Mike Calou

Commentary Three

Still Life: Representations and Silences in the

Participant-Observer Role

            In this article the author, Brenda Brueggemann, writes a narrative about her experience doing ethnographic research at a deaf college, Gallaudet University.  The author discusses several key points that I have found to be relative to my observations in the classrooms I have observed.  How does the researcher remain objective as an observer without becoming influenced by the subjects of the research?  Where does the role of participant begin and the role of observer end?  Brueggemann calls this the crisis of representation (21).  I think it would be difficult to remain objective after immersing yourself in a culture for four months.  This is the point that the author is trying to establish: the roles of participant and observer can stray out of focus as the researcher becomes a part of the ethnographic community being studied.

            When the researcher becomes friends with the participants then there can be a lapse in what the author calls the honesty of observing (26).

            But the real tone of this work resides in the author’s observation of the power structure involved in literacy education.  There is a social dichotomy at work when the individuals who are learning the language of the dominant culture really are treated as second class citizens, so to speak.  I liked the way Brueggemann describes this process; the violence of literacy (31).  I had never thought of learning the dominant language in such stark terms before.  In my limited attempts to learn another language I was never part of the minority culture.  My vantage point was still from the dominant culture point of view.  I can not relate to the feelings of disconnectedness that must be felt by someone learning another language in a culture different than their own.

            The title of this article and the word “representations” is similar to the use of the word “represent” in the Harris text.  Harris is speaking about the process a writer engages in to convey a new understating of something the writer has read or experienced.  Brueggemann is using the technique of representing to write about her observations of the deaf students she observed.  When a writer “represents” an observed situation what the writer says is a representation of the writer’s perspective of the situation.  I think Brueggemann makes a good argument for maintaining distance between the observer and the participant.  If the observer can remain aloof from the participant then it will be easier for the observer to write objectively about the experience.

            The author brings up the idea of closing the loop on research.  In her study of the two deaf students, Brueggemann mentions the ethics of contacting the subjects after the research is concluded: to solicit their comments.  Maybe I am naive, but I think that Brueggemann would have used the input from her subjects to inform her research in the future.  For example, if Anne had responded negatively I think the author would have changed her approach to subsequent observations, taking into consideration Anne’s comments.  The reason I say this is because of the tone that Brueggemann uses in the article.  Her comments about crying tell the reader that she cared for her subjects.  Maybe that caring caused a skewing of Brueggemann’s research.  This is the point that the author is making in this article: the researcher (observer) should not get too acquainted with the subjects of their research.

            The questions Brueggemann raises at the end of this article are related to the questions we have learned to ask before we begin an observation; what role will we play in the observation?  Are we observers or observer-participants?  How will we represent ourselves to the participants?  We should have the answers to these questions before we begin to observe and record our observations because what we observe will be shaped by our representations.