Recent Changes

Monday, November 9

  1. msg Qualitative analysis with Quirkos message posted Qualitative analysis with Quirkos We have developed a new qualitative analysis software tool called Quirkos http://www.quirkos.com …
    Qualitative analysis with Quirkos
    We have developed a new qualitative analysis software tool called Quirkos http://www.quirkos.com which aims to make qualitative analysis visual and intuitive.
    8:41 am

Friday, October 23

  1. msg typo message posted typo making "the art of governing" and embodied experience should be: making "the art o…
    typo
    making "the art of governing" and embodied experience
    should be: making "the art of governing" an embodied experience
    11:54 pm

Sunday, May 17

  1. page Games edited ... ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E. 2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental …
    ...
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer,Camerer, C., and
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Gil-White, F. J.
    ...
    Lesorogol, C. K.
    2007. Bringing norms in. The role of context in experimental dictator games. Current Anthropology 48:920-26.
    ...
    Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    ­­­Camerer,Camerer, C., and
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    ...
    Bernard, Russell
    2011 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.
    ­­­Camerer,Camerer, C., and
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer,Camerer, C., and
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Gerkey, Drew.
    (view changes)
    9:06 am
  2. page Explanatory Model edited Explanatory Model Definition An explanatory model reveals how people make sense of their illne…

