We've been teaching this course for years, to both grads and
undergrads. For a semester-long 3 credit course, don't expect a
polished paper. If you can get a hodgepode observational piece with
some prelim analysis that would be fine. We disagree with Manning,
though. There is no such thing as trivial sites from the perspective
of this class. There is nothing wrong with anohter barroom setting or
such as long as they put in the time, interact with people,
interview, see how difficult it is to gain entree and develop
rapport, etc. And there is also nothing worn with them capitalizing
on their own biography.
The thing that differentiates UG methods from grad methods is really
the level of analysis you can expect. In a 3-credit hour course with
undergraduates, they can find a setting, work to develop entree and
rapport, write fieldnotes, do interviews, and write some kindof
paper. They cannot do either the conceptualization of the empirical
data into some thematized approach or anything resembling theoretical
analysis. The Loflands' book is good, but my students also like
Jorgensen's book, which is simple and straightforward. Depending on
the number of students you have in the class, you may also want to
put them together into group projects. It's a crime to mass out this
course, but at CU we often find ourselves with 45 or more students in
a class. This changes the dynamic. How many have you got?
Good luck and enjoy,
P&P