Maria Shreve

Dr. DeVries

English 5870/Midterm

April 5, 2009

 

Question 3

 

            I chose the third question, which is about ethnography being particularly suited for teacher research, because, prior to being in English 5870, I had not been familiar with the concept or even the term teacher-research.  Presumably this is also true of most of the other students, and this is why it is a thought-provoking question for us to explore.  I am making this assumption because many of us have years of teaching experience, in my instance eight years, and have been through similar credential programs, in which teacher research was not a component of the curriculum.  On the other hand, ethnography was included in the curriculum, but that was in terms of general diversity, in the community, rather than in the classroom.  For instance, I conducted an ethnographic interview on a woman from Venezuela. For those students who are in the graduate English program without having been in a credential program, I would think it would be even less likely that they are familiar with teacher research. 

            In terms of defining teacher research, teacher research is a unique type of research, and, as the term suggests, the research is performed by teachers in the classroom.  What makes the research ethnographic is that the teacher-researcher has a research question, or a specific inquiry, in mind before he or she begins the research. This type of research is empowering to teachers because it is teacher-based. Typically research starts with social scientists, universities, the school district, or even more locally with school administrators.  However, with teacher research, it puts teachers in charge of the issues that they are faced with in their classrooms every day.  As far as whether my opinions have changed, they have changed extensively as we have progressed from one reading to the next, in that with each reading, the depth of my understanding of teacher research grew, as well as my appreciation of teacher research, and my admiration of those teachers who actually conducted teacher research. 

            After reading Ruth Ray, I realized that teacher research involves more than simply going into a classroom with a research question in mind and taking notes in a two-sided notebook.  The actual research not only includes observing but gathering data, analyzing, and, of course, questioning what are your observations and findings (Ray 173).  Teacher- research also changes the perceptions that people at other levels of education have about teachers.  Ray notes that teacher research is essentially…

 

…an emancipation proclamation that results in new ownership – teachers’ own research into their own behaviors and theories; this personally owned research replaced the concept of research as residing “elsewhere” in universities and other traditional sites of inquiry. (Ray 174)

 

This is such a simple idea and makes so much sense that it is difficult to understand that the idea of teacher research is was thought of as being revolutionary.  Who is in the best position to research students?  Teachers.  With teachers conducting the research, there is less of an approach on theory and qualitative, interpretive practice-oriented approaches and instead there is an emphasis on research through collaboration between teachers, researchers – and students (Ray 175).  For example, students are not limited to their role as subjects and can be co-researchers to assist in making decisions related to study (176). 

Teacher-Teacher collaboration is another type of teacher research.  As teachers, we can learn a great deal from each other, which will assist us in understanding our students, especially if our professional backgrounds aren’t the same.  An example is when Ray worked with two other teachers, and the group had combined expertise in Hispanic students, Asian students, and Alaskan students (180).  The result of this teacher-teacher collaboration was that she had a greater understanding of the errors that her Asian students were making in writing.

            Of course, there are opponents to teacher-research who say that if teachers are both participating and observing, they could lose their perspective, and also that teacher-research does not meet expectations that have already been established in the education community.  Others say that teacher-research is light on theory, which makes it of little use outside of the classroom and that it is a distraction because the teacher is dividing her attention between teaching and date collection.  From Ruth Ray we went to Brenda Jo Brueggemann.  In this article, rather than the term teacher-researcher, the term participant-observer was used.   However, she was indeed doing research as a teaching assistant.  This article was an eye-opener because it showed how the participant-observer can become too attached to his or her subject, and how after putting her life into this project for a substantial amount of time, her goals were not accomplished.  In other words, not only did I, as a reader, expect it would be a successful professional experience, but I also thought it would be a satisfying personal experience.  Sadly, it was not. Up until this point, I had concluded that the general process would be that you to complete  research, compile the data, and write an article. I now know that what also is incorporated into that process is the emotional toll that it could possibly take on the teacher-researcher. Moreover, it made me think about how difficult it would be to be a teacher-researcher in a situation in which you clearly were not welcome to the very people who should be supporting you – the administration of the school and the other teachers.