    Explanatory Model
    Definition
    An explanatory model reveals how people make sense of their illness and their experiences of it. Explanatory models are often used to explain how people view their illness in terms of how it happens, what causes it, how it affects them, and what will make them feel better. It is a method used in both clinical settings and qualitative research as a way to obtain individual explanations of a particular phenomenon. In the latter, explanatory models allow researchers to collect textual data.
    Relevant Characteristics
    Explanatory models are elicited through a series of specific open-ended questions. The first model was devised by Arthur Kleinman, and contains eight questions described below. Kleinman came up with these questions in an attempt to distinguish between disease and illness, and to bridge the gap between clinical knowledge and constructions of clinical reality.
    This method is a tool that could be used alone in qualitative research, or with other techniques such as life histories, key-informant interviews, participant-observations, focus groups or pile sorting, among others. In mental health studies, explanatory models can be used together with tools such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Researchers have refined Kleinman’s model into a mixture of open-ended and direct questions that lets them quantify results. These include the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC), Short Explanatory Interview Model (SEMI) and the Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ). The pattern of questioning are similar in these later models, and the differences lie in how they are structured. SEMI and EMIC have built-in classification features that permit qualitative data to be synced with quantitative data, while IPQ questionnaires contain a fixed range of causes for participants to select.
    {EM_copy.jpg} Bhui and Bhugra, 2002
    Clinically, explanatory models are not diagnostic tools. In medical and research settings, explanatory models provide clinicians and researchers with an idea of how patients experience and interpret their conditions. This method lets clinicians improve quality of care. It also helps health researchers understand their subjects, and this could help in the design of appropriate therapies or interventions, or explain why some people reject medication or refuse to comply with a prescribed therapy.
    In his introduction to the model, Kleinman provided a case study where an explanatory model may be useful in a clinical setting. A 60-year-old Protestant grandmother who was hospitalized for heart problems exhibited ‘bizarre’ behavior during her recovery. She made herself vomit and wetted her bed frequently, but became angry when told to stop. When asked about her behavior, her explanation was revealing. As the wife and daughter of plumbers, the woman thought she had “water in her lungs” and that the only way to clear the “pipes” hooked to her lungs was to remove as much water as possible. Her induced vomiting and urination were part of this process, and she could not understand why people were angry with her. After this explanation, clinicans provided her with an alternate description of human anatomy and diagrams. When she understood her doctors, she stopped her earlier behavior.
    Method Made Easy
    Explanatory models can be administered either as an interview or through a questionnaire. Kleinman’s model contains eight questions:
    What do you think has caused your problems?
    Why do you think it started when it did?
    What do you think your sickness does to you?
    How severe is your sickness? Will it have a long or short course?
    What kind of treatment do you think you should receive?
    What are the most important results you hope to receive from this treatment?
    What are the chief problems your sickness has caused for you?
    What do you fear most about your sickness?
    Advantages
    Explanatory models are able to “integrate clinical, epidemiological and social science frameworks” by improving the depth of scientific understanding of disease and illness. The major advantage of this method is that it allows researchers and clinicians to draw illness experiences from their participants in a structured way. Results of these interviews can be used to complement or reinforce quantitative data, providing researchers with lived illness experiences that would otherwise be overshadowed by numbers and statistics. Textual data derived from explanatory model interviews can either stand on their own in research, or be used as a way to form hypotheses for further studies. They can also be paired with other qualitative techniques and complement quantitative findings to flesh out hypotheses. Explanatory models are flexible and applicable in many scenarios, such as studying violence in Iceland, HIV-related stigma among South Asians in Canada, or understanding hypertension and sick roles among Americans.
    Limitations
    Explanatory models can be limiting in several ways. In one study, researchers showed that the demographic background of an interviewer, such as ethnicity, may influence a respondent’s answers. When working in international or non English-speaking settings, researchers often have to deal with the translation of the questions and answers, and this could be a tedious and difficult process. Also, there needs to be more research on comparing illness explanatory frameworks to understand or reconcile how illness is perceived and experienced among different groups, an important factor when trying to understand treatment-seeking behavior. Some critics also argue that the use of the approach in clinical settings assumes the primacy of the biomedical perspective, and that efforts to reconcile the doctor-patient models of an illness result in the alignment of the patient’s views with the doctor’s. Also, the usefulness of explanatory models is limited if the interviewer is just focused on diagnosis or introducing treatment or solution.
    Analysis
    Findings or textual data from explanatory model interviews can be analyzed in various ways including content analysis. In two studies that used explanatory models as the main tool, researchers first organized their questions and then obtain data through group interviews and from participant-observation. Then, the interviews are transcribed (some textual data may require translation).
    In terms of content analysis, researchers could either use the questions to frame domains for data coding, or to derive themes from the collected data set. They can approach the analysis through grounded theory, i.e.: using the data to form their findings or to capture common themes; or they can predetermine some themes to see whether the narratives of the participants fall into those. The latter helps researchers reinforce or support an existing idea or hypothesis. Findings from either could be presented on their own, as a collection of narratives on what research participants think of a specific topic, or paired with other quantitative data such as epidemiological information.
    In clinical settings, physicians can use this method to find out what their patients think about their ailments and how they are experiencing their illnesses. This information can help physicians understand their patients’ beliefs and behavior, to facilitate further discussion of an ailment, and perhaps to prescribe more appropriate treatments.
    Method in Context
    When Kleinman first conceived of his eight-question model in the 1970s, the United States was going through a health care crisis. Medical care was often inaccessible; the cost of care was escalating while the quality of care was poor. These events are paradoxical to the advance of medical technology, he notes. As a psychiatrist and a medical anthropologist, Kleinman observed a gap between medical research and approaches to more practical solutions, and a mismatch between the physicians’ understanding of disease and the patients’ experiences of illness. To bridge this gap and to help clinicians break out of their medicocentric views, Kleinman proposed his eight-question model as a way to understand how patients view their conditions and their expectations or concepts of a cure. Such data could be used to train physicians in improving quality of care by allowing them a more systematic understanding of social or cultural constructions of illness.
    Kleinman wrote: “Eliciting the patient’s (explanatory) model gives the physician knowledge of the beliefs the patient holds about his illness, the personal and social meaning he attaches to his disorder, his expectations about what will happen to him and what the doctor will do, and his own therapeutic goals. Comparison of patient model with the doctor’s model enables the clinician to identify major discrepancies that may cause problems for clinical management. Such comparisons also help the clinician know which aspects of his explanatory model need clearer exposition to patients (and families), and what sort of patient education is most appropriate. And they clarify conflicts not related to different levels of knowledge but different values and interests. Part of the clinical process involves negotiations between these explanatory models, once they have been made explicit.” (p. 256)
    Since then, the concept of the explanatory model has been used in a variety research in both the medical and public health fields. Researchers in the 1990s have also refined Kleinman’s model into questionnaires that allows for clearer analysis, such as the Explanatory Interview Catalogue, which Weiss and colleagues devised to student leprosy and mental health in India . Other uses include understanding HIV-related stigma, causes of youth violence, and perceptions of mental illness and diseases such as Type 2 diabetes.
    Online Resources
    Anthropology Archive has an alternate description of explanatory models and how they relate to illness beliefs. It also has an anecdotal story on how a consultant/translator helped elicit an explanatory model from patients in Mexico.
    Further Reading
    Blumhagen, D. (1980). Hyper-tension: A folk illness with a medical name. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 4:197-227
    Kleinman, A. (1976). Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-258.
    Weiss, M.G., Doongaji, D.R., Siddhartha, S., Wypic, D., Pathare, S., Bhatawdekar, M., Bhave, A., Sheth, A., and Fernandes, R. (1992). The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC): Contribution to Cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry 160:819-930.
    References
    Kleinman, A. (1976). Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-258.
    Weiss, M.G., Doongaji, D.R., Siddhartha, S., Wypic, D., Pathare, S., Bhatawdekar, M., Bhave, A., Sheth, A., and Fernandes, R. (1992). The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC): Contribution to Cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry 160:819-930.
    Bhui, K., and Bhugra, D. (2002). Explanatory models for mental distress: implications for clinical practice and research. The British Journal of Psychiatry 181: 6-7.
    Kleinman, A. (1976). Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-258.
    Weiss, M.G., Doongaji, D.R., Siddhartha, S., Wypic, D., Pathare, S., Bhatawdekar, M., Bhave, A., Sheth, A., and Fernandes, R. (1992). The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC): Contribution to Cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry 160:819-930.
    Biering, P. (2007). Adapting the concept of explanatory models of illness to the study of youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(7):791-811.
    Blumhagen, D. (1980). Hyper-tension: A folk illness with a medical name. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 4:197-227
    Vlassoff, C, and Ali, F. (2011). HIV-related stigma among South Asians in Toronto. Ethnicity Health 16(1): 25-42.
    Lynch, E., and Medin, D. (2006). Explanatory models of illness: A study within-culture
    variation. Cognitive Psychology 53(4): 285.
    Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. (1990) Three Propositions for a Critically Applied Medical Anthropology. Social Science Medicine 30:189-197.
    Biering, P. (2007). Adapting the concept of explanatory models of illness to the study of youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(7):791-811.
    May, K. and Rew, L. (2010). Mexican American youths' and mothers' explanatory models of diabetes prevention. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 15(1):6-15.
    Kleinman, A. (1976). Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-258.
    Kleinman, A. (1976). Culture, illness and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 88:251-258.
    Weiss, M.G., Doongaji, D.R., Siddhartha, S., Wypic, D., Pathare, S., Bhatawdekar, M., Bhave, A., Sheth, A., and Fernandes, R. (1992). The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC): Contribution to Cross-cultural research methods from a study of leprosy and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry 160:819-930.

