A little frustrated.

My search for good ethnographic writing is frustrating. I am having a hard time finding actual ethnographic writing, and finding a whole lot on how to write ethnographically. Anyone else having this issue?

Anyways - though I am still searching (and will have articles printed out for tomorrows meeting) I wanted to throw out there my ideas and what I am searching for.

It started with the search for an ethnographic writing on indigenous people. Not even a certain indigenous group. Just any of them, and I figure this is something someone out there must have done by now, but as I said before my search is not going the way I had hoped. Then I narrowed it a bit more and searched for ethnographic research on indigenous shamanic practice, which turned up a bit more than the previous attempt. 

So then I thought to search for a piece about the music industry, which I found a couple things. Even still, not getting the search results I had hoped for. My thought was to find two ethnographic pieces on different cultures that I could compare and contrast in my paper. Here are some links to what I have found.

1. The Newcastle music industry: An ethnographic studyof a regional creative system in action

2. Queer shamans: autoarchaeologyand neo-shamanism

3. Ethnographic Perspectives on Differentiating Shamansfrom other Ritual Intercessors

With all that said - I am continuing my search and narrowing my ideas. I just wanted to put up a post on what I have so far, and to share my small frustration in finding pieces that I find interesting. 

If any of you have a good search down where you can get a more broad spectrum of ethnographic research to show up, please let me know. I'm finding I need to get really specific with what I want in order to get results. 

Excited to meet with you all tomorrow, and I hope you are having a great holiday weekend! 

"The reality of interest"

What a great read to finish with! The different samples of writing with the added analysis is a great move on the writers part. Perfect way to make the differences between these pieces clear. 

Tony's piece for the "enhanced ethnography" is definitely my least favorite in terms of style and moves. I don't like the way it's written, so you almost feel as if you're reading a novel. I understand the drive to make it more creative, but not my favorite. However, I did like the way the "plain ethnograhy" piece was written. Reads as if you are there seeing what the writer is seeing, but doesn't read like a novel so much - in terms of dialog. 

The semi-fictional I get it, trying to save people from being exposed. But the fictionalized version - don't get it. Call me crazy, but it seems unproductive to me.  This line in the last paragraph describes my feelings well:

"...the more authentic the experiences depicted in our work the more effective they are pedagogically." 

No matter what my feelings are towards these different genres; I think this piece is great and clearly demonstrates what each genre looks like. 

Thanks to all of you for being the awesome people and writers you are. I'm looking forward to meeting with you next week!

From beginning to end: Kahn to Humphreys and Watson

I must applaud the structure of this independent study and sequence of the assigned readings. Thank you Mr. Zack.

I really enjoyed reading this piece, Ethnographic Practices by Humphreys and Watson. I couldn’t help but notice the relevance it had to our first week’s reading, Putting Ethnographic Writing in Context by none other than Seth Kahn.

As AJ mentioned in his blog post “Honest and (un)Merciful” ethnographic writing is—on the surface—similar to journalism. Humphreys and Watson explain the relationship between the two.

Fieldwork is the experience and exploration of a culture.

From the fieldwork comes the written account. “Ethnography is the account.”

Like Kahn, Humphreys and Watson delve into the importance of preserving confidentiality and protecting the subjects. Humphreys and Watson describe 4 typographies of ethnographic writing (the plain, the enhanced, the semi-fictionalized, and the fictionalized).

We are fed four examples that capture the applicability of each type. I appreciated the “Charity begins at home” example. Although the account of Charity was semi-fictional and based on the amalgamation of other individuals, it can be characterized as true (under heavy disguise). They used the fabrication of Charity to conceal the identities of employees which explains one responsibility as an ethnographic writer that Kahn touches on.

On a side note I admire Humphreys’ and Watson’s style of writing. During the introduction—regarding the basic structure of the article they wrote together—they add the jazz performance analogy of trading fours (the lead).  The conclusion includes an excerpt from an autobiography of Duke Ellington. It’s a curious coincidence that I included Duke Ellington for my Geertz blog post weeks ago.

This independent study has proven with strange accidents and (my) inconsistencies, yet with a harmonious fluidity, invaluable. 

I thank the three of you. 

Learning Through Break-Time

This Fall Quarter has been very unusual for me, in regards to Antioch. My schedule has been very different accordingly. While taking these last few classes—one being this independent study and another a seminar—I have been forced to sit and type words on a screen for many hours. I’m not the type of person who can sit and work for a solid 6-7 hours doing work on a computer. I’m not so sure that there is. But when I DO work for an extended amount of time I tend to get fidgety and lose focus. At that point I’m usually like, “BREAK-TIME!”

