Month: February 2015

For my project, I chose to do a literature review on the subject of focus groups, specifically looking for “dos and don’ts” and suggestions for types of research questions to which they might be most effectively employed.

My first update is an annotated bibliography of 12 articles I have pulled thus far.  I have been particularly interested in several articles I found (some of which are included on the deliverable I submitted, and some of which I haven’t finished yet and will be on my next update) on the differences in face-to-face (F2F) focus groups and “virtual” focus groups (i.e. focus groups conducted by means of computer-mediated communications (CMC) modes).  Apparently some research has indicated that there is actually better interaction/ more questions asked and answers discovered during CMC focus groups than F2F… Hmmm!

Another subject I found quite a bit on is the importance of group interaction/ group dynamics in focus groups – particularly the management thereof.  Three of the articles I have pulled discuss this at length, and provide suggestions as to techniques that might encourage more participation.

Another thing that rather interested me is how many of the sort of “first tier” articles came from medical and nursing journals (not business journals, which is what I would have guessed…);  Also interesting to note that so far I’ve only turned up two different citations to articles discussing the application of focus groups in LIS (in point of fact, although there were two listings, in two different journals, they were effectively the same article by the same author… so I didn’t count them both.)  Another thing I noticed was the great variety of “types” of article I found.  They were, of course, all from peer-reviewed journals, BUT some of them were only a few pages – while some of them were more the length we would expect (20-30 pages or more) from a journal article.

The following biography contains articles primarily about online ethnography (or as some researchers refer to as netnography). This list is my starting point and by no means a definitive list.

Adams, S. S. (2009). What games have to offer: Information behavior and meaning-making in virtual play spaces. Library Trends, 57(4), 676-693.

Burford, S., & Park, S. (2014). The impact of mobile tablet devices on human information behaviour. Journal of Documentation, 70(4), 622-639. doi:10.1108/JD-09-2012-0123

Halilovich, H. (2014). Reclaiming erased lives: Archives, records and memories in post-war Bosnia and the Bosnian diaspora. Archival Science, 14(3), 231-247. doi:10.1007/s10502-014-9227-z

Hine, C. (2007). Connective ethnography for the exploration of e-science. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618-634.

Im, E., & Chee, W. (2006). An online forum as a qualitative research method: Practical issues. Nursing Research, 55(4), 267-273. doi:10.1097/00006199-200607000-00007

Karanasios, S., Thakker, D., Lau, L., Allen, D., Dimitrova, V., & Norman, A. (2013). Making sense of digital traces: An activity theory driven ontological approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2452-2467. doi:10.1002/asi.22935

Ko, H. (2012). Why are A-list bloggers continuously popular? Online Information Review, 36(3), 401-419. doi:10.1108/14684521211241422

Kuei Huang, Y., & I. Yang, W. (2014). Using networked narratives to understand internet book reviews in online communities. The Electronic Library, 32(1), 17-30. doi:10.1108/EL-05-2012-0053

Lee, C. P., & Trace, C. B. (2009). The role of information in a community of hobbyist collectors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 621-637.

Meylakhs, P., Rykov, Y., Koltsova, O., & Koltsov, S. (2014). An AIDS-denialist online community on a russian social networking service: Patterns of interactions with newcomers and rhetorical strategies of persuasion. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(11), e261. doi:10.2196/jmir.3338

Nancarrow, C., Pallister, J., & Brace, I. (2001). A new research medium, new research populations and seven deadly sins for internet researchers. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4(3), 136-149. doi:10.1108/13522750110393044

Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: The case of working professionals in France and the U.K. who use online communities. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 181-195. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.15

Skågeby, J., MDALAB – Human Computer Interfaces, Institutionen för datavetenskap, Linköpings universitet, & Tekniska högskolan. (2009). Exploring qualitative sharing practices of social metadata: Expanding the attention economy. The Information Society, 25(1), 60-72. doi:10.1080/01972240802587588

Skågeby, J., Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för mediestudier, & Humanistiska fakulteten. (2012). The irony of serendipity: Disruptions in social information behaviour. Library Hi Tech, 30(2), 321-334. doi:10.1108/07378831211239988

Stockdale, R. (2008). Peer-to-peer online communities for people with chronic diseases: A conceptual framework. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 10(1), 39-55. doi:10.1108/13287260810876885

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple subjectivity and virtual community at the end of the freudian century. Sociological Inquiry, 67, 72-84.