    (view changes)
    9:03 am
  3. page Methods edited ... Self-administered Questionnaire Semantic Cueing Semi-Structured Interviews Social Network…
    ...
    Self-administered Questionnaire
    Semantic Cueing
    Semi-Structured Interviews
    Social Network Analysis
    Triad Test
    (view changes)
    8:43 am
  4. page Semi-Structured Interviews edited ... Semi-Structured Interviews Definition ... a flexible framework. framework . Relevant C…
    ...
    Semi-Structured Interviews
    Definition
    ...
    a flexible framework.framework .
    Relevant Characteristics
    ...
    the interviewee says.says .
    The interviewer
    ...
    possible biasing issues.issues .
    “Method Made Easy”
    Semi--‐structured interviews require that the interviewers and interviewees meet in person. Scheduling a time and quiet place to conduct the interview are important preliminary aspects to be considered. The interview guide is a template outlining the specific topic areas to be covered. Be specific about what qualitative information is needed; the motivations, perceptions or behavior under study. The interviewer will use this guide during the process to insure the required information is gathered.
    ...
    DiCicco-Bloom, Barbara with Benjamin F. Crabtree.
    2006. The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40:314–321.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
    Russell, Bernard.
    2011. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th edition. 665 pp. Lanham, MD : AltaMira.

    (view changes)
    8:42 am
  5. page Semi-Structured Interviews edited Semi-Structured Interviews Definition A series of questions administered by a researcher seeki…

