Blog 7: Questions About In-Class Ethnographic Study

Post an answer to one of the 10 questions we created in class. Support each part of your answer with evidence from the data. Evidence should take the form of examples to illustrate particular content or forms and statements about the frequency of particular particular patterns.

Examples of frequency statements. (6 out of the 10 jottings did. . . ; in the notes as a whole, professor chandler is mentioned 26 times, 10 in jottings, 5 in head notes, 10 in remembered later, and 1 in observations )(not true - you would need to count this); or far-back statements accounted for less than half of the statements in jottings, but close to 90% of statements in observations (I made this up, it is not true - it is an example of how you should be using numbers to support your claims about what the data does)

1. How does understanding how the notes will be used (having a focus) affect the way researchers take notes?
2. What do these notes suggest about how beginning ethnographers take notes?

3. What do these notes show about what happened in our classroom event? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?

4. How does the fact that everyone is taking notes ruin this data as a representation of "real" ethnographic experience?

5. What kind of experience do these notes present?

6. How do the observations progress (or do they) in terms of moving towards theories about what happened? Where do the first patterns appear? Are they developed? How/ where/ are they developed as we move through individual note takers' notes? Do note takers ever undo theories?

7. What does this data reveal about social dynamics in this class?

8. What do these notes suggest about what students learned about taking ethnographic field notes through this exercise (how do these notes compare to notes we read in class)? How or did this exercise "teach" broadening the focus of attention?

9. What is reliable? How can we tell what is reliable? What do these notes teach us about reliability?

10. What are the different patterns for representing experience in the different phases of note taking? What do these patterns tell us about how our class processed the experience? What do these patterns suggest about thinking patterns ethnographers might want to "be careful" about?

Can this data answer this question?

From the data collected, I believe that there is definitely enough information to draw some conclusions about how amateur ethnographers take notes. However, I don't think that an amateur ethnographer would usually take notes without direction or purpose nor without an example by an expert ethnographer. Still, in the cases where an amateur ethnographer is gathering information without prior experience on how to gather random, unfocused data and without thinking to have some kind of focus before hand, it is safe to say that the result would be similar to that which was presented in the data collected.

That being said, I think what the father of linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure said was accurate when he said that you cannot know what brown is if you don't know about other colors, just as you cannot know what one sound is without knowing other sounds [this is a rough paraphrase]. Thus, I don't think it's fair of me to make any kind of judgment about what an amateur ethnographer would write mainly because I have no contrast with which to compare. Therefore, all of my reasoning behind my first paragraph here hinges on unfounded assumptions and weak understandings about what is truly expert level ethnographic work.


General Similarities: [Amateur notes juxtaposes the Writing Ethnographic Fields Notes article]

1. Tried to capture all the information that seemed relevant, but there was no methodology to follow.
2. Wrote more about impressions than observations.
3. Details about interactions were limited.
4. We struggled with writing and interacting at the same time.

Also, what form to use for jotting.

Blog 5: What key features will you investigate to better understand the nature of discourse communities?

In our discussion we put out the "theories" that small groups might cohere more readily as discourse communities than big groups. What else might we "theorize' from this data? How would we test those theories? Is there one Swale's categories that this table suggests is more critical for being a discourse community than others - or that groups tend to have trouble achieving? What other data would we need to collect to see if this data is "true" or if the patterns it suggest are useful?

Do these findings agree with your intuitive feeling about which of these groups is a more coherent discourse community? Or do they suggest that there is something wrong with Swales definition?

In class, we basically read the columns vertically, looking at the various discourse communities as separate groups and comparing them on their scores according to each of the features. However, upon being asked to reflect on these scores, I find that reading it horizontally is also insightful; it seems that there are certain features that are stronger across the board. Here is my chart to illustrate what I mean:

Swales Features	Kean	English Writing Maj.	Ed maj	ENG 3029	Total
1	2.5	4	4.5	5	17
2	3.5	2	3	4	14.5
3	3	2	1.5	4	13.5
4	4.5	3.5	4.5	4	20.5
5	5	4.5	5	5	24.5
6	4.5	4.5	3.5	4	22.5

Notice that the 5th feature, which had to do with the group having it's own lexis, was the strongest while the 3rd feature, which had to do with using participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback, was the weakest. 

