Thanks for the clarity, Kathy!

Like AJ - I appreciate the clear writing style Kathy Charmaz implements in this reading, and the use of examples. The charted examples of her own coding in particular; this really helped me to get an understanding of how she went about doing this "coding", and what it looked like on paper. 

She points out that what the researcher observes the participants to be doing, may not be the same as what the participants claim to be doing. Which brought me to a cascading series of thoughts on this [possible] contradiction.  It also lead me to this "Whaaaaaaat, shit's gonna be complicated!" feeling, which I guess I knew from the beginning. It's similar in the ways of theorizing within psychology, because even when observing an event first hand, that event is still different for each and every person within it. Including their interpretation of what occurred in that event. 

With that said - I have to say the coding strategy described by Charmaz is one I look forward to using in my own writing. It is so important to breaking down the commonalities in observed behavior. 

I really like how she described focused coding when she stated, "Focused coding helps the researcher to outline a framework that preserves the complexities of everyday life." BOOOM! Awesome, I like it. 

The tools provided and described in great detail here for this type of writing & researching are clear and important. I am really glad to have read this article and look forward to implementing these tools in my own writing.

Neil played his music

In my opinion, the paper was classically academic. I had a much easier time getting through this piece, however, I’m not sure whether it was the actual writing or the structure which made it smoother. I feel like it was the structure that I was raised upon and familiar with all through high-school. Of course, the examples she lays out were helpful.

 I was fortunate enough to see Neil Young + Promise of the Real play at the Santa Barbara bowl earlier this month. He played a setlist that defined himself (Neil) and most of his career. He opened solo acoustic with “After the Goldrush” and followed it up with memorable hits like “My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)” and “Helpless”. The show proceeded through a handful of solo acoustic songs to the grungy ringing of his Gibson Les Paul. He played old songs and new songs. He played a concert that painted his perception of humanity and MotherEarth. Like himself, the show was very political and took stabs at names like Starbucks and Monsanto.

Like this incredible and memorable show, this piece by Charmaz was very similar in the sense that it encapsulated the classic academic style of writing. As classic as Neil. It was structured in a way that was logical and seemingly conventional. She began with a specific idea and throughout each paragraph gave examples to explain the idea and references to insure no misunderstanding.

As did Peshkin, Charmaz gave healthy examples, including her Codes with Interview Statements. These segments spoke true volumes of what she was trying to explain. My favorite part of this whole piece was the Negative Identifying Moment being given the example of the retired college professor and his wife. [He, slowly and painfully] “The schools don’t have any money… I can’t speak very well.” Charmaz describes her feelings for the retired professor and harsh reality he, in that moment, faced. Participating in this short sequence was like watching someone who was observing his own identity crumbling away. Her description was almost journalistic and put the image of an old guitar breaking one last string. The damage done.

The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation was a song Kathy Charmaz wrote beautifully. There was a rhythm and tone, that I seemed to have skipped over with Peshkin.

Neil played his music. Kathy Charmaz didn’t miss a beat. 

AHOY SAILOR!

Ahoy sailors!

My mind has been on a journey sailing across the world (figuratively), but I’m back and anxious to plunder. ARRRGHHH!!!

First, I’d like to thank all of you three for your commitment to this independent study. I’ve been in a sort of slump this quarter, but I’m trying with much angst to get myself out of this ditch. ANYWAYS, I had mixed feelings about this article by Señor Peshkin.

Alderson, I liked how you brought up Peshkin’s organization of the piece. I agree, the article had a soft, gentle flow to it, structurally. Especially, Peshkin’s use of the chart (Table 1) helped me make sense of all the categories of analysis and subcategories of outcomes. What I didn’t find so soft and pleasing was his move of “numerous quotes, the name dropping, and date peppering.” I like your metaphors A.J. so I’m pirating your ship! To me, it was like Peshkin sprinkled too much salt rather than pepper. No, let me back up, it was more like having a super DUPER salty dish and to wash it all down a dirty martini. I have nothing against dirty martinis.

Peshkin’s soul purpose of the piece is stated in the first page. He’s giving qualitative researchers an arsenal of arguments in favor of OUR type of research and a “feast” of  possibilities and outcomes that WE can assume will result. 