    Semi-Structured Interviews
    Definition
    A series of questions administered by a researcher seeking to understand meanings in an interviewee’s life. It allows all participants the opportunity to be asked the same questions within a flexible framework.
    Relevant Characteristics
    The semi--‐structured interview is used when qualitative information about motivation, behavior and perceptions is required. The process is flexible, allowing new questions to be brought to interview as a result of what the interviewee says.
    The interviewer uses an interview guide describing a framework of themes to be covered, however, the specific questions are based on the respondent’s answers. This requires skill on the researcher’s part not only to establish rapport, but control the interview by asking follow--‐upon questions eliciting the desired information. While a semi--‐structured interview allows for in-depth examination of perceptions, motivations and behaviors, and is dependent on the interviewer skills, care must be taken to avoid introducing bias. Bias comes in many forms; power dynamics within the interviewer, unconscious cues that lead the respondent to desired answers, insufficiently large or random interviewee sample. Care must be taken in the research design and much depends on the skill of the interviewer to address possible biasing issues.
    “Method Made Easy”
    Semi--‐structured interviews require that the interviewers and interviewees meet in person. Scheduling a time and quiet place to conduct the interview are important preliminary aspects to be considered. The interview guide is a template outlining the specific topic areas to be covered. Be specific about what qualitative information is needed; the motivations, perceptions or behavior under study. The interviewer will use this guide during the process to insure the required information is gathered.
    Advantages
    The strength of the semi--‐structured interview comes from combining both structure and flexibility. Using an interview guide ensures topical areas are covered, but the less--‐structured nature allows the interviewer to respond to non--‐verbal clues, unclear or related topics the respondent feels strongly about. This format explores in depth the perceptions, motivations and behaviors of respondents, allowing for a thicker understanding of a theme. When qualitative, descriptive information is sufficient for decision‐making. When there is a need to understand motivation, behavior, and perspectives. When preliminary information is needed to design a comprehensive quantitative study.
    Limitations
    Not appropriate if quantitative data are needed. May be biased if informants are not carefully selected. Is susceptible to interviewer biases. Depends on interviewer’s skills. May be difficult to prove the reliability or validity of findings. This is due to several factors. It is difficult to repeatedly administer the same interview to different respondents, the respondent may answer the same question differently based on factors outside the control of the interviewer, i.e. how they feel or power dynamics with the interviewer. The interviewer may give unconscious signals guiding the respondent towards expected answers, or the respondent may lie or have imperfect recall, both of which cannot be verified by the interviewer.
    Analysis
    The interview can be transcribed and the coded by the researcher. Coding assigns groups of text to groups of themes, which can then be analyzed by commercially available software programs such as ATLAS.ti. Grouping themes and then analyzing those from multiple interviews provides a qualitative and thicker understanding of motivations, and behaviors, and provides quantifiable data as well.
    Online Resources
    Wageningen UR (University & Research centre). Participatory Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (PPME) resource portal --‐Semi-structured interviews: http://portals.wi.wur.nl/ppme/?page=1124
    Sociology.org has resources addressing semi-structured interviews strengths, limitations, biasing and processes at: http://www.sociology.org.uk/methfi.pdf
    Further Reading
    Kvale, Steinar.
    1996. Interviews: An introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications.
    References
    Dearnley, C.
    2005. A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse researcher. 13(1):19-28.
    DiCicco-Bloom, Barbara with Benjamin F. Crabtree.
    2006. The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40:314–321.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

    (view changes)
    8:41 am
  6. page Games edited ... Experimental games are social interactions, structured by rules for play that allow researcher…
    ...
    Experimental games are social interactions, structured by rules for play that allow researchers to examine behavior and by extension reveal social norms that have implications for economic theory.
    Relevant Characteristics
    ...
    college campuses) but but anthropologists and
    ...
    in the field.
    Research
    field .
    Research
    participants play
    ...
    party punishment game.game .
    There is no minimum sample size to use this method in the field but a larger sample size will usually allow researchers to address more questions and data patterns.
    ...
    of in-group favoritism.favoritism . They have
    ...
    comparison of cooperation.cooperation . Researchers attempt
    ...
    in experimental games.games . Such studies look look at the
    “Method Made Easy”
    Select a type of game appropriate to your research topic or design your own game. This step may include adapting a given game to a particular context using ethnographic information.
    ...
    Funds granted by funding agencies have higher purchasing power in many other countries, which helps in analysis of low stakes and high stakes behavior.
    Games provide an alternative to the Likert scale to study trust and other social norms.
    ...
    likely to have.have .
    Limitations
    Outside of US lab settings, researchers have documented difficulties in explaining the games, which often seem strange and confound research participants.
    ...
    In their original form, such games were meant to be administered by someone not known to the research subjects; anthropologists usually are well known to their research subjects.
    Research subjects typically approach these games as they do informal social situations; therefore the games’ results may not reveal norms that come into play in other more formal or organized settings.
    ...
    or across cultures.cultures .
    Analysis
    Detailed fieldnotes can be analyzed and coded as text with the aid of software.
    ...
    Method in Context
    Some special issues arise from the use of real money in experimental games. Researchers should aim to make a distinction between compensation for participation and game winnings, as well as be aware of the different values that can be ascribed to money across and within different communities.
    ...
    predict strategic behavior.behavior . Work in
    ...
    of rational self-interest.self-interest . However, cross-cultural
    ...
    reciprocity” alongside selfishness.selfishness . Controlled experiments
    ...
    of social norms.norms .
    Experimental games
    ...
    further contextualized study.study . Ethnographic data
    ...
    of economic games.games .
    Relevant quotations on anthropology and economic games:
    ...
    multidisciplinary research."
    “Whether

