Adam Russell

Midterm Responses

 

Question #2

 

When I did the paired observation with James, I thought that it meant taking myself out of the process.  After reading James’s post, however, I realized that my own circumstances and experiences with what we observed (the Kirkwood Mountain daily ski video) played a large part.  If I wanted the observation to be as accurate as possible, I needed to embrace my subjectivity as an organic and viable factor.  This experience taught me that when it comes to classroom observation, my history and personal reflections are just as important as the students’.  I answered this question because I still struggle with this issue and by articulating my thoughts, I can come to an understanding with myself.  Ultimately, what makes this question good is that it is less theoretical and more utilitarian; we all must ask ourselves this question if we want to give the most accurate research.

 

In Purcell-Gates’s article she states that ethnography “situates the researcher into a cultural landscape for the purpose of exploration and discovery of answers to questions like why, what is happening, what does it look like, how does it work, and so on” (95).  All four of these questions can only be fully answered if the researcher acknowledges their own conditioning and biases.  Later in her article, she writes about the theory of triangulation which uses secondary sources to validate the phenomenon being researched.  However, in the scope of this essay, the researcher is also a valid source to be tapped in order to give a full picture of what happens.  By incorporating subjectivity into what is being observed, we are fulfilling Ruth Ray’s definition of research when she writes that it “should account for context (of the classroom, school, and community) in all its complexity; researchers are active participants in this context…” (175).  Of course, the expectations of the active participant varies depending on the research being conducted (and what they want to achieve for themselves and their subjects), but the logos that Ray describes allows the researcher to answer the four questions posed by Purcell-Gates.  By giving themselves a voice in the process and embracing their subjectivity, they provide a fuller answer to the why, what, and how because their outlook on what transpires helps shape those answers.  Ultimately, the researcher’s voice cannot be ignored; its presence is just as important as the subjects’ in the presentation of truth.

 

The essay prompt wants us to address the “problems of subjectivity,” but I venture to say that there are no problems with it as long as the researcher is fully aware of the lens they operate from, does not ignore it, and employs it in the observation(s).  By doing so, they create a power shift away from the subjects and onto the researcher.  For example, if I were to just write about what happened in a classroom and did not include my own perspective, I would be giving the subjects the only voice and doing so would provide a one-sided account.  Likewise, when I did my observation of the Kirkwood video, I only incorporated the voice of the video.  I did not give account to any external or internal factors that influenced the way I saw it.  Thus, all the power was given to the video because I submitted myself to its voice and not my own.  This power distribution corresponds with Ray’s analysis of teacher researcher when she writes that “learning and knowing are collaborative and that teachers learn as much from their interaction with students as students learn from teachers” (177).  Although Ray is speaking directly about teachers interacting with their students as the primary means to learn from them and conduct proper research, the subjectivity of the teacher is the first step to acknowledge when the teacher gauges the approach they will take to assessing their students’ experience.  This same idea applies to the researchers’ role in the classroom.  The researcher must acknowledge how they view the classroom in terms of what they expect and how those expectations create a completely subjective lens.

 

So far in my observations, I have taken into account all internal factors including my emotional state of mind, and how my previous experiences with both the students and the teacher shapes my analysis.  By doing this, my observations become very metacognitive as I realize and embrace my own subjective view of what unfolds.  When I am doing the observations, I do my best to write down what I see and hear, but in the reflection portions, I do not shy away from my own opinions about the personal factors that created those opinions.  By doing this, my voice is given agency in the process and I become an integral part in the reality of what happens.      

 

Question #4

 

When I wrote this question, I did so in order tackle my own ethical dilemma from the time I spent observing the class at MJC.  I led the students to believe that I was one of them.  Although I never blatantly lied, I did not tell them why I was there.  Since I was sitting among them, they concluded that I was a student.  By doing so, I accessed information about their experience with the class from a student to student perspective.  However, when the time came for me to teach a lesson, I noticed that the people I sat around looked a bit surprised and even upset that I was not one of them.  Thus, by answering this question, I can resolve my thoughts about the moral dilemma I faced and come to an understanding about what I believe is the correct way to handle the role of both observer and participant.

