Due Dates:
First Draft Due: Sunday 11/15
Peer Review Due: Wednesday 11/18
Revised Draft Due: Sunday 11/22
Due Dates:
First Draft Due: Sunday 11/15
Peer Review Due: Wednesday 11/18
Revised Draft Due: Sunday 11/22
Ethnography has two root words: ethno, and graph. Ethno means “race, culture, or people” — like in the sense of an ethnicity. Graph means “write” — telegraph, graphite, graphic, photography, phonograph, monograph, etc. So, ethnography literally means writing a culture.
Historically, ethnography is the primary genre used by anthropologists — scientists who study humanity as a whole. Biological anthropologists study human evolution and our physical bodies, cultural anthropologists study our cultures, linguistic anthropologists study our languages, and archaeologists study the belongings, buildings, and trash we leave behind.
“Ethnographic writing” refers to writing that may not be “an ethnography” but uses a similar approach. Ethnographic writing can appear in a variety of academic disciplines– education research, sociology, psychology, English, geography, history, and more.
The history of anthropology — like pretty much every area of study — is pretty interwoven with racism. Biological anthropologists (along with medical doctors) are responsible for some of the beliefs that people of different races are better or worse physically, or that their bodies make them better or worse mentally or emotionally. Anthropological research was used as a justification for a lot of horrible things.
Anthropology as its own discipline started in the 1800s, although people wrote “ethnographic” notes long before that. For example, Julius Caesar (Roman Emperor who lived in the B.C. era) wrote some ethnographic notes about the Gauls and other “barbarians” he met while conquering parts of Europe as a general.
So, cultural anthropology, the subfield that solidified what “ethnography” means in the modern sense, mostly took this form in the 1800s:
You might already be able to think of some of the ethical problems with this. Anthropologists often did not ask permission to come study people, or give much back to the community they were staying with. Even though anthropologists try to understand other people’s way of life from their own perspective, they often failed, either by accident or because they were judgy and thought Western culture was superior. They often took things back with them, to sell or donate to museums. Sometimes they tried to impose their own ways of life upon the people they were studying.
So, a lot of it wasn’t good. At the same time, the discipline of anthropology has accumulated a lot of information about the very diverse cultures of humanity, which means there’s a lot of data on how what Western culture considers “just human nature” or “the normal way to do things” is not normal or human nature at all. For example, the first ethnography to go mainstream (as opposed to just being read by other anthropologists) was Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead (1928). People in the U.S. were really interested in this ethnography because Samoan teenagers didn’t exhibit many of the behaviors or moods associated with “just part of being a teenager.” They fought with their parents a lot less, for example, and seemed happy overall, as opposed to the stereotypical moodiness of American teenagers. Mead thought that this was because Samoan teenagers (at the time, at least) had a lot more freedom and trust than American teenagers, especially in the 1920s. It wasn’t controversial for them to have sex with each other. If they didn’t want to live with their parents, it wasn’t a big deal for them to go stay with a friend or another family member for awhile.
While there are still plenty of ethical issues in the discipline of anthropology and in the genre of ethnography, anthropologists are by and large trying to recognize the racist and sexist histories of the discipline and reinvent their research practices.
Some key changes:
So, just as the discipline of anthropology has a gross history but is evolving, so does the genre of ethnography. One issue with ethnography is that it is originally a scientific genre, with all the claims to “objective truth” that come with it. Another issue is that word choice and the author’s perspective can embed a lot of bias (usually negative) into the writing, just like we talked about with news writing. The anthropologist may not even realize they’re doing it.
One important change in ethnography is that now it’s much more common for anthropologists to talk about themselves, and explain their relationship to the people they’re writing about and their own position in society, and to reflect on how that might affect their perspective. Whereas an anthropologist back in the day might try to “fade into the background” of his ethnography and pretend he was just an invisible camera watching the people, a modern anthropologist might talk about who she is, her own emotional reactions to her experiences and what she thought about it. You can never fully escape your own bias, but by trying to be as honest and transparent about it as you can, you can help the reader to put the information in context.
Many college classes have “mini-ethnography” assignments. When I was in college, we all had to go to a restaurant near campus and conduct a mini-ethnography of the restaurant. We had to sit there for about an hour, eat some food, and observe everything that happened around us. What kinds of people came in? What kinds of things did they order? How did they interact with the employees? What was the vibe? Then, we went home and wrote about it.
