Joel Manfredi

Responses to Commentary #3

Dr. De Vries

I read most of the responses to what we thought of Brueggemann’s article concerning her work at Gallaudet University, and I must say that I agree with what most of we all have said.  I have taken excerpts from some commentaries and given my own feedback to what I found intriguing, memorable, or profound.

Amble uses a great point when she talks about dealing with our own mentality as a researcher-observer when entering different arenas.  She said, “it is much easier to deal with them if we are under the (perhaps false) impression that they are ‘less’ than us…” or in the case of high school students, if we are “more educated.”  This type of hierarchal thinking transcends just being an observer or researcher in the ethnographic area.  I think we’d all agree that we’d feel very comfortable teaching someone to tie their shoes rather than teaching firemen to secure a double wing slip knot on a drowning victim.  Amble also acknowledges this when she says, “I can look out on the horizon of a high school classroom with a sense that this space is not wholly outside my grasp.”  It just feels better.

I ask myself if I felt this way during my first two observations and the answer is yes, I felt above the subjects in a way.  It is hard to admit something like that, so I wonder why I felt this way?  The answer, and this is only attributable to me, is that maybe I felt a bit that I should show an air of authority in order to be taken seriously.  Or that anything less than snobbery would be taken as a sign of weakness, and that from my perch, I could say what I pleased and nobody could tell me differently.  I’m glad Amble wrote what she did because it opened my eyes to myself, but also made me feel better that there may be others out there struggling with the same issues.

Faye responds with a feeling of being on the other side of the research equation, which I had never thought of before.  If I think about it, however, how open am I to telling a story of what I did in college to someone who just walked over to our group of friends?  How open am I to lament on my troubles to a library attendant that I just met?  Faye has brought up a good point about the students being observed at Gallaudet when she says, “they would wonder how that knowledge would be interpreted and used together with the fact that they will have little agency in determining how they are represented to a society that is in some ways responsible for their marginalization.”  And yes, Brueggemann did represent “society” to these students, so why should they open up to her?  Why open up to a society that has always been closed to them?  Great observations, Faye.

I like what Tina said about how Brueggemann doesn’t help us with answers to the questions of “should we go native or not?”  Tina’s right… Brueggemann doesn’t offer us answers, but she does give us her own dilemma with this essay.  Tina says, “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.”  I love the last sentence of this quote because Tina’s right… we may say to ourselves, “I’m not saying a word in there.  Just gonna sit and observe and not smile and take notes and remember what note making is…” but that may change the moment a student says, “Hey, what’re you doing here?”  Brueggemann, as Tina points out, reminds us that these situations will arise, but doesn’t tell us there’s a right or wrong way to deal with them.

“Does an observer need to get close to participants to gain research?”  This was a question posed by Maria S. on her commentary.  Such a great question (one that Adam may be able to answer better) because it highlights the true nature of what it is to be an observer.  My initial reaction, and one that seems the easiest to be accepted, is yes, we need to get close in order to get reality.  But, then, does our research become tainted by the closeness of our observation?  As Keri asks, “How can we not skew our research when we know that those being observed are going to see the end report?”  Is it possible to be objective if we get close?  Can we get the research we need without getting close?  Ahh, my brain… but it seems that, for me anyhow, Brueggemann’s article has raised more questions and shown more light on ethnographic research than any article we’ve read to date.