 

One can argue that there are benefits to occupying just the observer role when conducting ethnographic research: by not participating, the researcher can stay as objective as possible and be non-biased in the observation.  Purcell-Gates supports this idea in her article when she writes that classroom ethnography

 

often positions the researcher closer to the observer end of the continuum. The ethnographer in classrooms is often interested in such things as teacher-student transactions, learner beliefs and interpretations, peer-group response, the ways that teachers use texts with different students, and so on.  While acknowledging their own influence on these different aspects of classroom life, classroom ethnographers strive to understand phenomena as they happen naturally.  (102)

 

By occupying the observer role, the researcher sees the full extent of how the students access the space and atmosphere of the classroom by assessing the effectiveness of the teacher, and closely monitoring the learning process.  Although this method is effective, if it is the only means of research, it takes away the voice of the observer and renders the report one-sided.  When Purcell-Gates wrote about cultural research, she stated that “researchers studying in settings that are very different from their own, participation to the fullest extent possible is often the best way to begin to see and understand a different cultural context” (102).  Although this definition applies more aptly to an individual like Margaret Mead conducting research in Samoa, I venture to say that it also relates to research in the classroom.  Every teacher works hard to construct their own pedagogical environment that works within their comfort zone through routine, interaction, and teaching methods.  By venturing outside of that comfort level and seeing how procedures are done in another classroom, a teacher can see methods that can not only inspire them to become better teachers, but they also have the opportunity to see how students interact in an environment outside of their own.  However, to truly conduct thorough research, the observer should make the transition from objective observer to active participant so that all voices are equally represented. 

 

In terms of the internal and external factors to consider, the observer must constantly assess the external environment of the classroom.  If the researcher is to make the transition from note taker in the corner, to active participant in the learning process, they need to familiarize themselves with the classroom’s culture.  To do so, however, the observer must walk a fine line in maintaining a level of respectable truthfulness that does not render the students into two-dimensional test subjects.  Bonnie S. Sunstein writes about this challenge when she states:

 

We want to represent our informants—who expect we have safeguarded the messy truths of their lived experiences and their worlds—inside our writings.  Our readers on the other hand, will expect a narrative that conveys information according to the conventions of an academic discipline.  (179)

 

Although truth should not be censored, the researcher must handle information with the utmost tact in both receiving and presenting it in an academic study.   Subjects’ voices must be made real on the page so that they become dynamic entities in the process.  Of course, when representing students, there is a sense of what Sunstein calls “ethnographic guilt”, but it should only encourage writers to make sure they craft their writing carefully and not misrepresent people.  On an internal level, the researcher must be fully aware of their own biases and expectations and take those into account when they interact with the students, the teacher, and report their findings (which I write extensively about in my first response).   

 

 

The question arises as to how to do this properly without alienating students or going about it in an unethical manner.  Ultimately, honesty is the best policy.  When I observed the class at MJC, I was not completely upfront with the students which probably made them feel betrayed and upset that they spoke to me so candidly about the class and their opinion of the professor.  However, these feelings of betrayal could have been avoided if I was just honest with the students in the first place.  If the researcher talks openly to the students about their research, then there are no misunderstandings as to the nature of why they are there.  In Goffman’s article he writes that the impression that individuals give to others “involve two radically different kinds of sign activity: the expression that he gives and the expression that he gives off” (2).  By all accounts, when participating in the classroom, the observer is ethically obligated to be straightforward to the point where the expressions given and given off are one in the same.  Although students may be reluctant to share candid information at first, familiarity breeds comfort and eventually they will open up as they come to accept the researcher’s presence.  Thus, the information I received under false pretenses at MJC, could have also been obtained if I had been honest with my role in the classroom.  When reviewing Brenda Jo Brueggemann’s article, her main problem was not being upfront with the students or to the school employees which forced her to work within the morally questionable space of the hyphen.  However, by being honest about what role she occupied and taking extra care in her transition from observer to participant, she could have escaped the feelings of isolation from the students she befriended.  Ultimately, it’s the researcher who decides what ethical code they want to abide by, but by being straightforward with their role and what they are doing, the subjects will be honest in return.