So, the general process for an ethnography is:
An ethnography will often follow the same general form as a scientific article, but it’s less strict. You can say “I” and talk about yourself. You should still talk about your research methods, your results, and do a discussion of your results, but these sections can be mixed together more if you want. You should still try to be thorough, as objective as possible, and always back up your ideas with evidence. You should definitely write about any expectations you had that were wrong, or times when you had to revise your interpretation or opinion. More on this in the assignment instructions!
Now, please click back to the Week 12 instructions page and check out some examples!
Welcome to Unit 4, our last “real” unit! After this, we’ll just be building your portfolios and doing a mini-project about a genre of your choice.
“Social science” is actually a super broad set of disciplines with many different genres and sets of writing expectations. Some social science writing looks very similar to natural science writing. Other examples and genres may not. In this unit, we’ll be focusing on ethnographic writing. I will write a digital lecture about what “ethnography” and “ethnographic” means for you to read during Week 12.
This unit will be quite short, since we’ll be building off of some of the principles of academic and scientific writing we already covered in Unit 3. Here’s an overview:
Week 12: Introduction to Ethnography, Writing a First Draft
Week 13: More on Scientific Bias and Genre, Revising
Week 14: Reflection/Finishing Up, Starting Portfolio
We’ll also be doing another round of peer review. Please fill out Peer Review Survey #2.
This unit, you will be writing only one major creation— an imaginary (or not) mini-ethnography. You will write at least two drafts of this mini-ethnography.
The Social Science rubric is worth 20% of your overall grade (this is 5% more than Units 1 and 2, and the same as Unit 3). It will be graded out of 20 points. This means that each thing is worth a little more than in the past units, because you have fewer things to do.
Total: 20 points = 100% for the unit
100% for the unit = 20% of your final grade.
**I will input all the math into Blackboard so you don’t have to worry about calculating what this means for you**
There are still a number of extra credit opportunities this semester. Specifically, you can attend a Writing Center Workshop or make an appointment with them for a 1:1 discussion of your writing. I will receive a spreadsheet with an attendance record at the end of the semester, and will apply the points then to wherever will mathematically benefit you the most.
Since this week is Election Week and also near the middle of the semester, I thought we’d take a chill week to reflect and rest and maybe have a chance to get caught up on things.
Optional Zoom Class: Monday, 10:50am
The only things due this week are your Unit 3/Mid-semester Reflection and an extra credit assignment about the election. Points from the extra credit assignment can be applied to Unit 1 (because it’s news) or Unit 3 (because it’s our current unit). Both assignments are due Sunday, November 8.
I’m designing the election assignment to be completable before any results are in, if you would prefer to do it then.
The reflection will be graded out of 5 points according to the same rubric as the Unit 1 and Unit 2 reflections.
The 2020 presidential election is more complicated than Trump vs. Biden. For one thing, there are many different reasons people have to vote for one candidate over the other, or to vote 3rd party, or to vote for no one at all.
This week, please find news articles that express as many different points of view on the election as you can. Use the skills we practiced in Unit 1 to identify sentences or word choices that indicate the writer’s perspective. Try to find examples from the 3 major types we studied: informational, analytical, and opinion. It will be easiest to identify point of view in the opinion articles, so challenge yourself on the other two!
Please list what you find with a link along with a description of what you think the point of view is and what makes it different from other perspectives.
I was just on Twitter and saw the picture of the second map I’m going to show you, and was shocked to discover it’s from the New York Times, since it’s so different in design than the other New York Times Covid maps I look at every day.
Here is the first map, the main page of the NYT’s coronavirus tracker.
And here is the second map, part of an article published earlier today.
Now, there are two main reasons for the differences between the maps.
1. They are displaying different information.
The first map is color coded according to cases of coronavirus per 100,000 people in a given area over the last week. The second map is looking at when each county hit its covid peak– within the last month, or within the last week. These datasets are related to each other, since you need to have a lot of recent cases in order to have your peak of cases, but they are not the same. So that’s part of why.
But there is another reason. One that I think highlights how the first map is often misleading about how the coronavirus is affecting parts of the country, particularly in the middle.
2. They’re using a different rule for how to draw the colors onto the map.
On the first map, while lines are drawn according to county, the coloring is not. Or at least, they’ve colored in by county in the East, but not out West. Take a look at Montana (or any of the other large states just east of California) and mouse over some of the counties– even though the county as a whole has X concentration of cases and has an alarming graph, only some parts of the county are colored in, likely where the population is concentrated.
