Commentary #3

Joel Manfredi

Dr. Kim De Vries

English 5870

Commentary #3

 

 

In reading Brueggemann’s article, I really felt a sense of her struggle as she came to some sort of consensus not only of her subjects, but of herself as a participant-observer.  She does a fantastic job eliciting her feelings about this project throughout the essay, and one can really grasp her frustration and desire to get it right.  I also like how she admits that in trying to ‘represent’ her subjects in her research, she acknowledges the inherent problems with her position.  She says, “these crises (of representation) are all located in the deceit of trying to represent myself as the so-called participant-observer” (22). 

Brueggemann struggles with the concept of deception throughout the piece while also being aware that it is her problem and not the subjects she is studying.  She acknowledges the fact that entering Gallaudet college on a “prestigious research grant… marks her participant-observer role as a potentially pretentious, suspicious, even antagonistic” endeavor (22).  In our earlier readings on ethnographic research, I have never heard this side of the research stated so bluntly.  That she is acutely aware of how she may be perceived and the attitudes that she may be bringing into the research with her.  Brueggemann describes the struggles she had as a researcher, from reluctant professors, to distrusting students, and finally to being relegated to just correcting papers.  She says, “For most of my four months there, I felt instead confused, angry, crushed, belligerent, beleaguered, weepy, and vindictive by the ways they repeatedly made it clear that I was suspicious at least, intolerable at most.”

What I get a sense of from this reading is how much is involved with how one should, or could, represent themselves to the subjects they are researching.  Adam touched on this in class when talking about the college course that he observed. Brueggemann states how she struggled with how to represent herself in this community of deaf students, and how this in turn was confusing to them.  I could see how students would want to know what a person is doing there, and if they don’t get a straight answer, the easiest thing for most people to do is to just shut that person out.  The unfamiliarity of things scares us sometimes.  People like to be able to categorize, or compartmentalize, and it’s scary for some people when this can’t be done.  Brueggmann expressed how stressful this type of exclusion can be, especially when one’s job is to research the very people doing the excluding.

This essay paints a very realistic picture of some of the surprises that one can face when doing ethnographic research.  Until now, it seems, we have read more theory based writings on ethnographic research.  With Bruggemann, I think we get a sense of what this type of research can be like “in the trenches” as it were, in relation to the contrast of what it’s like on paper.  

3 comments for “Commentary #3

  1. March 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Joel, you notice and point out some valuable aspects of this article. You mention how Brueggemann’s candor about the difficulties she faced set the piece apart from others we read. What do you think allowed her or prompted her to write that way? What might prevent other ethnographers from writing that way?

  2. iderfnam
    March 9, 2009 at 10:50 am

    It seems that what led her to write that way was the frustration she felt not only during her time at the college, but in going through a writer’s block like she had never experienced in the months following her experience. Often, at least when I am experiencing writer’s block, it stems from trying to write from a place of producing for an audience that I have little control over, and constantly worrying how it will sound or come across to them rather than producing the piece from my authentic self. I think once Brueggemann let herself speak from her heart as well as her mind, the results were this refreshing essay.

    I think other ethnographers may find this type of writing as being too close to their subjects. Brueggemann describes crying during her final interview with her subjects, which hardly seems like protocol for an ethnographer. I, however, found such a human quality in the research effective and viable.

  3. fsnowden
    March 9, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    This writing does come from someone ‘in the trenches’. I think it’s refreshing that she admits how completely unprepared she was. But I’m interested in your point about the effectiveness of displaying emotions during the research. How does this add value?

Comments are closed.