2.18 Oral history

After a brief review of the Principles and best practices for oral histories we created a list of some of this readings most important points about the definition and practice of oral history.

Definition:
oral history is both the practice and the product of asking questions (an interview) about a participant's life story as it unfolds within a particular time, place, and cultural context.

Some observations about doing oral history:

Contact your participant before the interview

Do your background research

Outline topics/questions beforehand (but be flexible in the interview)

Do your interview in a quiet place

Make sure to distribute/sign permissions/release forms prior to the interview

Remember that oral history will be public information

Be sure to let your participant know s/he is free to withdraw (stop the interview) at any time

Avoid stereotypes

Defer coming to conclusions

Encourage participation in convreation

Interviewing style
After talking through the Oral History Association's handout, I let you know that you would be doing some short informal "oral histories" about your classmates' experiences with Valentine's day.  You took a minute to think of/map out some questions, and then we had a short conversation about how to "do: your interview.  Some points that came up included:

using a conversational style

starting with "easy" questions

making sure you waited long enough (didn't get upset by the silence) for your partcipant to answer

Interviews!  You then did your interviews - using your phone to record the conversation.  In our wrap up, after the exercise, you noted that:

It was hard to stay on topic

Needed more time to prepare

Other questions seemed to arise in the interview process

Some of your questions were answered before you get to them

Check your equipment!  (make sure it works)

Ask open-ended questions

You did a great job on this!  I'm hoping each of you got a feel for interviewing - and for your strengths and areas to work on. 

For next class
Blog 7:  Listen to the recording of your oral history.  Write up some observations about what you have learned about interviewing.

Read:  How Student Beliefs in Giftedness and Teacher Competence Affect Writing Self-Assessments by Amber Watson

In class on Thursday we are going to go through the giftedness essay quickly.  Pay attention to how Watson designed and used her survey (in the methods section).  Also pay attention to the "form" of this essay.  What do you think works?  What do you think would work better if she presented it differntly (say, in a differnt order, or as a chart, or with more discussion, or with different headings. . . etc).  Then we are going to talk about the research projects and creating a research plan.  

You are doing a great job on this course - even though we seem to have had about half the required meetings!   See you Thursday.

Schedule for research conferences

Wednesday
10:00 Nagerrah; 3:20 John; 3:40 Melissa

Thursday
1:20 Ariana; 1:40 Sara

2.11 Sample ethnography and research paper format

Today did not go as I planned it, but then I guess that is just fine.  We took a look at the sample ethnography as a way to think (again) about the general format for a writing studies research essay, and to look at the content for the set up, methods, findings and conclusions for an ethnographic study.

Looking through your notes you did a great job identifying what the author did in each section.  Here is a summary of our recommendations for what the author might have done to strengthen the focus, organization, and development in this essay.

• Make a clear statement of the essay's focus on coaches as a discourses community and their use of multiliteracies up front at the very beginning.
• Delete references (reviews of other research articles) that do not connect to the essay's methods or findings.
• Add more discussion of Swales criteria for discourse communities + more discussion of what is meant by multiple literacies within the context of coaching.
• Use a statement of  what the essay will "do"  (In this paper I will use Swales' criteria for a discourse community and the concept of multiliteracies to show how literacy identities and practices are central to football coaching.  I begin with a description of my methods etc etc.) as a transition to the body of the paper.
• The class consensus seemed to be that the methods section was pretty good (though the set up with Swales should have been in the intro).
• Develop the discussion of the findings in terms of the focus that is set up in the introduction.  Do this for each point.  If the  goals/genres/lexis have different features than those pointed out by Swales - point out the differences and discuss why/whether this changes coaches standing as a discourse community.  Also - with the discussion of multiliteracies, relate it back to the definition set up in the intro,
• Write a stronger conclusion which sums up findings, points out the study's limitations + strengths (if any) and point out what the study contributes to or suggests about questions for further research,

Although these suggestions are presented in a bulleted list, and while the sequence represents a kind of "standard" organization - this is not a formula.  You each will be doing slightly different projects, and where and how you divide your paper into headings will vary.  These "moves" will be important, but you will each make them in a way that suits your material and purpose.

Thank you.  I appreciate that we are using new language and talking about writing a different kind of research paper, and it is risky to give answers to my (often baffling) questions during class.  Thanks to those of you who volunteer - and to those of you who answer when I call on you.  Truly it is the participation that makes the class work.  Hopefully our classroom will feel increasingly comfortable as we move through the term.

For next class:
I will start on Thursday with some practice creating research questions using Blog 5 as our data.  We will look at the posts from the in-class ethnographic experience and think about what kind of research questions we might ask of this data.  So come to class with some ideas.  Or with an awareness of the kinds of problems you might have in thinking up research questions.

After that we will talk briefly about oral history and then you will do an oral history interview. Before you come to class, check out the apps for voice recording that you can use with your phone.  You will use your phone to document the interview.  If you don't have a phone that can record, we will make sure you have a partner who does.

