Logo UAB
2022/2023

Analysis and Presentation of Results

Code: 42589 ECTS Credits: 9
Degree Type Year Semester
4313402 Psychosocial Research and Intervention OT 0 2

Contact

Name:
Luz María Martinez Martinez
Email:
luzmaria.martinez@uab.cat

Use of Languages

Principal working language:
spanish (spa)

Other comments on languages

Sessions are generally held in Spanish, however some sessions will be held in Catalan, some materials can be occasionally offered in Catalan or English, and teachers may respond in Catalan to questions or comments made in Catalan by the students.

Teachers

Juan Manuel Muñoz Justicia
Joan Pujol Tarres
Joel Feliu Samuel Lajeunesse
Isabel Pellicer Cardona
Francisco Javier Tirado Serrano

Prerequisites

To carry out the module it is advisable to have completed the previous modules of the research itinerary: M1, M2a, M3 and M5a.

Objectives and Contextualisation

The overall objectives of the module are as follows:

.- Develop a psychosocial analysis that is driven by theory and based on the results obtained in one's own research.

.- Draw conclusions and make recommendations as a result of the research carried out.

.- Assess the ethical and political implications of the dissemination of the knowledge generated.

Competences

  • Defend and justify arguments with clarity and precision, so appropriate to the context, valuing the contributions of others.
  • Integrate knowledge and use it to make judgements in complex situations, with incomplete information, while keeping in mind social and ethical responsibilities.
  • Selecting and applying necessary for collection, analysis and presentation of empirical material qualitative techniques.
  • Solve problems in new or little-known situations within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to the field of study.
  • Theoretically guide the definition of objectives, design and analysis in understanding the psychosocial phenomena.
  • Using information technology and communication in the collection, processing and transmission of knowledge.

Learning Outcomes

  1. Conduct an analysis theoretically oriented, the results of a psychosocial research
  2. Defend and justify arguments with clarity and precision, so appropriate to the context, valuing the contributions of others.
  3. Integrate knowledge and use it to make judgements in complex situations, with incomplete information, while keeping in mind social and ethical responsibilities.
  4. Present and justify the instruments used in psychosocial research itself
  5. Solve problems in new or little-known situations within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to the field of study.
  6. Using information technology and communication in the collection, processing and transmission of knowledge.

Content

Thematic orientation of the module

.- Analysis and discussion of research results based on different qualitative methodologies: discourse analysis, critical, multimodal and narrative, analysis of ethnographic data and analysis of processes of action.

.- Identification of problems associated with the process of analysis of qualitative data in relation to the students’ projects.

.- Definition of the synthesis and conclusion-drawing processes.

.- Procedures for the systematization of recommendations for professional practice derived from the research work carried out.

.- Implications of the publication of qualitative “sensitive” data for ethical or political reasons.

Methodology

Teaching methodologies will combine the following forms of work: seminars, individual and collective tutoring, job development, analysis of empirical materials, reading of articles and/or reports of interest, and personal study.

N.B. The proposed teaching and assessment methodologies may experience some modifications as a result of the restrictions on face-to-face learning imposed by the health authorities. The teaching staff will use the Moodle classroom or the usual communication channel to specify whether the different directed and assessment activities are to be carried out on site or online, as instructed by the Faculty

Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.

Activities

Title Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
Type: Directed      
Lectures and group discussions 30 1.2 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
Oral presentations 15 0.6 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
Type: Supervised      
Analysis of empirical material 15 0.6 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
Preparation of sessions 20 0.8 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
Reading and understanding articles and reports 10 0.4 2, 4, 3, 1
Type: Autonomous      
Preparing and carrying out assignments 60 2.4 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
Study and personal and group work 40 1.6 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6

Assessment

EV1. Classroom activity: group exercise carried out in the classroom and linked to a specific analysis methodology and/or to the research done by the students themselves. The teacher of the session will indicate in due course what work should be done, and this will be prepared prior to the assigned session and presented in class  on the corresponding day.

EV2. Individual exercise: written analysis of the material collected in the research process (includes method, procedure, analysis and preliminary results).

EV3. Module learning report for the master’s degree dissertation (TFM). Report on the application of the module to the TFM process, corrected by the student's tutor in line with the guidelines provided by the person coordinating the module.

 

Grading

Module passed: The module will be considered passed if the student gets an average grade greater than 5 in the set of assessment tasks.

Assessable. A student who has presented evidence of learning with a weight of 40% or more of the total module will be considered Assessable.

Non-Assessable. A student who has presented evidence of learning with a weight of less than 40% of the total module will be considered Non-Assessable.

Reassessment. This is not available.

Assessment Guidelines of the Faculty of Psychology: https://www.uab.cat/web/estudiar/graus/graus/avaluacions-1345722525858.html

 

 

 

Assessment Activities

Title Weighting Hours ECTS Learning Outcomes
EV1. Preparation and delivery of oral presentations 30% 8 0.32 2, 4, 3, 5, 1, 6
EV2. Development and written presentation of the analysis work 50% 27 1.08 4, 3, 5, 1
EV3. TFM Learning Report 20% 0 0 4, 3, 5, 1

Bibliography

Antaki.C, (Ed.) (1988): Analysing Ordinary Explanation: A casebook of methods London: Sage.

Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked : the new science of networks. Cambridge  Mass.: Perseus Pub.

Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1975). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New literary history, 237-272.

Bassi, J. (2008): El buen camino. Una historia de vida que ilustra los efectos de la (in)disciplina en la producción de conocimiento.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Billig, M.(1987): Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: CUP.

Billig,M. et al.(1988): Ideological Dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking, London: Sage,

Billig,M,(1991): Ideo/ogy and Opinions. London: Saqe.

Burman,E,-Parker,I.(Eds,)(1993): Discourse analytic research. Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London: Routledge,

Geertz, C. (1992). La interpretación de las culturas (Vol. 1). Barcelona: Gedisa.
 
Crowle, A.J. (1976): The deceptive language of the laboratory. En H. Harré (ed.): Life Sentences. Chichester: Wiley.

Fairclough,N,(1989): Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough,N,(1992): Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2008). El análisis crítico del discurso y la mercantilización del discurso público: las universidades. Discurso & Sociedad, 2(1), 170-185.

Fernández Christlieb, Pablo (2012). Vehículos. URBS. Revista de Estudios Urbanos y Ciencias Sociales, 2 (1), 9-17. Disponible en: http://nevada.ual.es:81/urbs/index.php/urbs/article/view/fernandez_christlieb

Gilbert,G,N,-Mulkay,M,(1984): Opening Pandora's Box: A socio/ogical analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Grice, H,P.(1975): logic and conversation. En P,Cole and J, Morgan (Eds.): Syntax and Semantics, vol 3: Speech Acts. NY: Academic Press.

Iñiguez, L.; Antaki, Ch. (1994): El análisis del discurso en Psicología Social. Boletín de Psicología, No. 44, septiembre 1994, 57-75.

Iñiguez, L.; Antaki, C. (1998).Análisis del discurso. Anthropos, 177, 59-66.

Levinson, S.(1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.

Linder, S. H. (2006). Cashing-in on Risk Claims: On the For-profit Inversion of Signifiers for´┐¢ Global Warming. Social Semiotics, 16(1), 103.

Maingueneau, D.(1991): L'analyse du Discours. Introduction aux lectures de /'archive. Paris: Hachette.

Martínez-Guzmán, A. & Íñiguez-Rueda, L. (2010). La fabricación del Trastorno de Identidad Sexual. Discurso & Sociedad, Vol 4(1) 2010, 30-51.

McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The qualitative report, 15(3), 630-643.

Molina, J. L. (2004). La ciencia de las redes. Apuntes de Ciencia Y Tecnología, (11), 36–42.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. Companion to discourse, 120-137.

Parker, I. (1988): Deconstructing accounts. En C,Antaki (ed.):Analysing Ordinary Explanation: A casebook of methods London: Sage.

Parker,L.(1992): Discourse Analysis. Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psycho-logy. London: Routledge.

Potter, J.; Wetherell, M, (1987): Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond attitudes and benevtour. London: Saqe.

Riessman, C. K. (2003) Narrative Analysis. in M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman and T. Futing Liao, eds (2003), The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, 3 Vol. boxed set, Sage. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.

Riessman, C.K. (2003) “Performing identities in illness narrative: Masculinity and multiple sclerosis”, Qualitative Research, 3(1).

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual. London:SAGE.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. A handbook. London: Sage.
 
Silva, C. (2011). La Teoría del Actor-Red tal como yo la imagino. Breve ensayo sobre el cosmos semafórico. Athenea digital, 11(1), 203-215.

Silva, C. y Íñiguez-Rueda, L., (2011): Tiempo y relaciones sostenibles en el espacio urbano. Papeles del CEIC, vol. 2011/2, nº 75, CEIC (Centro de Estudios sobre la Identidad Colectiva), Universidad del País Vasco, http: //www.identidadcolectiva.es/pdf/75.pdf.

Stubbs, M, (1983): Discourse Analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language, Oxford: Basil Blackweu.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1999). El análisis crítico del discurso. Revista anthropos: Huellas del conocimiento, (186), 23-36.

Van Dijk,T. y Athenea Digital (2001). El análisis crítico del discurso y el pensamiento social. Atenea Digital, 1, 18-24. Disponible en http://blues.uab.es/athenea/num1/vandijk.pdf

Van Dijk, T. (2003). La multidisciplinariedad del análisis crítico del discurso: un alegato a favor de la diversidad. Métodos de análisis crítico del discurso, 143-177.

Wetherell, M.; Potter, J.(1992): Mappingthe language of racismo. London: Harverster.

Williams, G. (1984) “The genesis of chronic illness: Narrative reconstruction”, Sociology of Health & Illness, 6(2): 175-200.

Software

This module encourages the use of free software for ethical and political reasons. We recommend that students use free operating systems.