I understand I’m not the most well-read person and my vocabulary struggles with recurrence and redundancy, so as I read this piece I found myself pulling out my journal from last quarter and scribbling down words I wasn’t familiar with. I’m sort of embarrassed to say, but words Peshkin used like vexatious, chimera, abdicate, required a dictionary for this guy. Thank God for Apple’s dictionary widget.

Peshkin’s vexatious vocabulary may have resulted in my abdication of understanding his points and arguments.

IN YOUR FACE PESHKIN!

Did I even use those words correctly? 

Explicit Exigence

Let me give some context about why I like this piece so much -- and, AJ, it's totally cool with me that you didn't seem to dig it (my belief in free speech and open'n'honest communication trumps everything else).  There's this weird rift between some folks in academic: is the "best" research qualitative or quantitative?  Inductive or deductive?  Micro and unique or macro and generalizable?  Emic or etic?   

(For the record: it absolutely, positively doesn't need to be an either/or trade-off; however, the issue often gets framed in that way.)

Peshkin is defending the virtues of qualitative research, and in effect, laying out some reasons about why ethnographic research should be taken seriously.  Ethnographic research is, at its heart, qualitative, and all these reasons that Pehskin lays out about the "goodness of qualitative research" form a pretty convincing case that qualitative research is valuable.

He says just as much in his introductory paragraph, and I'd consider that a "move."  Let's call it explicit exigence.  (I'm coining it!)  Peshkin explicitly lays out the exigence of the piece -- the factors that put the engine into mention.  What brought it about, what caused him to write it, what this is in response to.  Busting out this "yo, some folks aren't seeing this correctly, so let's get the facts straight" message from the get-go is huge.  To me, as a reader, that really helps me tune in; I have a heightened sense of why I'm reading this because the writer's telling me why he wrote it.  

You can also notice a lot of "I language" in this article, particularly in the opening section.  This meets two objectives: he explains what he did to prep/publish this piece, and he provides an overview of how he's structured the article.  It's also worth mentioning that "I language" tends to be one of those "don't do this!" rules that well-intentioned people assimilate into their own "teaching writing" practices.  Like anything writing-related, whenever we think about conventions or rules, we need to tie it into a particular context -- how and why X is being used and what the writer wants to accomplish by using it.  Point is, "I" works here and this is a published piece in a scholarly, peer-reviewed academic journal, so... is it a crime to use "I" in academic pieces?  Of course not.  I say: as long as it's tied in some way, shape, or form to your overall argument/purpose and it relatively adheres to the conventions of the genre, rock out "I language" all you want.  

Time to take the doggies for a walk.   

All That Qualitative Goodness

Alan Peshkin - 

It has always been easy for me to understand how qualitative research is useful and beneficial, but as I have discovered, a lot of people don't see it that way. With that said - it makes me happy to see someone standing up for [at least what feels like] the under dog. 

His choice to write about his process deciding on both tone and title is a great way to start in my opinion. It speaks to his genuine concern to make his point comprehend-able to as many people as possible. In addition to that, his organizational choices are good ones. Such as, the way he introduces all these categories and subcategories and displays a chart to get a good visual of them, all before diving into the categories individually. 

Something that really stood out to me was the aspect of problem finding, and the finding of things that were not expected, or not what was being searched for initially. In my opinion this is a really important possibility that isn't often discussed. 

He uses a move that I see very frequently in magazine articles, where they put major points (usually a sentence or two) in very large text. This is a good way to really drive that point home, it causes the reader to stop and do a double take on that part of the article, to better understand why that text is written so largely. They wouldn't make it stand out so much if they didn't really want you to remember it, right? Right! 

Along with that, he uses the italics to indicate the important subcategories. Which I always appreciate. Overall his writing style is one I enjoy, and helped bring a lot of clarity to this type of research and how it is done. 

Ethnography Vs. Journalism: Week 1.5 Response to AJ's Post

Rather than burying it as a response to each of your individual posts, I think it makes more sense to reply on this main posting thread, -- especially when my rambling'n'meandering thoughts are relevant for all of us.  For now, I'm going to respond to AJ's post.  

AJ, great post as usual.  You raised excellent questions, and I've had similar ones myself.  There are certainly many similarities between what we typically think of as journalism and what we're learning is ethnographic writing.  As you stated (via Kahn), they both require the "generat[ion], collect[ion], analy[sis], and synthesi[s]" of ideas, data, and other related material.  