Ward, K. (1999). Cyber-ethnography and the emergence of the virtually new community. Journal of Information Technology, 14(1), 95-105. doi:10.1080/026839699344773

 

I have successfully completed the first task of my project: to collect my articles. I had the goal of finding 20-25 environmental justice ethnographies. I have found 22 so far. Most of the studies have taken place in the United States, with five of them having occurred outside of the United States. By the next update, I will have completed a short annotated bibliography of the articles.

Methods Statement Outline: Case Study

I. Definition of Case Study
A. General Definition
1. Definitions from the Literature
2. Working Definition
B. Case Study as Research Method
C. When to Use Case Study
II. Types of Case Studies
A. Single-Case Designs
1. Holistic (single unit of analysis)
2. Embedded (multiple units of analysis)
B. Multiple-Case Designs
1. Holistic (single unit of analysis)
2. Embedded (multiple units of analysis)
C. Categories of Case Studies
1. Exploratory
2. Descriptive
3. Explanatory
4. Interpretive
5. Evaluative
6. Intrinsic
7. Instrumental
8. Collective
9. Illustrative
10. Cumulative
11. Critical Instance
III. Designing a Case Study
A. Research Design
B. Data Collection
1. Collecting Textual Evidence
a. Documentation
b. Archival Records
2. Conducting Interviews
3. Observation
a. Direct
b. Participant
4. Physical Artifacts
C. Data Analysis
1. Pattern Matching
2. Explanation Building
3. Time-Series Analysis
4. Logic Models
5. Cross-Case Synthesis

IV. Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Study
A. Validity
1. Construct Validity
2. Internal Validity
3. External Validity
B. Reliability
C. Manageability
D. Rigor
E. Flexibility
F. Generalizability
G. Ethical Considerations

Case and Case Study Definitions & Initial Notes

Yin, 2014, pp 16-17:

1. A case study is an empirical inquiry that

• Investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when
• The boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.

2. A case study inquiry

• Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result
• Relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result
• Benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis

Gerring, 2004, p. 342

An intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a larger class of (similar) units.  A unit connotes a spatially bounded phenomenon—e.g., a nation-state, revolution, political party, election, or person—observed at a single point in time or over some delimited period of time.

Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534

A research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings.

 

Lee, 1989, pp. 119-120

“organizational case study” is (1) the intensive study of a single case, where (2) the case consists of the entire configuration of individuals, grous, and social structure in the setting of an organization, and (3) the case researchers passively observes the rich details of events in the way that they naturally unfold in their natural, organizational setting.

 Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545

Case study takes constructivist approach.

 Ragin & Becker, 1992, p. 3

The term “case” is one of many basic methodological constructs that have become distorted or corrupted over time.  The typical pattern is for a key methodological term to gain multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings. (p. 6) Researchers probably will not know what their cases are until the research, including the task of writing up the results is virtually completed.  What it is a case of will coalesce gradually, sometimes catalytically, and the final realization of the case’s nature may be the most important part of the interaction between ideas and evidence.  (p. 9) see Table I.1 about how researches answer “what is a case?”

 Masoner, 1988, p. 2

A case contains episodic information.  Uses problem-specific (situational) knowledge.

Case study is a basic design that can accommodate a variety of disciplinary perspectives, as well as philosophical perspectives on the nature of research itself.  A case study can test theory or build theory, incorporate random or purposive sampling, and include quantitative and qualitative data. (p. 7) . . . a case study concentrates on many, if not all, the variables present in a single unit. (p. 9)  . . . a case study is an examination of a specific phenomenon such as a program, an event, a person, a process, an institution, or a social group.  (p. 10) . . . the case is identified as a bounded system.  (p. 11) characteristics of a case study: particularistic, descriptive, heuristic, and inductive. (p. 14) . . . the uniqueness of a case study lies not so much in the methods employed (although these are important) as in the questions asked and their relationship to the end product. (p. 15) Case study research is not the same as casework, case method, case history, or case record. (p. 16)  . . . the qualitative case study can be defined as an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unit.  (p. 16) . . . in a qualitative approach to research the paramount objective is to understand the meaning of an experience . . . and strives to understand how all the parts work together to form a whole. (p. 17) idea of multiple realities/subjective

Feagin et al., 1991, p. 2

A case study is here defined as an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon.  The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources.

