Thursday, April 21, 2011
Reflecting on the rhetorical conventions of a qualitative study
To start class today, I’d like you to reflect on how the study—“Creating Community”—was organized and written. That is, I’d like us to generate a keener sense of the rhetoric of a scholarly study within the field of ethnography. First, how would you characterize or describe the study’s organization? What is the purpose of each section and how do they relate to each other and develop the study’s main argument? What is the study’s main claim and where is it located? What kind of evidence does Amada Armenta draw on to substantiate her claim(s)? How would you describe the voice, level of formality, and other stylistic features of this kind of writing? What do you think you might take from this study when you start drafting your own piece later next week?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In order to fully understand the group which she was studying, Armenta became a part of the group. She sat the with nannies every day at the park for one year, until they felt comfortable enough with her to open up. Because her research involved making very personal connections, the written study was rather informal. She used "I" and "me" frequently throughout the paper. I think this actually gave her some credibility because she showed that she knew the nannies very well. However, to support her research, she also used a number of scholarly sources which strengthened the argument she formed from her field work.
ReplyDeleteI like how the paper was structured. She gave a general overview and then broke up the rest of her research into different groups of people who affected the nannies on a regular basis in the park. Her sections were dedicated to the nannies specifically, the park staff, the children, and the employers. Because Armenta was studying a group of people, I think it was very logical for her to break the sections up into different factors which affect these people.
Armenta begins her study by looking at in-home jobs and whether they isolate the people who have those jobs. The majority of her sources state that these jobs are highly isolating ones, however, her field work would argue otherwise. Because of the nannying positions, the women randomly met each other and formed very strong bonds with each other. This research would suggest that the job actually provided the nannies with opportunities to be social.
I think I want to organize my study in a similar way to this one. I want to focus on a specific type of people who use Tattered Cover and then look at the other people (staff, other groups of people there, etc.) who affect them while they are in that space.
The paper was organized in a logical and well thought out fashion, with the intention of informing the reader about the background and basic assumptions in a simple fashion, giving us the groundwork to understand her later research. Each section has a specific research focus, and makes up part of the research base of her argument. The studies main claim is that low income latina nannies develop community bonds based upon the nature of their work and the relationship that they have with one and other. It is located on the front page, in the paragraphs following the abstract.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a good springboard for my own research, and that I will be able to use her style to help me plan out how I will utilize my research while writing my paper.
The scholarly journal article, "Creating Community," was organized in what I would characterize as a scientific way. Specifically, Amada Armenta seems to follow the scientific method in how she approached her research and write-up. She begins with background information (citing previous scholarly sources) on domestic labor and social relations among Latina workers and affluent employers. At the end of this section, she presents her thesis (or, hypothesis) and briefly explains how it will expand upon and differ from previous studies.
ReplyDeleteShe goes on to describe how she will gather qualitative research that will support her thesis. When she reports her findings, she organizes it under headings which signal the reader to what part of her argument the following pieces of evidence will support. They serve as clarifying two- to three-word summaries. I, personally, found this segmentation very helpful in understanding her final discussion and conclusion because I came to understand her research in organized, small sections as opposed to a massive outpouring of jumbled examples.
If allowed in our own writing, I would like to segment and label the different sections of my essay because I think it will make my argument more coherent, and will give me an obvious step-by-step mental process to which I can refer to, explicitly or implicitly, throughout my paper.
Amada Armenta's claim is stated on the very first page. It reads, "Although domestic work is often characterized as being socially isolating, this paper illustrates how the structure of domestic work enables women to create communities in their employers’ neighborhood."
ReplyDeleteI would not characterize the paper as "formal", but it isn't as "academic" and "scholarly" as I would have thought. In other words, it reads fairly easily.
The essay is organized like this: Intro/background, observational process, actual observations and interpretations, and then conclusion.
Armenta definitely acts as a third-party narrater; he doesn't tend to incorporate personal stories. He uses his observations of the nannies at the park to back his claim.
I like how Armenta used different, individually titled sections in his paper. I think it works well for this type of writing because it directs the focus of the paper. I also think that Armenta's use of specific "case studies" are very helpful in understanding his claim. Most readers appreciate when specific examples accompany the more difficult, scholarly claims.
The study's organization is very structured. It moves from background information to a claim and then supports the claim with evidence. This evidence is a well constructed combination of personal anecdotes, observations, interviews, and secondary sources. Particularly in the background sections every sentence is supported by multiple secondary sources, building the author's ethos. I trust her study more because she's obviously "done her homework," her use of so many other people's research makes her own research more valid. The main claim can be found early in the study, particularly right at the end of the "co-worker relationships" section. This main claim is that domestic provides opportunity for in-house workers to form communities WHILE they are working. Each of the sections links into the thesis from a different perspective, lending weight to the argument and making it difficult to refute. This is an incredibly formal piece. Armenta cares very strongly about this subject, otherwise she would not have developed this study, but I think her emotions are removed from her response. I think reason supported by observable evidence overshadows her emotional response to what she sees, making the study more effective because it is not simply an emotional rant backed by examples.
ReplyDeleteI hope my study will have a similar effect. I am incredibly interested and invested in my study, but I hope to remove emotion from my work. I also think the structure of this study is appropriate for our assignment. I will discuss some background information, perhaps introduce some professional opinions about the space I am researching, then present my claim and defend it with evidence.