As I read Activity Theory: An Introduction for the Writing Classroom, I tried to think of different activity systems where I am a participant. Nothing was coming to mind and I was beginning to feel restless, as I do moments before ‘break-time.’ I grabbed a pair of high-tops and my Spalding before dribbling across the street to the ‘Westside’ Boys and Girls Club. On any given night you can either find yourself alone under the lights or waiting to prove you can ‘run’ with the bodies already occupying the court. Last night, I waited on the blacktop and quickly filled a game of 3 on 3 which eventually grew to a full-court 5 on 5.

In between games, I realized what I was doing could be considered an activity system. In fact, it was completely.

Subjects: teams, teammates and players

Tools: the court, basketball, verbal communication and hand signals

Motives: score and win

Rules: pick-up game rules (call your own fouls) and normal laws of the game (traveling, out-of-bounds, etc.)

Community: the 10 subjects comprise the community

Division of Labor: play different positions and the common understanding: Larger bodies stay low and grab rebounds. Smaller bodies act as ball handlers and guards. 

Activity Theory—lesson learned. 

Dinner with the Strokes (Geertz Revisited)

I thought of another analogy that would describe the 'thin description vs thick description' discussion. Think of your favorite musical artist / band. Maybe you don't have a particular artist in mind, maybe think of a favorite album.

"Is This It" the Strokes in my Top 3.

My point is, you love your favorite album it in its entirety. Front to back, in your opinion it’s flawless and never gets “old”. It’s impossible to choose ONE track that sufficiently represents the rest of the body of work.

For instance, can you choose one song off of ‘The Beatles’ (album) or The White Album? Does it embody all the other songs or the whole album?

 Nope.

Thin description – one song / a single

Thick description – the whole goddamn album 

Honest Warnings and Fooseball

These two readings were exceptionally enjoyable. Contrary to Alderson, I sort of enjoyed the honesty of the opening section (Framing the Reading) of "The Concept of Discourse Community". I found the ‘warnings’ to be humorous, “Be aware that Swale’s style of writing is a little dry and formal, and he may use specialized linguistic terms that you don’t understand.” Although the Swale’s writing was dry and flavorless, I got through it smoothly.

The purpose of this chapter was to discuss the differences between a discourse community and a speech community. It was explained concisely.

Discourse community : centrifugal, separates people into occupational or speciality-interest groups. Recruits members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification.

Speech community : centripetal, absorbs people into that general fabric. Inherits membership by birth, accident or adoption.

Swale discusses the 6 characteristics of discourse communities and provides an example that is sufficient and interesting. I liked the fact that the participants of the HKSC come from different backgrounds and different demographics (Lieutenant Colonel, non-native speakers of English, men and women) yet form a global discourse community.

As for Branick’s “Coaches Can Read, Too” I thought it was simple and straight-foward. Just as Swale's HKSC, Branick's example of football coaches was complementary. The conclusion was strong and I thought clever. “What was that coach thinking?!”

One discourse community I thought of was any branch of the military. They have common goals, mechanisms of intercommunication, participatory mechanisms, genres, specific lexis, and members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise. 

My Lunch with Duke Ellington and Clifford Geertz

I welcome myself back to this independent study after an honest 3 week hiatus. My apologies.

Geertz had a very captivating way of showcasing the examples given about ‘thick description vs thin description’. These concepts were explained as yin and yang, black and white. Winking vs twitching and as described by Geertz :

Thin Description : "rapidly contracting eyelids"

Thick Description : "practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an

                     innocent into thinking a conspiracy is in motion"

The thin description gives the reader an idea of what is happening with no reference to the surrounding space or meanings. Thick description gives the idea and existing possibilities of meanings or situations. Thin description is like a photo, a still. While thick description is like a High-Definition 360º video with audio. Again, fire and ice. Text vs context.

If I was explaining these concepts to this generation :

Thin Description : Posting on Instagram before the video option

Thick Description : Sending Snapchat videos

After digesting these examples, the concepts of thick and thin description seemed to be self-explanatory.

As I write, Duke Ellington’s “Haupe” is playing in my earbuds. The thin description would be something along the lines of soft jazz with piano, bass, drums and saxophone. I wonder, what would the thick description sound like? 

Right on Kain & Wardle!