Gillham, 2000, pp. 1-2

A case study investigates the following in order to answer specific research questions, and seeks a range of different kinds of evidence (which is there in the case setting, and has to be abstracted and collated to get the best possible answers to the research questions:

• A unit of human activity embedded in the real world;
• Which can only be studied or understood in context;
• Which exists in the here and now;
• That merges in with its context so that precise boundaries are difficult to draw.

No one kind or source of evidence is likely to be sufficient (or sufficiently valid) on its own.

George & Bennett, 2005, p. 5

The detailed examination of an aspect of a historical episode to develop or test historical explanations that may be generalizable to other events.

 

Bibliography of potential resources

 

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.

Becker, H. S., & Ragin, C. C. (1992). What is a case? : Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge [England]; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455–476. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918

Campbell, D. T. (1975). III. “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 178–193. doi:10.1177/001041407500800204

Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: Combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273–289. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1998.00040.x

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Dion, D. (2003). Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications, 95-112.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557

Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

George, A. L., & McKeown, T. J. (1985). Case studies and theories of organizational decision making. Advances in information processing in organizations, 2(1), 21-58.

Gerring, J. (2001). Social science methodology : a criterial framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York: Continuum.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.

Jorgensen, D. L., & Bickman, L. (1989). Participant observation : a methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lee, A. S. (1989). Case studies as natural experiments. Human Relations, 42(2), 117–137. doi:10.1177/001872678904200202

Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method. New York: Praeger.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education : a qualitative approach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Merriam, S. B. C. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. The sociological review, 31(2), 187-211.

Riege, A.M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: A literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75–86. doi:10.1108/13522750310470055

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. SAGE publications.

Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. doi:10.2307/1174340

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The sociological review, 39(1), 88-112.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-17.

Tellis, W. (1997, July). Introduction to case study [68 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 3(2). Available: http://www.nova.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html

Verschuren, P. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(2), 121–139. doi:10.1080/13645570110106154

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65. doi:10.2307/2392599

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (Fifth edition.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Field Notes Paragraph

I spent nearly 20 minutes observing the starbucks team in Strozier Library from 2:40 -2:57pm on 2/5/2015. There are seven staffs, including one trainee and her supervisor. Three staffs were making coffees and did not take other responsibility. Since they did not have a large customer traffic during that period, they talked with the customers if the customer initiated the conversation. This “coffee maker” group also chatted a little bit with each other but seldom with other staffs. The trainee was assigned to serve as a cashier and make tea, and her supervisor was taking inventory so had much time to speak to the trainee.  Another staff was responsible for shelving, heating food, and cleaning the self-help desk. The seventh was helping make tea during that period but should be the “on call” for other tasks. That trainee, if her supervisor was available, would turn to the supervisor if she had any question. But if the supervisor was out of sight, the trainee seemed have sense about which staff knows what (menu, deal, how to use the system,etc.) and would directly turn to that staff for question. Both the “coffee maker” group and other staff chatted based on the “physical priority”, but the trainee would only response if other staff talked to her instead of initiated conversation by herself.  Since I sit pretty close to the counter, I was able to hear how they chatted –usually just small talks or little jokes, no work-related stuff. Although they do not have the written rules, it seemed they have a high degree of agreement about how to coordinate with each other and act as a team. However, they did not have a large traffic during that period, probably less than twenty customers. I assume the group dynamic will be quite different if the customer traffic increases.