On the second map, entire counties are colored in even in those same Western states with small populations. This makes the situation in those states look WAY WORSE than the first map! The first map makes it look like the virus hasn’t even reached large portions of those states, when in reality, there just aren’t many people who live in those areas. For those of us who live in more densely populated areas, it’s easy to assume that there are loads of people there and just nobody’s getting sick.
Both maps are representing virus data from the last 1-4 weeks. So, the areas with the worst situations are the same. But they suggest pretty different things!
Welcome to Week 10, the third week of Unit 3. Click here for a full unit overview. This week, we’ll be looking at some more examples + analysis of academic writing in the sciences and revising our drafts based on peer feedback.
Optional Zoom Class: Monday, 10/26 at 10:50am
There is only one thing due this week– the revised draft of your imaginary science article. For examples of what this can look like, please see the examples posted in Week 9 or explore the other imaginary science articles at Science Creative Quarterly.
Revised drafts are due by the end of the day on November 1 (Sunday).
Here are your thinking questions for this week! Please spend 5-10 minutes freewriting about them (or ignoring them and freewriting more generally), which you can then share with me if you wish or keep to yourself. If you don’t want to write, please at least read the questions and think about them!
You can sign up for a time of your choosing here. This is the last one, and will count toward your points for Unit 4.
Click here to view the PDF. I am going to write annotations in Hypothesis to help walk you through the article, so make sure you have Hypothesis activated on the page as you’re reading!
Full instructions + rubric are here.
You can turn in your paper on Blackboard, via email, or by posting it here on the site if you want to share your work with your classmates.
As you’re revising, you might know you want to change some more things but not know where to begin. I strongly recommend grading yourself using the real rubric to help you identify what areas you want to work on.
You can also compare your paper to some of the examples we’ve looked at.
If you want to, you and your peer review partner could decide to give each other a second round of comments.
Or, you could schedule a digital appointment at the writing center.
Welcome to Week 9, the second week of Unit 3. Click here for a full unit overview. This week, we’ll just be focused on learning some basic genre features of academic science writing and putting them into practice in a first draft. **I strongly encourage you to begin your work for this week early.**
This week we’ll also be back to our normal Zoom schedule of Monday, at 10:50am.
If you have not already done so, ****please fill out the peer review survey now.****
Please send your first draft to me and your peer review partner(s) by the end of the day on Thursday, October 22. For me, you can also just upload the draft to Blackboard. But make sure your classmate gets it too.
Then send comments to your partner and send a peer review report to both me and your partner by the end of the day on Sunday, October 25.
Here are your thinking questions for this week! Please spend 5-10 minutes freewriting about them (or ignoring them and freewriting more generally), which you can then share with me if you wish or keep to yourself. If you don’t want to write, please at least read the questions and think about them!
Part 1 (Structural/Big Picture Genre Features)
Part 2 (Sentence Level Features)
Here are the links to the articles I discuss in the digital lecture, as well as a couple more. Read/skim through for yourselves to find examples of the genre features I discussed and see what they look like in practice.
Click here for full assignment instructions/rubric.
For your first draft, try your best to write a complete draft. (Even if you’re not happy with your writing, you at least have all of the pieces you need.) If circumstances aren’t going to make that possible for you this week, try to write something for each piece of your article– a highly detailed outline is better than no draft at all.
I will be emailing you all with your peer review partner assignments, but am waiting to create the groups until more people have filled out the peer review survey.
Please share your paper with your partner according to the peer review method chosen, then give comments/feedback in a form appropriate for your peer review method. (For example, if you’re using Google Docs, use the Commenting feature. If you’re using email, you could write comments using MS Word comments or another program and email, or just write an email with feedback in paragraph or bullet point form.)
You should also share your draft with me, whether you use email, upload it to the course site, or upload it to Blackboard.
In addition to general feedback/comments, please also fill out a peer review report for your peer and share it with both me and them. Click here to view the questions for the peer review report.
In addition to any other comments you may choose to share with your peer review partner, please fill out this Peer Review Report and send it to both me and your peer review partner.
Unit 3 Project: Imaginary Scientific Article
The purpose of this project is to practice writing in the genre of academic science articles.
Due Dates
First draft: End of Thursday, 10/22
Peer Review Comments: End of Sunday, 10/25
Revised draft: End of Sunday, 11/1
To begin:
Once you have completed the imagination work, now it’s time to write!
Your article should:
APA Formatting (0.2 points each for a total of 2 points)
Structural Genre Norms (1 point each for a total of 4 points)
Stylistic Genre Norms (1 point each for a total of 3 points)
Article consistently exhibits:
Works Cited/References (0.5 points each for 1 point total)