    “Whether
    frames are
    ...
    ethnographic methodologies.”
    “A brief and completely open individual discussion with players after the introduction and explanation, and before the actual play, might show many things about what players are thinking when they play. Postgame interviews are very revealing about the ideas at play in the gaming, but they need to be accompanied by more analysis of broader social and cultural contexts for action and an epistemological stance which recognizes varying degrees of reflexivity at work, is alert to ethnocentric assumptions about behaviour and mindful that western subjects are as culturally and historically embedded as subjects in ‘simple’ societies.”
    Online Resources
    (view changes)
    8:26 am
  7. page Games edited ... Games Definition Experimental games are social interactions, structured by rules for play t…
    ...
    Games
    Definition
    Experimental games are social interactions, structured by rules for play that allow researchers to examine behavior and by extension reveal social norms that have implications for economic theory.
    Relevant Characteristics
    Experimental games were first developed and used in laboratory settings in the U.S. (mostly on college campuses) but anthropologists and other researchers have since adapted these games for use in the field. Using the results of lab experimental games, researchers have established some experimental regularities that anthropologists have used as benchmarks for their findings in the field.
    Research participants play anonymously for real money, and efforts are made to minimize deception in experimental design. Common experimental games include: prisoners’ dilemma, public goods games, ultimatum game, dictator game, trust game, gift exchange game, third party punishment game.
    There is no minimum sample size to use this method in the field but a larger sample size will usually allow researchers to address more questions and data patterns.
    Economic games are intended to test attitudes around economic cooperation and reciprocity, such as the presence of in-group favoritism. They have been used in cross-cultural comparison of cooperation. Researchers attempt to control for as many factors as possible in these interactions, but anthropologists have shown that all games are framed (intentionally or unintentionally) in some way and have begun in recent years to look at “framing effects” in experimental games. Such studies look at the extent to which participants play the game differently when it is associated or explained with terms that refer to certain culturally specific forms of collectives or cooperatives.

    “Method Made Easy”
    Select a type of game appropriate to your research topic or design your own game. This step may include adapting a given game to a particular context using ethnographic information.
    If possible, pre-test the game (most likely this will be among non-participants).
    Choose a facilitator appropriate to game goals and context, keeping in mind that the facilitator’s relationship with participants will likely influence game outcomes.
    Recruit participants from the group(s) of interest.
    Explain rules clearly to all participants, including a way of testing game comprehension. The facilitator may want to do a quick demonstration of the game, or a test round with participants.
    Play the game. Repeat if necessary. Take notes on player deliberations and results throughout.
    After the game, interview each player individually, asking them to explain their decisions in the game.

    Advantages
    Comparability across subject groups
    Replicability
    Advantage of experimental games in the field:
    They are low cost.
    Funds granted by funding agencies have higher purchasing power in many other countries, which helps in analysis of low stakes and high stakes behavior.
    Games provide an alternative to the Likert scale to study trust and other social norms.
    More concrete questions tied to actual behavior can complement the other behavioral data anthropologists are likely to have.

    Limitations
    Outside of US lab settings, researchers have documented difficulties in explaining the games, which often seem strange and confound research participants.
    “Framing effects” are difficult to control. There will likely be unforeseen framing effects including terms used in explanation, the space in which the game is played, and the identity of game facilitator.
    In their original form, such games were meant to be administered by someone not known to the research subjects; anthropologists usually are well known to their research subjects.
    Research subjects typically approach these games as they do informal social situations; therefore the games’ results may not reveal norms that come into play in other more formal or organized settings.
    Money does not necessarily have a uniform value within or across cultures.

    Analysis
    Detailed fieldnotes can be analyzed and coded as text with the aid of software.
    Participants’ game strategies can be documented and analyzed statistically, including multivariate and bivariate analyses. This may not be the focus of your study if you choose to use games primarily as an elicitation technique.