When beginning to read this article, my initial reaction was my realization of my lack in understanding what the difference between ethnography and activity theory is. However this article did a really great job breaking down activity theory clearly which, by the end of it, made it really easy for me to see the difference between the two. The consistency of the university example made the different aspects of the concept easy to understand. 

I'm also a big fan of diagrams - but a diagram you can use for your own attempt at analysis?! That's awesome. Not only is this article well written with a clear writing style (for the reader) but there is an opportunity for the reader to take in this information, see it being used, and give a try themselves. Right on Kain and Wardle! 

Not only did I learn a lot about activity theory from this article, but it gave me the chance to consider it's differences and similarities from ethnography. Differences obviously being that the AT dives deeply into all levels of humans coming together to accomplish something; while ethnography looks more at how a certain culture functions and becomes what it is. But how often do these two analysis's overlap? When do the lines become blurred between them?

Discourse & Football? Sure, why not.

From the beginning I was really skeptical of the Swales article, given that in the second paragraph I am told I won't be familiar with what I am reading. As a reader, I'm already not happy. Not exactly the "hook" type of opening writers usually go for. Saying "Don't pay attention to this part, because you'll be confused." is just like the real life scenario of someone telling you not to look at something, because naturally, people almost always look. Now it's all I can see. It also kills my motivation to keep reading, especially reading it multiple times. Baaaaad move. 

Even after all the discouragement, I kept reading and did the activities. Reading reviews on this book was pretty entertaining and I think this is a really interesting and creative move for the purpose of this article. One review was particularly weird, stating that this book was better than The Bible and Pilgrim's Progress, which were the only two other books this reviewer had ever red. However, all the reviews I read on Amazon were 5 star reviews. This intrigued me. 

Through all my contemplation and reading about speech community and discourse community, this passage really stuck out to me: "A speech community typically inherits it's membership by birth, accident or adoption; a discourse community recruits its members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification." (p. 471) It helped me to separate these two communities on a different level. 

The paper by Branick was a bit more difficult for me to read, only because I have no interest, nor do I fully understand football.

With that said, the persuasion on the importance of a coaches literacy was impressive. I absolutely agree with him that reading people is a form of literacy, and he argues this well. I can't imagine what it would be like trying to read the football players and an ongoing game, but after reading this paper, I can see how that is an important skill to have developed to do this job well.

About Grounded Theory

“Grounded theory” has a handful of meanings, and I think that they’re all helpful for our purposes—that is, for thinking about “what is ethnography?” and “what is ethnographic writing?”  It can be a

• method, or way of obtaining data. 
• approach to analyzing data—gathering it first and then formulating theories/explanations about what it all means, how it fits together, why it functions in the way(s) that it does
• methodology, or rationale for constructing your research design 
• lens through which you can see the world.  This is super-broad, sure, but if you think about it, it can be an entire outlook or philosophy—are you someone who makes conclusions/judgments (or even tentative hypotheses) first and then seeks to go out and confirm them?  Or are you someone who wants to seek out the data and then arrive at conclusions?  

This ties back to ethnography because it seems to me that most ethnographers see the world of research and human experience through a grounded theory-informed perspective.  The world already exists and it’s their job—as anthropological researchers and social scientists—to understand its many cultures from the native’s perspective(s).    

Thick Description Requires Attention to Context

Geertz & Frake

Thick description was a great read! I enjoyed this way of looking deeper into ethnography, and to have it compared to anthropology.  I liked the way Geertz described the process of how ideas are digested, and what that looks like begin, middle, and end. Trying to "apply and extend it" where ever it may fit, before it comes back down from the "all promising scope" we give it initially. This caused me to reflect a lot on my own digestive process when it comes to new ideas and concepts. 

The following quote really stuck out to me: "Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning." It puts these ideas into imagery which is always helpful. It sent me into a "thought rant" about how we [humans] get caught up in these webs.

Throughout this article, Geertz gives extensive examples of what thick description means; one in particular that stood out to me was the example of the boys winking/twitching. It was clear to understand how to the regular eye you can't tell the difference, but in my opinion if you're truly observing a group of people, there are gestures that occur before and after the wink that make it clear whether it was intentional or not. 

The Frake article on ordering a drink in Subanun was a good example of what an ethnographic piece can look like. It got the point across and I learned a lot about a clearly important part of the Subanun culture. It was nice to read an ethnographic piece - rather than another piece about ethnography and what it is, and isn't. As I have said before, I always appreciate a piece that is broken down into clear sections like this one. Describing each step and the importance of it. Well done.