Read:  Best practices for oral history.  
Blog 6:  In class we talked about the differences among a topic, a focus, and the particular research quesstions you might ask as you conduct your research.  Each of you are in a different place in terms of developing your project - but where every you are - write into your material as far as you can go in terms of your topic, the specific focus you want to take to that topic, and (if possible) what in particular you want to find out within that focus = what you want to do in your study (your research questions = what you will ask about your data).  The more you write - the more we have to work with.

2.6 Schedule for conferences

Note: a discussion of what we did during class + assignments for next week is posted at the OTHER 2.6 (scroll down).

Monday: 11:00 Brenda, 3:30 Briana
Tuesday: 10:00 Holly, 11:00 Jessica, 11:20 Adrian; 1:00 Florie; 1:20 Melanie; 1:40 Amanda;
5:00 Sara
Wednesday: 3:00 Melissa; 3:20 John; 3:40 David
Thursday: 1:00 Gigi; 1:20 Ariana

2.6 Ethnography!

Discourse, discourse/language analysis, and discourse communities.  
So far this term we have learned to do analysis (and to name and classify and look for relationships between the moves we make as we do analysis!), to name and classify features of language use within a particular genre (jokes);  and to recognize features of discourse communities.  As we continue through the course we will also work on learning to use oral histories, interviews and surveys for research


You can go back over earlier posts, and think about the "moves" for doing research we have learned so far. Good job!

Ethnography
We used  Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes to frame our discussion.  This reading defines ethnography (more or less) as: the inscription of participatory experiences of indigenous culture represented from the perspectives of the observed culture.  This definition emphasizes the participatory nature of ethnography - and the fact that it involves writing.  As you re-read this material (you always re-read the assignments after our class discussions, right?), pay particular attention to the 4 consequences of this definition for writing fieldnotes.  They are listed at the bottom of the fifth page, under the heading Implications for writing fieldnotes.

In our talk about ethnography we noted that: 

• ethnographers need to participate in the culture they are studying in order to understand how that culture works - even though they may never really be insiders;
• that writing (documenting) culture  is central to ethnography;
• that ethnographers' presence/participation will necessarily change what it is possible to observe (just by the fact of their being there);
• and that ethnographers interpretations of what participants' culture "means" - will reflect the ethnographer's assumptions/perspective (which may not be shared by participants).  

We then spent some time analyzing the 3 examples of fieldnotes.  I pointed out that the writing associated with ethnography does not begin with this kind of writing.  In the field, ethnographers make "jottings" - shorthand, meaningful represenations of what happened that allow the ethnographer to remember the details of what took place during the observation.  Jottings are then supplemented - immediately after the observation or as close to that time as is possible - with "headnotes".  This is everything the ethnographer remembers about what happened.  Jottings and headnotes are then used to compose the kinds of fieldnote representations we read.  

The point of reading 3 different versions of fieldnotes documenting more or less the same kind of interactions => was to show that experience can be described from MANY different perspectives.  The three representations we read were identified as having a focus on: objective/spatial relationships; a subjective or interactive perspective centered on the experiences of the observer; and a relational documentation of interactions between the individuals on the scene.  No one representation captures the "truth" => each kind of representation provides a different window on "what happened".

Your ethnographic happening
We spent the last part of class doing an interactive ethnographic exercise.  Everyone was asked to get up out of their seats and come to the middle aisle, and talk to people - particularly people they did not know.  And you were asked to take "jottings" = quick, shorthand notes to help you remember - in as much detail as possible - what happened.  

The "event" lasted about 7 minutes.  I then asked you to go to your seats and add your headnotes to your jottings.  Some of the kinds of "details" you might want to include in your notes:

• where people were standing, who was in which group, how people moved among groups, the overall configuration of the groups in the room
• who talked to whom, short quotes of what people said, the sequence of talk, the overall focus of conversation, silences, laughing, questions, talk inside and outside your group, people leaving and joining groups, language choices
• Chandler's role in the "event", what she said, where she stood, what she did, tone of voice, how comments were received, silences, interruptions
• what people were doing, how they were taking notes, composure, eye-contact, who took part
• the "feeling" of the room, the noise level, the way talk sounded overall
• what people were wearing, facial expressions, body language, distances between speakers

When we summed up, you came up with an awesome list of inferences from your observation.  Good job.  At the same time, the point of ethnographic observation is to IDENTIFY THE FEATURES of what happened that SHOW /PROVE/PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR your  interpretation of what happened. 

For next class:
Read: Coaches can read, too.  (in your kean email).
Blog 5: Post your ethnographic notes.  ALL of them - your jottings, your head notes (everything you wrote down in class right after the experiences) and your "write up" of your fieldnotes (in a form similar to the samples we read in class).   Label your notes.  There should be 4 categories:  jottings, headnotes, things I remembered later, and fieldnotes.

Note: don't worry if this is not perfect.  This was your first time.  Just post what you have and we will talk about strategies for taking better notes/doing different kinds of write ups.

You did a great job today!   Thanks for your good participation and I'm looking forward to next class.

