective theme connected to their own dissertation. The paper should be 4500-6000 words (including references) and will be assessed as pass/fail. A high degree of independent work is presupposed in connection with the writing of the literature review.

The course has 20 seats, with a minimum number of participants of 5. If the number of applicants exceeds the available number of seats, applicants will be ranked from category 1 to 3.

• Category 1: Doctoral students
• Category 2: Applicants with a master's degree (120 ECTS) or equivalent. (A Norwegian Master´s Degree of 5 years or 3 (bachelor's degree) + 2 years (master's degree).
• Category 3: Postdoctoral researchers

Program:

Tuesday 28.05.2024 (Auditorium A3)

09:00 - 10:00: Opening session: Presentation of faculty and participants. Each participant presents their PhD project. (Lead: Ann-Torill Tørrisplass & Guro Øydgard)

10:00 – 10:15: Break

10:15 - 12:00: Lecture: Mapping/studying the welfare state from below. Institutional ethnography (Professor Janet Rankin)

• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Guidance and Cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773447. 10.1177/1609406917734472.
• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Analytical Work Prior to Commencing Data Collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773448. 10.1177/1609406917734484.
• Smith, D. E., & Griffith, A. I. (2022). Simply Institutional Ethnography. University of Toronto Press.

12:00 - 13:00: Lunch

13:00 - 14:00: Lecture: Ethnography and welfare states (Halvard Vike)

• Jacobsson, K. & Hollertz, K. (2021). Commitment and control - Teamwork as management tool in a welfare state bureaucracy. Sociologisk Forskning, årgång 58, nr 3, pp. 243–265. https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.58.22890
• Spitzmuller, M.C. (2016). Negotiating Competing Institutional Logics at the Street Level. Social Service Review, March 2016, Vol. 90, No. 1 (March 2016), pp. 35-82.

14:00 - 15:00: Workshop 1 – Defining the research field: Grounding your project within an empirical and academic field.

15:00 - 16:00: Workshop 2 – How can your study contribute to understanding welfare systems.

Wednesday 29.05.2024 (Auditorium A3)

09:00 - 09:15: Welcome day 2

09:15 - 09:45: Ontological and epistemological assumptions in ethnographic studies (Johans Sandvin)

• Hughes, E. C. (2002). The Place of Fieldwork in Social Sciences. In Darin Weinberg (ed.). Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Goffman, E. (2002). On Fieldwork. In Darin Weinberg (ed.). Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

09:45 - 10:15: Institutional ethnography – The ontological and epistemological assumptions in institutional ethnographic studies (Ann-Torill Tørrisplass)

• Hart, R. J., & McKinnon, A. (2010). Sociological Epistemology: Durkheim's Paradox and Dorothy E. Smith's Actuality. Sociology (Oxford), 44(6), 1038–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510381609
• Smith. D. E. (2005) Chapter 3: Designing an Ontology for Institutional Ethnography. In Institutional Ethnography – A sociology for people. Lanham. Altmira Press.

10:15 – 10:30: Coffee Break

10:30 – 11:30: Ethnographic interviews and participatory observation (Halvard Vike & Christian Lo)

• Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. In Current anthropology, 43.1: 1-18. (17 p.)
• Moshuus, Geir H., & Eide, Ketil. (2016). The Indirect Approach: How to Discover Context When Studying Marginal Youth. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1): 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916656193
• Weeks, John (2020): “What good is the ethnographic interview?” In Mir & Fayard (eds.) The Routledge companion to anthropology and business. pp. 64-79. Routledge.

11:30 – 12:30: Lunch

12:30 – 13:00: Keeping the institution in view (Janne Breimo)

• McCoy, L. (2006) Keeping the Institution in View: Working with Interview Accounts of Everyday Experience. I: Smith, D. E. red. Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Oxford Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. , s. 109-125.
• Smith, D. E., & Griffith, A. I. (2022). Simply Institutional Ethnography. University of Toronto Press.

13:00 – 13:45: Mapping and moving - analyzes in ethnographic studies (Janet Rankin)

• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Guidance and Cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773447. 10.1177/1609406917734472.
• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Analytical Work Prior to Commencing Data Collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773448. 10.1177/1609406917734484.

