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. 

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.