Reflection

The difficulty of “unobtrusive observation”, from today’s class, is how to ensure the observation is truly “unobtrusive” (or is it really possible?). During the discussion with Cheryl I know in her case, the “boss” of the Strozier reference desk(her observation group) noticed her and even asked her if she needs any help. In my case, since where I sit is really close to the counter so I (have to) buy some potato chips from them to “pretend” I was a customer doing my homework there. Although I think they didn’t notice me, since I already watch the counter, probably some of them still felt I was a “strange” customer( the “real” customer who sit besides me always focused on his textbook). Their behavior may be a little bit different (especially that trainee) if they noticed me.

Another difficulty for me is since this is a relatively large and dynamic group, I was not sure what I should “observe” when several things are happening at once. I choose to focus my observation on that trainee since she was the “outlier” in that group which may cause the change of atmosphere, but the cost is I was able to pay much attention to other sub-group(s) like the “coffee maker”. Also Tim’s observation reminded me that I probably should pay more attention and document the conversations between the staff and with the customers.

 

Here is the note about my field observation in Sweet Shop.

It is a shining afternoon at 2:43 on Thursday. The weather and sunshine is wonderful for people to stay outside even in early cold Feb. The observation site I chose is the sweet shop. There are 22 people there, 7 outside, 15 inside; 5 males and 17 females. 3 are eating their lunch or snacks, 5 brings their own drinks, and others are consuming drinks there. Inside the shop, 8 people are finishing their personal work individually, two ladies are chatting casually inside the couch near the reception desk, two ladies are collaborating something on one table, and one couple are sitting near the door having sweet chatting. Outside the sweetshop, only one 40-year-old women is typing something on her laptop and listening to music. Another guy with black jacket, black glasses, and black hat seems watching something in front of him, not clear. Two males are chatting, standing up and exchanging information. One male, and two ladies are chatting and bursting some laughters beside them.

REFLECTION
First of all, it is very hard to guarantee “unobtrusive observation” in a restaurant. Although I tried to keep my research questions in advance, and quickly glanced surrounding environments, still people there noticed my “somehow awkward” behavior to look around. There were at least 2 ladies looking at me for two seconds. I think the difficulties to make it “unobtrusive” are also reflected in Cheryl’s and Anna’s observations.

Another reflection I have from our readings is the systematic techniques related to ethnography. You have limited time and the information in the environment is unlimited. It is interesting to see that everyone has different focuses on what they’d like to describe in their field notes. Are there some common rules to cover what should be and shouldn’t be included in the field notes?

 

Biyang YU

I’ll start by pasting my account of my ethnographic field trip to Strozier:

I spent 20 minutes observing the check-out desk in Stozier Library, from approximately 2:40 – 3:00 on Thursday 2/5/15. I positioned myself on a couch across from the area. At this time, the desk was staffed by three individuals – 2 males and 1 female. M1 – who was stationed at the far-left desk – seemed to be the most senior. I surmise this because other staff asked him for help. Questions apart, though, M1 spent about 15 of the 20 minutes I observed him working with a single patron.   The female (F1), although occasionally appearing to be a bit bored, actually checked out more patrons than the other two (M1 and M2). F1 and M2 meanwhile busied themselves with pulling reserved textbooks (about 3 or 4 from what I could tell) for patrons, and putting things away (ruler, highlighter a patron borrowed…).   They seemed to be fairly friendly to each other; they didn’t seem to chat with M1 as much again adding to my suspicion that he is sort of the “boss”. All in all, there were approximately 10 patrons total, and approximately the same number of male and female patrons during this period.

*Addendum:  As mentioned, although one would assume that I was fairly “invisible” as someone sitting quietly in a library writing in a notebook, at the end of my 20 minutes, one of the library check-out staff (the “boss”) came over to me and said he’d noticed me sitting on the couch for “a while” and wondered if i needed anything or if I was just waiting for someone.  Thinking quickly (fortunately, it was at the hour, so I just said “I’m waiting for someone – it’s 3 so they should be here very shortly” – So, I was very nearly busted.