• One beneath-the-radar difference is that ethnography -- at least within the academy -- tends to examine power dynamics within a given culture.  An ethnographic approach might ask: how are participants' relationships and roles shaped by the negotiation (or lack thereof) of power?  It seems to me that an ethnographic approach to research/life seeks to defend the powerless or the disenfranchised.  Although this isn't a defining feature, from what I've gathered, ethnographic projects typically seem to stick up for "the little guy" -- people or ideas that might be overlooked or disregarded. 

• A follow-up on that thought: instead of looking at an issue through a telescopic lens (from far away), they examine it through a microscope (super close-up).  My awesome advisor at UCSB often reinforces this point during our chats, and that "versus" dichotomy always helps make the issue click for me.

• A follow-up to the follow-up: I bang heads with administrators (and probably always will, unless they're more experienced in this specific context or approach the issue more respectfully) when they tell me how to do my job -- that is, how to design, teach, and assess Academic Writing.  (Which, just to anticipate looking like a schmuck here... is literally, the 1 thing I'm doing with my life!)  They seem to be in favor of a 1-size-fits-all model without understanding how/why its important for instructors to build their own courses through their own theoretical framework, and they also seem to overlook the longview of writing development (which includes cultivating attitudes and habits instead of just "grammatical fluency") in lieu majorly reductive views of what "good writing" is/isn't.  Now, I can only truly see the world through my own eyes, but comparatively, I've got the microscopic view of the issue, whereas they've got the telescopic view.  Good teachers -- which they are, which makes this even more bizarre -- think ethnographically and see their classrooms as distinct cultures.  However, on this issue, they haven't done any due diligence in trying to understand what is/isn't appropriate or prudent for Academic Writing -- according to the "native's perspective," my students or my own.  We're the ones who have "lived it," on the ground, so we're the ones who truly know its upsides and downsides.  So for them to "get" what's happening in this context, they need our "native" perspectives.  Does that example help?  ;)

• Since we're on the topic of identity and personal perspective, one major difference between journalism and ethnography is that journalism usually strives to achieve objectivity, and in effect, removes the writer's individual stance towards the material from the written piece.  Ethnographers, though, would maintain that there really is no true objectivity.  Since ethnographers dig into their cultures via participant-observation, they tend to acknowledge their pre-dispositions, biases, and cultural assumptions at the door.  (Although this isn't always the case, ethnographic research pieces typically begin with autobiographical background information so the reader knows what subjectivities the authors are bringing to the table.)

• Ethnographic projects are often guided by an underlying research question.  They're not "married" to this question, though;  qualitative research can be iterative and ever-expanding/evolving. 

• As you mentioned, time is a major factor, for sure.  Ethnographies are intense, so such sustained inquiry takes a lot of time.  Journalists have deadlines that an ethnographer would never be able to meet because they'd/we'd need to sacrifice getting that "deep" and intimate knowledge of the culture and its participants which is so crucial to ethnographic work.

I think/hope this is a decent start for now.  Glad we got some momentum going.  Thank in advance for reading and for being such committed academic badasses!

Oh Mr. Kahn

Oh Mr. Seth Kahn. Having read this essay for the second time, I can say that different lessons were learned. First, the content of the essay was much more definite and concrete—I had a better understanding. As A.J. explained, the ethics of ethnographic writing and the responsibilities of the writer are paramount. In total, it’s the writer’s responsibility to represent all perspectives equally. Mr. Kahn learned, “…a hard lesson about seeing situations from the perspectives of all participants; while my paper represented the students’ frustrations at length, it didn’t account for the professor’s nearly well enough.”

Along with his anecdotal lessons, I noted some of the “moves” Kahn uses in his writing. The "Rule of 3" was used a couple times. The “move” I noticed was his use of repetition. He uses the phrase “when it works well” multiple times. On page 176, in the middle of the second paragraph, “That is, ethnographic writing can, when it works well, do more than produce interesting papers” and in the following paragraph he uses it again, “One big lesson you should learn is that ethnographic writing, when it works well, does not…” I think Kahn uses this phrase to stress the important, volatile nature of ethnographic writing.

To my dismay, ethnographic writing requires the writer to be cautious and tip-toe around subjects yet when it works well can be very effective. 

