5870

Dr. De Vries

10 March 2009

Commentary 3

Two weeks ago in the 5870 class we were discussing an issue similar to the one presented in Brenda Jo Brueggemann’s article, “Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy.” While engaging in a twenty hour observation of a college classroom, one of our class members, Adam, had to decide quickly what role he should play in the class. He chose to let the students believe he was also a fellow student. During the observation time, he was able to experience the classroom in a way that might not have been possible if he had let the students know that he was observing them. Students were willing to share ideas, work in progress and even poor grades on tests. At the end of the course when the instructor announced that he was a master’s candidate observing the classroom, Adam felt the some of the students may have felt betrayed by the deception. Brueggemann also struggles with this issue and others.

Before Brueggemann’s arrival at Gallaudet University for deaf students, she had pondered her role in the classroom. She needed to decide what would be best. Should she be mostly participant and become one of the group or should she attempt to remain a distant observer. Such a decision is not an easy task given Malinowski’s (author of the “Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term”) confession “that things political and personal did, in fact, grossly affect one’s research” (19). She decided that rather than being a deaf observer, she might gain more empathy if she were the hearing impaired observer. She thought she might garner some respect as one who is part of the deaf world and was also able to make it in the hearing world. Unfortunately, in this role, she was treated with suspicion and disrespect. Neither the students nor the teachers considered her deaf and subsequently had no empathy for her. They treated her as an outsider just as the students in the class Adam observed might have done if they had known his true role. At the conclusion of her study, Brueggemann also had to struggle with another issue. How much of the information should she give to her friend, Anna, who had requested it? As a friend would Brueggemann then betray Anna? Brueggemann’s insights as a participant-observer would be different than her insights as a friend. Once she decided to send the report, she never heard from Anna again. One can only speculate if Anna felt betrayed or not. But, this is a serious issue we must all face as we enter the field of classroom research. What lines do we draw? Do we go “native” (become a member of the group) or do we remain distant? Brueggemann offers no solution to these dilemmas, only that each observer should consider this issue and each situation might require a different role. A role that we may only be able to determine once we begin the research.

Brueggemann also struggles with objectivity. Ruth Ray’s states in her article, “Composition from the Teacher- Researcher Point of View,” that ethnographic researchers of the classroom may not be necessarily uninvolved. Brueggemann discovers that she was an involved observer as she attempted to write. The struggle with this concept as she contemplated her article about Anna almost kept her from writing and submitting the piece. The criticism to the article was that Brueggemann was not objective in her description of the subject, and Brueggemann herself agreed. Although she agrees with the criticism, she also believes that this is the view she must use for the article. It is the truth as she sees it.

As we venture into classrooms or collect research from our own classroom, Brueggemann’s struggles are ones we need to remember. I know that if I should collect data from my own classroom, I will not be objective, and even if I venture into another classroom, I to will have to struggle with objectivity since I already bring preconceptions with me and these must be dealt with as I research.