Perhaps this is digressing, but from Brueggeman, I also learned that in ethnographic writing and reporting on your experience as a teacher-researcher, it is a wonderful genre to truly exhibit fine writing.  The following is an example:

 

…Yet to write about and with them as such would be to betray an enormous trust, to possibly demolish friendships I have come to value.  Again, I danced in deceit in that space between participant and observer.

 

When I think about how my ideas have changed about ethnography as it relates to teacher-research, it has gone from having no exposure to it all, to having a much better grasp of it due to not only the relevant and informative readings, but also to the class discussions.

 

 

 

Question 4

 

            The reason I chose the question about Brudggemann’s article in which she exists in the hyphen between participant and observer is because I found the article fascinating and informative.  Never did I expect to read about someone who admitted to committing deceit in her ethnography, nor did I expect to feel emotionally drained at the end of the article. I think it is a good question to answer because during class discussion everyone seemed to have an opinion on it, as well as on Brueggermannherself Also, if we choose this question, we will be forced to think about what type of ethics we need to keep in mind as we conduct our observations.  We will essentially be developing our own moral code.

            I don’t know if there really can be a steadfast rule about what roles subjects and researchers should occupy in order to report the most accurate findings.  I would think that as a researcher, the more you get to know someone, the comfortable the subject will be with you, and the more likely it would be that the subject would share information with you.  However, knowing that I have the type of personality that would probably result in my becoming emotionally involved in my research, I would say that the subject should simply be a subject, not a subject-friend, and that the researcher should be a researcher, not a researcher-friend. Brudggemann states that she did form friendships, with three teachers and two students (25-26) and “these five were also my key informants.”  She describes guilt associated with betraying their trust and worry about the demolition of friendships.  She eloquently states that she “danced in deceit in that space between participant and observer. 26)” 

            Internal and external factors could be a significant factor in the hyphenated world between the participant and researcher.  For instance, if the researcher is conducting his or her research in a classroom, and the subject is a younger student, the subject-friend/researcher-friend relationship is much less likely to occur.  In this situation, a traditional relationship with traditional boundaries intact is more apparent. On the other hand, Brudggemann’s ethnography was in a college for deaf students where she was feeling rejected from both the faculty and students.  She conducted her study there for four months, and she felt alienated and frustrated.  As a result, she was in a vulnerable state.  Still she was determined to complete the ethnography that she would use for her dissertation, and was appropriately determined, even if it involved being deceitful and misrepresenting herself.  Beyond that, she still wanted friends.  She also wanted to feel as though she was contributing, for example, being given more responsibilities as a teacher assistant, which would be another way to get closer to the students. Had she been in a more supportive internal environment, meaning the school itself, she might not have been reaching out quite as much, and might have maintained better boundaries and, thus, avoided occupying the hyphen.

 

            Just as Brudggemann writes of feelings of betrayal related to her subjects, Bonnie Sunstein writes of feelings of guilt.  She states:

 

When I write ethnography, I feel guilt each time my informants speak and every time I enter their written words into my computer…I am a guilty academic voyeur, consciously reenacting a learned ritual for my own professional advancement.

 

Sunstein didn’t “betray” anyone in the sense that Brudggemann believed she did, but, at times, I do think she experienced guilt about how she interacted with subjects.  For example, Sunstein’s research was related to women who were participating in a workshop about writing.  She describes a woman who stepped out of the shower in tears and told her that it was the anniversary of her husband’s suicide, but was afraid to write about it and share it with the class.  Sunstein discussed with her ways to choose a topic, and the woman decided to write about her dog.  On one level, it seems callous that she didn’t talk to the woman about writing about her husband who had died.  However, if she had, she probably would have occupied they hyphen, and would have seen the woman as more than a subject.  Throughout Sunstein’s article, I did not see any evidence that she ever did occupy the hyphen.  Would she be in an environment that would have been conducive to her occupying the hyphen?  I would think that being around a large group of women writers should be an environment that she was comfortable in, yet this did not happen.

            In terms of a code of ethics, there cannot be a code of ethics that everyone can follow because the situations that researchers encounter differ too greatly.  Teacher-researchers should think about both internal and external factors that could affect them in ethnography, and develop a code of ethics before they undertake an ethnographic study.  It would also be advantageous to talk to experienced ethnographers to determine what types of situations could truly be a test of their moral character so that they can avoid those problems, much in the same way that we have learned about the perils of occupying the hyphen from reading Brudggemann’s article.