Summary by Nicole Howell
CCR 691
Executive summary: In the introduction to Ethnography Unbound Brown and Dobrin outline how ethnography has evolved away from traditional practice to critical practice. The authors clearly contend that all aspects of ethnography have changed since postmodern critique including, the concept of a field site, of the ethnographic Self, the relationship between ethnographer and participant, and desired outcomes of the inquiry (2). Additionally critical ethnography is defined as research that aims to account for the literate practices of others (4). Important ethical considerations have also been significantly informed by feminist methods in which ethnographers are asking questions such as "who does this study benefit?" Ethnographers have been charged with no longer looking at the communities being studied as objects and instead take on a peer-like partnership with the participants.
In the second half of the introduction Brown and Dobrin illustrate how the book takes up these changes in ethnography and briefly summarize the work included by each contributor.
Questions/challenges:
I feel as though I know and/or understand very little about ethnography. I believe it to be research that is localized and specific to small groups. Generally, I also understand ethnographies to consist of personal interviews or observations by a researcher that is close to the participants. I believe this introduction to be useful in two primary ways. First, it describes critical ethnography, definitions are always helpful. Second, it strongly emphasizes ethical practices and recognition of the relationship between ethnographer and participant...I like that. I think the purpose of such research is to inform social change this is what I look forward to learning more about. Anybody out there able to confirm or inform my understanding?
Showing posts with label ethical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethical. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
CCR 601- Lois Agnew: Teaching Propriety
Notes by Nicole for:
MLA formatted title:
Agnew, Lois. "Teaching Propriety: Unlocking the Mysteries of "Political Correctness"." CCC. 60.4 (2009): 746-763. Print.
Executive summary:
Agnew argues quite eloquently for the reevaluation/implementation of the intentions of “propriety and taste” in the composition classroom. She cautions however that this is not a return to the traditional perimeters of “taste and propriety” that are defined by the educated, white, male, British elite. Instead Agnew calls for the social negotiation of appropriate language use as informed by the rhetorical situation. Her call to action is prompted by students’ continued and consistent complaint of being stifled by “political correctness.” Agnew suggests that composition teachers consider how language is socially situated and promote a sympathetic approach to “public” discourse rather than treading down the treacherous road informed by notions such as, “everyone has the right to her own opinion.” Essentially she cautions that privileging the individual “right” to freedom of speech often comes at the expense of “wounding” other people. Although Agnew stops short of advocating the return of the terms “propriety and taste” she does call for a “new pedagogical construction of rhetorical appropriateness” (761).
Notable quotations:
“Ironically, however, our inability to find creative ways of teaching propriety has now encouraged many of our students to entrench themselves in a private realm of knowledge protected from the confusing demands of the external world” (747).
“Because taste makes individuals more sensitive to the world around them as well as more rhetorically able, Blair perceives the cultivation of taste as sharing in rhetoric’s ethical mission” (752).
“Through examining such questions through multiple perspectives that challenge their initial starting points, teachers and students can move from discussions focused on issues of private rights and opinions to an exploration of the social and historical factors that shape the construction of propriety in specific rhetorical situations” (760).
Key citations:
Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. 1783. Ed. Linda Perreira-Buckley and S. Michael
Halloran. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1965, 2005.
Crowley, Sharon. “The Bourgeois Subject and the Demise of Rhetorical Education.” Composition in the
University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1998. 30-45.
MLA formatted title:
Agnew, Lois. "Teaching Propriety: Unlocking the Mysteries of "Political Correctness"." CCC. 60.4 (2009): 746-763. Print.
Executive summary:
Agnew argues quite eloquently for the reevaluation/implementation of the intentions of “propriety and taste” in the composition classroom. She cautions however that this is not a return to the traditional perimeters of “taste and propriety” that are defined by the educated, white, male, British elite. Instead Agnew calls for the social negotiation of appropriate language use as informed by the rhetorical situation. Her call to action is prompted by students’ continued and consistent complaint of being stifled by “political correctness.” Agnew suggests that composition teachers consider how language is socially situated and promote a sympathetic approach to “public” discourse rather than treading down the treacherous road informed by notions such as, “everyone has the right to her own opinion.” Essentially she cautions that privileging the individual “right” to freedom of speech often comes at the expense of “wounding” other people. Although Agnew stops short of advocating the return of the terms “propriety and taste” she does call for a “new pedagogical construction of rhetorical appropriateness” (761).
Notable quotations:
“Ironically, however, our inability to find creative ways of teaching propriety has now encouraged many of our students to entrench themselves in a private realm of knowledge protected from the confusing demands of the external world” (747).
“Because taste makes individuals more sensitive to the world around them as well as more rhetorically able, Blair perceives the cultivation of taste as sharing in rhetoric’s ethical mission” (752).
“Through examining such questions through multiple perspectives that challenge their initial starting points, teachers and students can move from discussions focused on issues of private rights and opinions to an exploration of the social and historical factors that shape the construction of propriety in specific rhetorical situations” (760).
Key citations:
Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. 1783. Ed. Linda Perreira-Buckley and S. Michael
Halloran. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1965, 2005.
Crowley, Sharon. “The Bourgeois Subject and the Demise of Rhetorical Education.” Composition in the
University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1998. 30-45.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
