Assignment 1: Trip to the Field
Anthropology 100
Winter 2017-2018 DCPE
Summary: Every subfield of anthropology relies on skillful observation conducted in the context of fieldwork of some kind. Participant observation is one of the fieldwork methods used most frequently by cultural anthropologists. You will need to have done the Van Maanen reading prior to completing this assignment.
For Assignment 1, you will take a 30 minute “trip to the field.” First, choose a field site where you will conduct participant observation. Feel free to be as creative as you like, but don’t overlook activities that you already have planned. Sometimes the best observations come out of the most mundane settings. The supermarket or laundromat would make good field sites. So would a meal or card game with friends or family. The idea is to choose a place where you can observe other people interacting and conversing, and participate in those interactions yourself. If it meets those criteria, it is a good field site. If you are not sure, feel free to email me in advance for feedback on your idea.
Into the field: Conduct around 30 minutes of close observation during which you record fieldnotes. What should you write down? Dialogue, sounds, and details about the setting (wall color, décor, layout of the room/space, etc.). Aim for observation rather than evaluation. It is important to try and suspend your analytical sensibility while you are conducting participant observation. Practice “being a novice”—making the familiar unfamiliar and questioning naturalized habits. Do not try to write everything down that happens. Fieldnotes recorded in the course of participant observation are brief jottings intended to later jog your memory about the scene. Remember that while you are observing you are also participating, so you should not spend all of your time scribbling in a notebook. Striking the right balance is an art, and depends a lot on the nature of the field site. An example of what your fieldnote jottings might look like is included at the end of this assignment.
At the desk: Respond to the following questions and practice “writing up” your fieldnotes.
1) Reflect on your experience as a participant observer in light of the Bernard reading: Did you find it difficult to recall details after the event? Would you characterize your position as an insider or outsider anthropologist? How do you think your positionality impacted the data you were able to collect? Finally, do you think you were able to
learn things through participant observation that you wouldn’t have been able to learn through other research methods? Why or why not? (350–500 words).
2) Next, write up a scene from your fieldnotes. It doesn’t have to be, nor should it be, a verbatim rendering of everything that you observed. Rather, the idea is to practice crafting a scene from your jottings and writing ethnographically. Ethnographic writing contains richly described details and characters. Working from your fieldnotes, try to write in a way that remains faithful to your observations and also brings the action to life for your reader (350–500 words).
The Nitty-Gritty: Submit your completed assignment by clicking on the assignment name in the Assignments folder in our course and uploading your document(s). Your responses to the questions above should be typewritten and saved as either a .doc(x) or .pdf file. Either single- or double-spaced documents are fine; 12pt font and 1 inch margins.
Please note that I would also like you to submit your fieldnotes. If these are handwritten (which I recommend) you can either scan the document and upload it as a .pdf if you have access to a scanner, or take a clear picture of the page(s) and upload the image(s).
Grading Rubric
| Fieldnotes-
25 points |
Are the notes clear and well organized?
Are the notes concise jottings or do they attempt to record everything verbatim? Does the author note who, what, when, and where? Is dialogue recorded? Do the notes consist mostly of observations rather than evaluative statements?
|
| Reflection-
50 points |
Does the author respond to all parts of the question?
Does the response thoughtfully engage the Bernard chapter? Does the author demonstrate an understanding of positionality? Does the author demonstrate an understanding of advantages and limitations of participant observation as a method?
|
| Ethnographic Description- 25 points | Does the author bring the field site to life for the reader?
Does the reader understand the setting of the scene? Are details and characters richly described? Is dialogue well integrated into the description? Is it the proper length? (350-500 words)
|
TWO ILLUSTRATIONS OF JOTTINGS[1]
In order to convey how field researchers actually write and use jottings, we provide two illustrations. Both focus on scenes, observed actions, and dialogue rather than on evaluation or psychological interpretation. The two researchers approach interaction in their settings in very different ways, noting different sensory and interpretive details.
“they’re not very good”
The following jotted notes focus on meeting a would-be promotor of Spanish-language rock music in a club:
Jorge = at table doesn’t introduce me to anyone now only speaks in Spanish
chit chat – who’s playing ”they’re not very good” – apology
These jottings preserve a number of incidents in the club, including where Jorge is seated and the fact that he has switched to Spanish after having previously spoken English. A general sequence of events is laid out: Jorge does not introduce the observer, who has come in his company; there is general conversation (“chit chat”); someone (not specified here) asks “who’s playing” (presumably the name of the band is given, but is mentally marked as easily remembered and not recorded); someone (not the field worker!) makes an evaluative comment about the band, and the observer notes her sense that this remark was an “apology” (for having brought her to this club), thus providing interactional context for interpreting its import.
“you can call his doctor”
The following jottings concern a woman who is seeking a temporary restraining order against her two landlords, one of whom is not present in the courtroom. The landlord who is present disputes the woman’s testimony that the missing landlord is “well enough to walk” and hence could have come to court:
you can calI his doctor at UCLA and he can verity alI this I just don’t calI people on the telephone – courts don’t operate that way – it has to be on paper or
(in person)
These jottings represent a fragment of dialogue between the landlord defendant (the first two lines) and the judge…. The jotting reflects an interest in the judge’s insistence on legal procedure…. Note that only spoken words are recorded; specific speakers are not indicated but can be identified by content or from memory. The words represent direct quotes, written down as accurately as possible when spoken. …
[1] Excerpted from Robert Emerson, Rachel Fretz and Linda Shaw (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Pp. 30–31. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