13:45 – 14:00: Break

14:00 – 16:00: Workshop 3: Ontological, epistemological and methodological coherence in your project

Thursday 30.05.2024 (Auditorium A3)

08:30 - 09:15: Research for people - Ethical dilemmas and challenges in institutional ethnography (Guro W. Øydgard)

• Ashby, C. (2011). Whose "Voice" is it Anyway?: Giving Voice and Qualitative Research Involving Individuals that Type to Communicate, 31(4). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1723/1771
• Cupit, C., Rankin, J. and Armstrong, N. (2021), "Taking sides with patients using institutional ethnography", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-12-2019-0048

09:30 - 10:15: Participatory research – ethical dilemmas and challenges (Esben Olesen)

• Gubrium, A., Harper, K. & Otañez, M. (2015). Introduction. In Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action (p. 15 - 37). Left Coast Press.
• Gobo, G. (2011). Globalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6), 417-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.611379
• Olesen, E. S. B. (2021). Self-Filming as a Method in Youth Research. In Involving Methods in Youth Research (p. 73-93) (Studies in Childhood and Youth). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75941-4_4

10:15 - 10:30: Break

10:30 – 11:30: Course paper – Share your ideas for course paper and discuss with participants and lecturers.

11:30 - 12:30: Lunch

12:30 - 14:00: Cont. Course paper – Share your ideas for course paper and discuss with participants and lecturers.

14:00 - 14:30: Closing session, evaluation, questions and answers

Departure

Learning outcomes:

Knowledge

The candidate:

• Is in the forefront of knowledge on ethnographic welfare studies
• can evaluate the expediency and application of different ethnographic designs in welfare studies
• Masters key epistemological and ontological issues related to institutional ethnography

Skills

The candidate:

• can formulate problems, plan and carry out ethnographic research within the field of welfare studies
• can identify and formulate relevant research questions in the field of welfare studies
• can handle complex ethical issues and challenges in ethnographic welfare studies

Competence

The candidate:

• can identify relevant ethical issues in ethnographic research
• can participate in debates on ethnographic designs and ethical issues.
• can plan and carry out ethnographic research with scholarly integrity

Speakers:

Professor Janet Rankin, Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary
Associate Professor Guro Øydgard, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Associate Professor Ann-Torill Tørrisplass, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Professor Halvard Vike, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, USN
Professor Janne Paulsen Breimo, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Associate Professor Christian Lo, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Professor Cecilie Høj Anvik, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Associate Professor Esben Olesen, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University
Professor Johans Sandvin, Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University

Course literature and recommended reading:

• Ashby, C. (2011). Whose "Voice" is it Anyway?: Giving Voice and Qualitative Research Involving Individuals that Type to Communicate, Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1723/1771
• Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. In Current anthropology. 43.1: 1-18. (17 p.)
• Cupit, C., Rankin, J. and Armstrong, N. (2021), "Taking sides with patients using institutional ethnography", Journal of Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-12-2019-0048
• Gobo, G. (2011). Globalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6), 417-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.611379
• Goffman, E. (2002). On Fieldwork. In Darin Weinberg (ed.). Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Gubrium, A., Harper, K. & Otañez, M. (2015). Introduction. In Participatory Visual and Digital Research in Action (p. 15 - 37). Left Coast Press.
• Hart, R. J., & McKinnon, A. (2010). Sociological Epistemology: Durkheim's Paradox and Dorothy E. Smith's Actuality. Sociology (Oxford), 44(6), 1038–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510381609
• Hughes, E. C. (2002). The Place of Fieldwork in Social Sciences. In Darin Weinberg (ed.). Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Jacobsson, K. & Hollertz, K. (2021). Commitment and control - Teamwork as management tool in a welfare state bureaucracy. Sociologisk Forskning, årgång 58, nr 3, pp. 243–265. https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.58.22890
• McCoy, L. (2006) Keeping the Institution in View: Working with Interview Accounts of Everyday Experience. I: Smith, D. E. red. Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Oxford Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. , pp. 109-125.
• Moshuus, Geir H., & Eide, Ketil. (2016). The Indirect Approach: How to Discover Context When Studying Marginal Youth. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1): 1-10 https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916656193
• Olesen, E. S. B. (2021). Self-Filming as a Method in Youth Research. In Involving Methods in Youth Research (p. 73-93) (Studies in Childhood and Youth). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75941-4_4
• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Guidance and Cautions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773447. 10.1177/1609406917734472.
• Rankin, Janet. (2017). Conducting Analysis in Institutional Ethnography: Analytical Work Prior to Commencing Data Collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16. 160940691773448. 10.1177/1609406917734484.
• Smith. D. E. (2005). Chapter 3: Designing an Ontology for Institutional Ethnography. In Institutional Ethnography – A sociology for people. Lanham. Altmira Press.
• Smith, D. E., & Griffith, A. I. (2022). Simply Institutional Ethnography. University of Toronto Press.
• Spitzmuller, M.C. (2016). Negotiating Competing Institutional Logics at the Street Level. Social Service Review, March 2016, Vol. 90, No. 1 (March 2016), pp. 35-82
• Weeks, J. (2020). “What good is the ethnographic interview?” In Mir & Fayard (eds.) The Routledge companion to anthropology and business. pp. 64-79. Routledge.