Therefore, it seems to me that overall, it is easier for a group of human beings who share a space to acquire a particular jargon that is directly associated with their group identity than it is to use mechanisms to communicate with each other. From that, we can probably extrapolate that the lexis is being developed more so due to face-to-face communication rather than through the mechanisms. This hypothesis would not hold true for an online community, where communication hinges on mechanisms, but maybe not all mechanisms would be used by all members. [More research needed]

In order to truly test these theories, a variety of groups would need to participate within a study. Observation and interviewing would be a good start, but immersion would see what is ideal talk and what is reality. Also, the discourse communities here are not necessarily ones where the members would have to know the purpose and utilize all the resources available to them [although they probably should ^_^ as I'm sure many professors would agree]. This is because many students come to college because they have to or want to find a job; some could care less about the educational philosophy of a school, and to say that they have any reaction towards it, including apathy, would be a good sign since many enter college not knowing there is such a thing as educational philosophy. Simply put, a feature not included that I feel is important is the reason behind wanting to be part of the discourse community in the first place. Was is by interest? Was it forced? How proud are the members of the community?

Another thought: location and time. It is important to know where the members of a group gather, and how such as online or physically. Moreover, do the members interact much? In the case of the Kean community, most people are commuters and many are part-time students. If it weren't for the fact that I work on campus and study a lot, I probably would not know so much about the Kean community. In other words, how long are the members of the discourse community among others of the same community before transitioning to another one?

WOW this is a long post. I'll end by saying that as with any organic group, the features of a discourse community may change over time according to the needs of its members. In the short time I've been at Kean, I have seen many changes occur that have differentiated the discourse between those just entering Kean and those on their way to graduation. There are new mechanism and new resources available to Kean students that bring knew language and new identity. Interestingly enough, there are just some features that remain the same that keep it's identity. Maybe not all the features are essential. Yet another thing to look into. Cheers.

Blog 4: Discourse Community - Kean University

Post your analysis of your (possible) discourse community. Make sure to account for each of the 6 features. Give examples for each feature to support your analysis (e.g. examples of what the "public goals" are and how they are made public, what the genres for communication are, ways the group makes the genres their own, the language particular to the group , etc.)

1.  A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. (Megan)

Kean University has common public goals between students and professors. The professors have high hopes for students to achieve. The common goals the university has for students would be to give the students a good education.

2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among (Filip)

Kean has several mechanisms its members make use of to communicate among one another. One, and probably the main one, is the Kean email system known as KeanGoogle. The other two mechanisms are the use of social networking sites like FaceBook and Twitter. The members of the Kean community are able to easily communicate with one another via all three of these mechanisms, thus making Kean a discourse community.

3. A discourse community uses it participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. (Filip)

At the end of each course towards the end of the semester, professors of Kean University hand out surveys to their students, who are required to complete and provide truthful answers to the questions. This survey allows students of the Kean community to provide valuable information and feedback about their experiences within the class and professor to the University, fulfilling the third requirement of Kean being a discourse community.

4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims. (Megan)

• Different classes
• Looking up and reviewing professors
• Talking to administration

5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis. (Dina)

Deals with specific language utilized in the discourse community. Here at Kean, we have several examples of this: CAS, Cougar Dollars, One Stop, Kean Exchange, Cougar's Byte. This lexis is used to identify locations and resources only available at Kean and only understood among Kean students.

6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expertise. (Dina)

The final feature of a discourse community is having a large community that is aware and utilizes the discourse fluently. Kean has a very large community. Even though graduation allows for members to come and go, the students can continue to be connected to the resources on campus provides they have an alumni identification, which can only be acquired upon paying a fee.