 

REFLECTION

Now for the “reflection” portion of this posting.  Thinking about the different experiences we all had in doing this exercise, it seems fairly apparent that you cannot take anything for granted in attempting an “unobtrusive observation” method of ethnographic study.  That is to say, one would have thought that I would have blended right in at the library (although perhaps I look too old to pass for a student studying in the library???)   – and yet, the “boss” seems to have picked up *something* that he felt was “not right” so he asked.  Perhaps folks are a bit sensitive after the incident last November… or perhaps, being a “library type” he really was just trying to be helpful.  On the other hand, witness Ana’s experience:  one would have thought that people would have given sort of a sideways glance at someone standing across from a construction site recording notes about her observation on her cell, and yet no one did!  So I guess the learning there is that you really can never tell how “unobtrusive” you are (or are not)….

Having said that (which was probably my biggest “ah ha” in this exercise) – I did find it an interesting experience in general to have to mindfully study a group of people and/or location for a period of time.  I have volunteered in libraries (even worked in one during law school), so I am obviously somewhat familiar with what I’ll call the “culture” of libraries, so to the extent I made any assumptions about what was going on a given patron, I will credit them as being somewhat educated or at least informed.  However, in order to be – if not unobtrusive, at least ‘less obtrusive’), I did have to distance myself somewhat from the area and the people I was observing, so I was unable to hear exactly what was going on – so all I am left with is “informed” assumptions and guesses.

One final point, then I’ll shut up:  concerning our discussion in class about giving physical descriptions of the subjects we’re observing.  My notes actually did include brief physical descriptions of each of the workers – but when I went to construct the narrative of my observations I intentionally left that out because I didn’t think it really added anything in this particular case…  Just wanted to throw that in for what it’s worth.

Landis Green seems to be the heart of old campus at FSU. It is simultaneously a thoroughfare for students and employees, those wishing to interact with familiar or unfamiliar others, or those wishing to find some solitude. I found a spot to sit on a small brick structure located on the southeast corner of the green. Upon my initial approach I found a group of friends sitting on a bench near the centrally located fountain on the green talking to each other. I could not decipher what was being said, but the interactants were enjoying themselves, laughing at a joke one of them had said. Across the fountain a female student was laying on a bench reading a book. A little further away another female student was sitting in a hammock slung to a tree listening to music and reading a book. In an open area of the green a group of dog owners were interacting with each other and playing with each other’s dogs. It was unclear whether the owners knew each other, but I would guess that the male owners were friends and the female owners were friends. There seemed to be some potential romantic interest between owners. The males were flirting with the females, showing interest in the small dogs the females brought with them. Those who were walking through the green, either by themselves or in pairs or small groups, did not seem to be in any hurry; it was a simple leisurely stroll through the green to pass time between classes. On the surface, Landis Green seems to be a simple thoroughfare through campus, but a closer look reveals a socializing function of the space as well as provides solitude for those desiring some down time from class.

The biggest takeaway I got from this experience is that I need to be much more detail oriented about the group or area I’m observing.  In order to provide more details in my notes, I need to take more time closely observing the people, and take note of clothes and other accessories, which can allow me to make inferences about the activities in which the people are engaging.  As I wrote my narrative, my lack of details became more apparent.  I was unable to recall what anyone was wearing, which did not allow me to make inferences about their activities on that day.  This lack of detail also hindered my ability to create a vivid picture of the people on the green in my narrative.

After reading my partners’ narratives, this idea of detail orientation was strongly reinforced.  Both of my partners included tremendous amounts of detail in their descriptions, which greatly aided my ability to create a clear picture of their observations in my head. The questions my partners asked about my narrative were even focused on providing more details about my observation.  However, because I did not take extremely detailed notes, I had trouble answering their questions.

I also need to be more aware of where I situate myself in relation to the people I’m observing.  In an effort to remain unseen, I chose a spot far away from anybody.  However, because of this, I also could not hear any of the conversations that were taking place.  Having the ability to know what people are talking about can provide many clues as to why a person or group of people are in a place at a specific time.  Knowing the content and context of a conversation will also provide more details to help create a better picture in the  mind of the reader.

Overall, I think I had a decent first effort at producing an ethnographic observation. Now, however, I know some areas that need to be improved if I am to continue using this method of scientific inquiry.