    Method in Context
    Some special issues arise from the use of real money in experimental games. Researchers should aim to make a distinction between compensation for participation and game winnings, as well as be aware of the different values that can be ascribed to money across and within different communities.
    Experimental games are traditionally used by economists to develop and test theories about human preferences. These experiments and analyses are informed by game theory, the study of mathematical models used to describe and predict strategic behavior. Work in economics in the 1990s using experimental games, such as the ultimatum game, supported a theory of rational self-interest. However, cross-cultural ethnographic work later in the decade came to show the existence of altruistic preferences, and “preferences for equality and reciprocity” alongside selfishness. Controlled experiments often demonstrate that people’s behavior differs from that hypothesized based on game theory. These diversions can be interpreted to support the existence of social norms.
    Experimental games are usually first run in strict laboratory environments, so that the results serve as a comparison for further contextualized study. Ethnographic data can also be coupled with experimental data to assess the external validity of economic games.
    Relevant quotations on anthropology and economic games:
    "Broadly, the findings of experimental economics have shown that individual self-interest is not a good assumption for the behaviour of human subjects and that behaviours derive not from fixed personal qualities but from combinations of person, other persons in the game, the game itself and the context. Players are differentially averse to inequality of outcomes; reciprocity is an important motivating force; players care about actions and intentions of other players and not only about the allocation of material payoffs. These findings are much closer to the more social concept of persons and behaviours which are the foundations of anthropology than the self-interested individual of economic stereotypes and therefore offer a promising starting point for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research."
    “Whether frames are explicitly included by the researcher or spontaneously applied by the participants, their influence on patterns of behavior in experimental economic games must be accounted for when developing and testing theories of cooperation. Anthropologists are uniquely situated to turn this methodological weakness of economic games into an analytic strength. By combining standard versions of economic games with games that are explicitly framed to refer to naturally occurring contexts of cooperation, researchers can better understand how cultural values, norms, and institutions influence decisions while also retaining the ability to compare patterns of cooperation across space and time. In turn, ethnographers may gain new insights about the particulars of people and place by incorporating economic games and other field experiments into ongoing research with more traditional ethnographic methodologies.”
    “A brief and completely open individual discussion with players after the introduction and explanation, and before the actual play, might show many things about what players are thinking when they play. Postgame interviews are very revealing about the ideas at play in the gaming, but they need to be accompanied by more analysis of broader social and cultural contexts for action and an epistemological stance which recognizes varying degrees of reflexivity at work, is alert to ethnocentric assumptions about behaviour and mindful that western subjects are as culturally and historically embedded as subjects in ‘simple’ societies.”

    Online Resources
    “List of Games in Game Theory.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_game_theory
    “Game Theory Icons.”
    https://www.lri.fr/~dragice/gameicons/

    Further Reading
    Henrich. J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis. H., eds.
    2004. Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    Roepstorff, A., Niewöhner, J., Beck, S.
    2010. Enculturing brains through patterned practices. Neural Networks 23: 1051-1059.
    References
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Gil-White, F. J.
    2004. Ultimatum game with ethnicity manipulation: Problems faced doing field economic experiments and their solutions. Field Methods 16:157-83.
    Henrich. J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Gintis. H., eds.
    2004. Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    Gerkey, Drew.
    2013. Cooperation in Context. Current Anthropology 54(2): 144-176.
    Cronk, L.
    2007. The influence of cultural framing on play in the trust game: A Maasai example. Evolution and Human Behavior 28:352-58.
    Lesorogol, C. K.
    2007. Bringing norms in. The role of context in experimental dictator games. Current Anthropology 48:920-26.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Bernard, Russell
    2011 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    ­­­Camerer, C., and Fehr, E.
    2004. Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, H. Gintis, E. Fehr, and C. Camerer, eds. Pp. 413-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Gerkey, Drew.
    2013. Cooperation in Context. Current Anthropology 54(2): 144-176.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.
    Gerkey, Drew.
    2013. Cooperation in Context. Current Anthropology 54(2): 144-176.
    Jackson, C.
    2011. Research with experimental games: questioning practice and interpretation. Progress in Development Studies 11(3): 229-241.

    (view changes)
    8:25 am
  8. page Methods edited ... Focus Groups Free Lists Games Household Food Insecurity (Access) Scale Multi-Sited Ethno…
    ...
    Focus Groups
    Free Lists
    Games
    Household Food Insecurity (Access) Scale
    Multi-Sited Ethnography
    (view changes)
    8:09 am

More