Can Kean University qualify as a discourse community? (Mark)

Kean University is made up of every race, gender, religion and socio-economic background, but one this is the medium between everyone, the chase of a degree. Kean is an institution that provides means of education, learning, progression and growing, and with that comes specific terms, acronyms, language and beliefs that are shared. Just from our research class alone, we all share one common goal, to pass the class. The degree at which we all do this may be different but the goals are the same.

Blog 3: Group Work

1. Main characters

2.central setting (public place)

3. Statement at the end summing up the story.

4.pun

5.They all have needs that each character wants achieved. All seem a little ridiculous. 

6. Some have dark humor- variant feature (violence)

7.Unrealistic events

8. stories begin as fairytales but then begin to rationalize in order to understand them.

9. all characters interact with others around them (dialogue)

10. Assumes you are reading english, in any other language the puns would not make sense.

11. All encounter conflicts

12. Characters themselves are very flat, one dimension.
 

---

Debra: parts 1,2, and 3
A main feature we found within the shaggy dog stories was that each of the stories has a main character. Each story was focused on the journey of each character which was the focus of the joke. Although we did not learn much about the characters personal lives, we knew just enough about them to understand their emotions. Another feature that we found to reoccur within the stories was the central setting. Each story took place in a specific area that also added to the joke. The characters in each story all had a different setting, but all settings took place in a public area. For instance, the panda in the restaurant, the string in the bar and the friars in the flower shop. Each character was out in public dealing with their personal lives. We were also able to analyze that each story had an ending statement that wrapped up the meaning of the story. This is a very important aspect not only to jokes but to any story, the ending is where the story should make the most sense. The ending of the shaggy dog stories all share the same feature of the ending statement summing up the story.


Dina: parts 4, 5, and 6
4. pun
Within the Shaggy Dog Stories, the end of each story ended with a play on words, also known as a pun. For example, in the third story about the string who was repeatedly refused a drink, thus the string tied himself into a bow and unraveling the ends of himself [he’s a string]. The story ends with the string once again ordering his beer and the bartender asking him if he’s the string from before. To quote the story, “The string replied coolly, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot." Here, ”a frayed” sounds like “afraid” and “knot” sounds like “not”. The humor is that both interpretations are accurate to the situation in the story, not to mention that the entire story hinges on that particular pun as if the pun was the focus and the story was then built around it. Seeing as it is the last line and the punch line of the story, the reader is left to giggle on this play on words.

5. They all have needs that each character wants achieved. All seem a little ridiculous.Each of the Shaggy Dog stories contain characters with very specific needs and desires with are logical, at least within the context of the story. Those needs and desires are then achieved, even if they seem ridiculous. For example, in the story where the panda is ordering food, the Panda is actually given the food he orders. This is logically explained by the story in that the reader finds out the panda can speak like a normal human being. Also, because of the location, which is New York City, it is explained that the population there has see so many strange things that it would actually be illogical for a New Yorker to panic or to question the presence of a panda in a restaurant. Furthermore, after the panda has its shooting spree, the panda requests that someone look up the definition of a panda, and the other characters present heed that request. In essence, no request is too ridiculous for any character in a Shaggy Dog Story; the request may not be achieved in a conventional way, but it will be achieved.

6. Some have dark humor- variant feature (violence)
As a variant, dark humor and violence are often the main features of the stories. For example, in the story about the lawyer whose friend was eaten by a bear, the act of being eaten is very violent. Subsequently calling someone to shoot the bear is also very violent. Moreover, the punch line, which is a pun as well [see #4] has an element of dark humor [i.e. "Would you believe a lawyer who told you the Czech was in the male?"]. On the other hand, there are Shaggy Dog stories that do not contain violence or dark humor. In the story about the string who wanted a drink, the string did not resort to violence in order to get a drink nor was any violence commit onto the string. Furthermore, the punch line was an innocent play on words ["Nope, I'm a frayed knot."], making violence and dark humor possible variant to this kind of story/joke telling.