2.4 Discussion of academic discourse and Discourse communities

Discourse and defining terms. We started class with a discussion of some of the terms from Swales essay as they are set up in the discussion by Downs and Wardle to introduce the article, and in the glossary to the book this essay was "borrowed" from.  

In our discussion of the terms discourse/Discourse, we noted that the term discourse is associated with language in use, and the term Discourse is associated with ways of saying/thinking/and doing things = and idenity that includes a characteristic way of saying things (discourse).  

Rhetorical   In our discussion of Downs & Wardle's discussion of the term rhetorical - we noted that they used a lot of hard, big words if they were defining this for students.  We noted the different "rhetorical" advantages I had in creating a definition in person - with direct feedback (interaction) from you.  We defined each of the terms situated, motivated, interactie, epistemic, and contingent, and talked about how, taken together = they characterize rhetorical communications.  In our discussion of the term epistemic - ways of thinking about how we know things - I used an example where I "told" you about Stockholm, Sweden (some place none of you had been).  I described it as a city built on an archipelago (though I didn't use that word because it is hard to pronounce) = a series of islands, with bridges connecting the different parts of the city, and how many of the buildings are made of stone with the big arched bridges and walkways connecting the different parts of the city.  Then we talked about how each of you would have different images of "islands" the water between and "stone buildings" that were from your individual experiences.  So that in a sense - I'd "told" each of you something different, and each of you "knew" about Stockholm in a different way so that what you, I, we know was an interactive creation => not a set of unchangeable "facts" out there to be discovered.  

The object of this discussion was to set you up with some language & ideas to think about the "social constructionists" Swales references in his opening.  The idea that knowledge is made/created through communications/interactions between people - as a social constructionist assumption.

Learning a new language. We also observed that this course was a lot about learning how to say/think/do things the way writing studies researchers say/think/do them.  It is about learning a Discourse (and a discourse=way of using language).  

Swales.  We talked about Swales from two different perspectives.  First we looked at how his essay was organized (we did a rhetorical analysis).  And then we applied/tried out his "findings" to see how/whether they allowed us to talk about our class as a discourse community.    

Organization of Swales essay.  I asked you to notice the different moves the essay makes (as a way of identifying where the information you are going to need to put in your research essays will bes located).  

Overall the essay was organized into:

1.  an introductory section (about 20% of the essay's total length) where he states what other researchers have done and points out what he will add to this "conversation" 
2. a long middle section (about 60%) where he makes his point (offers a criterial list of features of discourse communities and gives an example)
3.And  a (surprisingly long) conclusion (about 20%) - where he sums up his findings, raises additional questions, and states further work/questions which might be addressed in additional research. i

Swales essay presents one pattern for writing studies research papers.  Important consideration for you: does this essay include primary data?  Where would you put your primary data if you used this form?  How much "space" should primary data take?

We then spent the remainder of the class working in groups to see what Swales list said about how or whether our class was a discourse community.  We didn't get to sum this up as thoroughly as we should have so I am going to ask you to post your findings on your blogs. You may post the "same" post by groups (one post/group) or on your own. I have sent an email to everyone in the class with names/emails so that you can be in touch if you want to work together.

Groups:
Brianna, Jessica, Brenda
Adrian, Sara, Ariana, Florie
Gigi, Melanie, John
Holly, David, Amanda

For next class:
Read: Emerson: Wrting Ethnographic Fieldnotes (with attention to the sample fieldnotes, and to the sample jottings. 
Blog 4: Use Swales criteria to characterize our class as a discourse community (or not).  Include some critical reflection on how teacher and student Discourse - and the power structures of school = affect the shape of our discourse community (or not).  This does not need to be perfect - it is an opportunity to use some of the new vocabulary + practice analysis.  Go for it!

2.4 Definitions: discourse; rhetorical; rhetorical situation

These definitions are excerpted from the glossary in Downs & Wardle's WAW text.

discourse/Discourse:  At its most basic, discourse is language in action, or languge being used to accomplish something.  Discourse can describe either an instance of language, or a collection of instances that all demonstrate some quality.  Because groups of people united by some activity tend to develop a characteristic discourse, we can talk about communities that are identified by their discourse - thus, discourse community.
James Gee uses Discourse with an uppercase D to differentiate a meaning of the term which includes ways of thinking, being, doing and performing in addition to the "language" parts.

rhetorical:  Rhetorical describes an undersanding of or approach to human interaction and communication as situated, motivated, interactie, epistemic, and contingent. . . .Rhetorical reading involves reading a text as situate, motivated, etc.  Rhetorical analysis is a way of analyzing texts to find what choices their rhetor (speaker or writer) made based on their purpose and motivation, their situatedness and context, and how they interact with and make new knowledge for their audience.

rhetorical situation: Rhetorical situation is the particular circumstance of a given instance of communication or discourse.  The rhetorical situation includes exigence (the need or reason for the communication), context (the circumstances that give rise to the exigence, including location in time/history and space/place/position), rhetor (the originator of the communication -its speaker or writer), and the audience (the auditor, listener, or reader of the rhetor's discourse).