Field Notes Paragraph

It is in the afternoon at a bustling coffee house located on a large college campus. The surfaces are very hard and reflective which makes conversations difficult to hear. This situation is made worse by the loud up-tempo music blaring from the shops sound system. Conversations in line waiting to get a cup of coffee are causal and chock full of non sequiturs. Women in line says, “I’m not going to do that…. look popcorn!” Male friend responds, “the American dream.” Most of the indoor space is planned to move people through as quickly as possible. There are some tables each has one person sitting with a laptop or a book. There are four people working behind the counter. None of them make eye contact with anyone else, including their fellow workers. One of them is mumbling to herself as I walk up to the counter. The cashier looks up and asks what I would like to order. I get a flat white, it’s some kind of double espresso with a bunch of steamed milk. After a short wait, I get my drink at the end of the counter and step outside. I find a place to sit. The outside had more conversations. Two women with their legs curled under were talking to each other. Or should I say one was talking and the other was periodically responding. The conversation was personal, “I don’t put anything up that I don’t want my mom to see. That way I can get drunk as hell.” Other woman responds, “uh-huh.” People come an go fairly quickly. Many are working on laptops with their cell phones out and earbuds blocking out most of the environment around them.

Reflection

While writing notes I realized that it is difficult to decide what to pay attention to when several things are happening at once. At first I was basically taking small snapshots before deciding what might be the most interesting aspects to record. I also have an appreciation for anyone who does an active participant observation. My time in line was about 5 minutes and I’m sure that I didn’t notice nor recall everything when recording the event into the field notes.

The process of turning my notes into a narrative description was an exercise in quickly deciding on what aspects of the experience to describe.Creating a narrative description right after the observation was useful because I could fill in some details that I did not have in my notes. Although I did not get everything I wanted into the paragraph within the time constraint, I feel that this is a great exercise that I need to repeat. Hopefully I will become better at quickly writing passages in the future.

The questions my partner asked leads me to believe that I was on the right track of describing an interesting situation or at the very least mildly humorous. Her questions made me realize that there were more conversations and details that I probably should have included in my paragraph. These extra details would make for an overall stronger narrative.

From reading my partner’s description, I learn that I was not alone in not being able to record everything that was happening. She also made choices in what situations she recorded. She had regret that she did not pay more attention to one individual from the beginning. Hearing about her field experience caused me to reflect on what I could have done better myself.

Field Notes Paragraph

Having seen everything from anti-abortion displays to fire baton twirling practice on Landis Green, no activity would surprise me. One can never predict what will be happening there on a given day. This particular afternoon, a multitude of activities were taking place. One appeared to be practice sessions for campus tour group guides. As I arrived, I noted two pairs of individuals; one in each wore a name tag and carried a clipboard om which they made notes. The other person in the pairs was making a presentation upon which the first person gave feedback. My assumption about campus tours stems from overhearing part of the presentation from one pair which included information about Landis Green and University Health Services. Both pairs left Landis Green headed in the same direction. In addition, there was a group with dogs who seemed to be meeting to allow their pets to socialize. A female sitting near me seemed to think a retriever mix’s decision to urinate near her was personal in nature. I suppose this could be true given her loud complaints over the phone about dogs being on Landis.

On Ethnographic Observations

While observing the activities on Landis Green, I realized the near impossibility of observing one small group in the midst of many activities. Instead, I should have focused on describing the space and the general activities, which would have probably produced better observations and a more insightful field notes paragraph. In the process of writing up the observations, I also noted the importance of immediately writing up one’s observations. I doubt I would have gotten any level of detail had I waited a while to write it up. However, it is also nearly impossible to get all the detail from field notes into a coherent and descriptive write up. So much of what I scribbled down did not make it into the narrative for various reasons. Tim and I swapped paragraphs, and his questions again highlighted the gaps in the narrative into which I should have inserted much of the detail from my notes. Tim did a much better job than I of capturing each individual person’s apparent personality in his notes and paragraph. It was likely the time constraint that negatively affected my notes and write up; I also should have formulated a better plan for my observations and focus.