Marc: part 7. 8. 9
What we noticed about the set of shaggy dog stories that we read were that all of the stories, had a premise not based in reality. We all know its not possible for a panda to walk into a restaurant and shoot people, just like we know its not possible for a string to order a beer at a bar. You also have to suspend your belief that god would be present as a glowing light, and that a bear would swallow someone whole.

On the same issue of unrealistic events being portrayed in the readings there is always in a relastic settings with the punchline rationalizeing the meeting of the two conflicting scenarios. For example in the string story, we see something unrealistic like a talking string but is set in a realistic setting like going into bar and ordering a beer, and that sets up the basis of the joke.

Like most stories, the jokes here all have one or more characters haveing a conversation with each other. For the shaggy dog stories it seems to be imperative for progressing and setting up the basis of the story that there is some sort of dialog.

Blog 2: Define analysis. What is it? How does it work? How you might use analysis in one of the research projects?

These are some useful questions to think about when planning how to analyze a project.  Your blog post doesn't need to answer all of them = they are hear to give you something to write into.
What kinds of questions might you ask?
What might you notice/look for?
What kinds of surrounding circumstances, actions, actors, interactions, outcomes etc might it be useful to name?

Analysis is the process by which we identify the components that make up the train of thought presented by a set of information [ex: a collection of data, an essay] and name those components as we think of them. In the process, we are identifying patterns within the information and trying to draw conclusions.

The goal is to understand why the information given is set up the way it is. In other words, the analysis helps to explain the logic underlying the organization presented. It aims to do so in a more objective basing it's credibility on rules, facts and assumptions that are not defined by whim. That way, anyone looking at the analysis can agree to it's validity. Debates over analysis occur when different people have different assumptions, rules, and facts.

Seeing as my research project, although not completely defined, will talk about cultural differences, discourse, language acquisition and linguistics, I will be using analysis to find language patterns and will be trying to find connections between analysis that has already been done on my topic. In other words, I will be using analysis to identify the patterns I see and draw conclusions from there.

Blog 1: What kind of writing studies research do you think you might be interested in?

Language is very tricky. Two people in conversation can create sentences that are completely original and yet the two will understand one another. However, even within the same language, there are phrases specific to a home, a region, a country, and so on that will not be understood by those excluded from the group. Communication becomes a greater challenge still when each person speaks a completely different language. Sure certain cues can be drawn from body language, even that is sometimes culturally bound; I don't believe there are any signs that are completely universal aside from facial expressions [happiness, sadness, disgust, shock, etc.] and those actually agreed upon internationally. Explaining idiomatic phrases to an ELL student illustrates this point exactly.

If you can explain the structure and meaning of a sentence or idiomatic phrase to an ELL student, and it is understood, to me that is the true test of both linguistic and teaching mastery. In being multilingual  and multicultural myself, I find it both fascinating and useful to understand the origins of words and grammar regardless of whether or not the words and structures stem from the "standard" form of the language. In fact, the more colloquial forms of the language often show what is truly essential to the structure and pronunciation of words in order to be understood by others who are native speakers.

In taking linguistics here at Kean, the idea that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to say something but rather it's a matter of appropriateness resonated with me. Discourse analysis looks at this point. Why do we talk to friends differently from professors? How do we know what language to use? It is always the case that there is a distinction? However, and an educator, I want to be able to teach the structure or the basics as tools for empowering each student's voice.

To follow up, in creating voice or empowering it, rhetorical skills tie in with the appropriateness of language. How do people utilize language not only to get their idea across but also to persuade, argue, connect ideas, and so on. As with discourse, how to know when certain language is appropriate to use in order to achieve goals is important.

Overall, my interests within writing studies lie in language appropriateness, which spans linguistic, rhetorical, discourse analysis as well as writing across the curriculm and