Excitement & Seth Kahn

Let me just start by saying how happy I am to be doing this independent study with all 3 of you! I'm looking forward to what is to come of this course. 

With that said - on to the Seth Kahn article. I'm glad we got to reread this article; a chance to pick up information I may have missed the first time around! This time around I really put myself in the "ethnographic writer shoes" and tried to contemplate my own process and outcomes. 

The necessary experimentation with voice, moves, and breaking out of essay conventions is awesome - and very exciting for me. This study is really a mixture of the two things I love most in academia - writing and the study of humans. Wooo hoo!

A couple aspects of this genre that I hadn't thought a lot about is the consent and the possible sharing of drafts with participants. The consent is obviously necessary, but what if you get turned down? I guess the lesson here is not to get attached to a certain culture/subculture until the consent forms are signed!
In addition, I must admit that the sharing of drafts makes me really nervous. How could their opinions alter my voice? How can I be conscious of this possibility and ensure that my voice is still in tact? On the other hand, I can see how sharing drafts could "heighten your awareness of ethics of representation", as Kahn states. 

In this article Kahn writes about the fact that this requires you to write about experiences you are currently having, rather than ones you have already had. This brought me to think about Goldberg's chapter about how sometimes our writing about experiences is better when we are no longer in the middle of that experience. I am wondering how this will unfold through my writing within this course. Also - isn't it true that ethnography requires both - writing during and after the experience? 

The experience he describes of his first ethnographic project intimidates me! While I know this is "worse case scenario", it is a possibility. However the point here is to be honest in a gentle way, presuming there are negatives found in your observational research. Another important take away from this article (this time around) is the possible effect on peoples professional lives. The [possible] repercussions of my writing must be deeply considered, especially if it is going to be published. 

Overall, I am really looking forward to this course and how it will improve my critical thinking, observation, and writing skills.

Considering "Moves" While You Read

I thought I'd get us jumpstarted for your Week 1 posts.  As I mentioned in the write-up for this independent study, this quarter I'd like you to consciously read for (1) content and (2) "moves."

"Moves" can be a tough/weird/abstract concept, but if you think and read like a writer -- we're looking at you, Mike Bunn -- it basically comes down to taking a hard look at the various decisions a writer has made, analyzing the rhetorical effects of those decisions, and considering other possibilities and what effect/impact they might have on you or other readers.  

For instance, let's take a look at what I just wrote.

• There's only one sentence in that second paragraph (is that breaking convention?  Does it matter?), and that second one is kinda long.  However, its "readability" was hopefully enhanced by being broken up by a "dashed side-thought."

• I referenced a previous author/piece which you are each familiar with to, hopefully, take a potentially-troublesome concept ("moves") and remind you that we did this stuff before.  I also hyperlinked the piece to make it "clickable" for my beloved readers, just in case they get the itch to go back and re-read that comp/rhet masterpiece.

• I used parallelism in the series of items after the dash: "it basically comes down to X-ing, Y-ing, and Z-ing."  By maintaining a consistent verb tense -- present progressive, i.e., "ing" verbs (though it doesn't matter what it's called -- reader are usually better able to anticipate what's coming up in the series.  It helps to establish a flow and/or momentum.

• I dug deep down into my bag o' cheap tricks and used the "Rule of 3."  Xing, Ying, and Zing -- that's 3 items in a series, and apparently, 3's seem to be pleasing for most readers' ears/eyes.

• And lastly, I used -- and will always use -- the amazing oxford comma.  Why?  Well, with the exception of my insatiable penchant for backslashes and dashes, I want to make my readers' jobs as easy as possible.  That oxford comma signals to my reader: hey, brother/sister, one more item in this series is coming up!

So that's what I mean by taking a look at writers' moves when you read.  I want you to read for content, sure (i.e., what is ethnography?"), but I also want you to be reading for the purpose of checking out their writerly moves so you can repurpose them to build your own writing chops.

Note: here's that same (second) paragraph above, color coded.

"Moves" can be a tough/weird/abstract concept, but if you think and read like a writer -- we're looking at you, Mike Bunn -- it basically comes down to taking a hard look at the various decisions a writer has made, analyzing the rhetorical effects of those decisions, and considering other possibilities and what effect/impact they might have on you or other readers.