“Creating Community” is definitely written in a scholarly voice. It is very formal and almost “dry.” However, the personal anecdotes of the subjects give the piece a bit more voice. The author uses different relationships between nannies and the people they interact with to highlight her main claim which is not stated until the conclusion: “Opportunities for social networking are built into the structure of nannies’ domestic environment.” This study flowed really well as it transitioned from an introduction to the methods the author used to data and anecdotes about various people she encountered and finally to the conclusions she drew from her observations.
ReplyDeleteWhen drafting our studies, I think this is a really good example for us to look at. It is written for a general audience so does not use a lot of technical terms. It is also clear that the author was passionate about what she was studying. I think it is important that our passion comes out through our writing when we draft our studies. Readers of Armenta’s piece can see that she made a real connection with the nannies. We need to try and make sure to do the same with our subjects. This creates an interesting piece for others to read. Another aspect of her writing that we could imitate is her objectivity in her paper. She doesn’t offer her opinion when discussing her observations. Instead, she waits until the Discussion section of the paper.
This study was conducted and organized in a very methodical way. Just as Armenta watched these nannys in different spheres (influenced both by influence as by who was around them), she also organized her study into these same sections. She begins by explaining the situation--in a white neighborhood, Latinos are just as prevalent because they are the hired work for the inhabitants of this area. As a result, all these workers that share a common situation (their level of work, language, culture, and such) they create their own little community within this larger white community. This obviously influences the character of this area of West L.A. She then goes on to explain how this group of nannys came to be and how they formed their own little family at their weekly park meetings. Through her observations and interviews, she is able to get a pretty good sense of the nannys' feelings, point of view, and daily routine. She extensively writes about this by stating different examples in her study. She talks about the importance of the park and how out of this place, these women have formed a support system for each other when many other aspects of their life are unstable, namely lack of job security.
ReplyDeleteI think this study shows the importance of looking deeper and analyzing different situations that seem commonplace at face value. Armenta is able to capture many unspoken feelings of these women just by watching them for so long and being able to empathize with them and their situation, including their desires and fears. I hope to replicate how successfully Armenta is able to analyze different situations that I observe in order to learn the most from the public place that I am studying and the people that interact and use that space. I thought it was important that she also extensively looked at others surrounding the group of nannys such as the park workers that they interacted with. This reminds me that it's important to look at the workers of Stella because they can provide me with a lot of insight since they observe this space daily and contribute to its overall atmosphere. Also, she displays how important it is to take detailed field notes because sometimes when you are writing the notes and observing, you don't realize somethings importance until after you go back and read over your notes in a detached setting. I think this is something important to keep in mind when I am observing Stella's.
“Creating Community” was fairly well organized. It started giving a brief overview of what he was going to observe and then delved into smaller details. Armenta’s writing was very straightforward and easy to understand. Armenta did not try to use overly descriptive words or extravagant language. The article was also very organized in the fact that the author stated the method for collecting data and how to observe the nannies before going into the actual observations. This strengthened ethos and credibility so that we know that the studies were actually relevant. Armenta includes this in one of the first sections after giving the reader background information on studies of domestic work relationships. Each section offered different observations, information, or reflections by the author. Together, these sections contributed to a final discussion and reflection of how “socially isolated” domestic workers “use” public spaces to create more of a community. This led to his conclusion where his main claim can be found that “domestic workers have a collective identity derived from their work, social networks composed of other domestics, and a common work site” and that they are in fact not socially isolated (291). This study was very beneficial for me to read. I found that its organization was very demonstrative of how I should structure my own paper. It represented a healthy balance of facts from secondary sources and Armenta’s actual observations. It also showed me the importance of clear focused writing. Armenta is very clear in the observations and what it is that she is hoping to gain from this study. I need to learn how to be as clear and consistent as her.
ReplyDeleteThe author of Creating Community, Amanda Armenta, began her text with a description of the “problem” of the situation—that is why Latina Nannies in a West Los Angeles Park provides an interesting study of social geography. The study’s organization is very clear. Its’ overall layout is: background, background of issue, other beliefs, qualification of other beliefs, own study, findings of study (sometimes mixed in with the talking about actual observation), discussion of own study, further considerations. The main assertion of the text comes, without its complex caveats, is the last sentence of the introductory section—“As such, the public park that women attend during work becomes a site through which nannies expand their networks by meeting one another and other Latino workers.” Most of the background section heavily utilized research from other sources and through this Armenta was able to substantiate her claim. Once she showed that there was indeed a significant issue with nanny isolation (the kairos of the situation)—and that it had been previously researched in the past—she was able to introduce her own angle of the matter by showing that what she specifically wanted to address, has thus far not been researched.
ReplyDeleteI actually read this study before I conducted my first field research, so that I would have an example as to what my final piece of writing should resemble. The categories she provided in the work, as well as the proportions of information—ie how much time devoted to background, discussion, etc.—will very much help me when drafting the writing of my own study. Seeing that the style was very “matter-of-fact” also helped me—for I know what type of writing style I will need to be planning for.
In general, though the style of writing found in studies and journal articles in the social sciences is not designed, perhaps, for maximum impact on the casual reader, it is designed for readability and logic. Thus, the superstructure of Creating Community forms its own type of logic, as many journal articles do, moving from methods to findings to conclusions (Armenta 2009). It mimics the process of reasoning that one might expect to employ oneself in examining a given situation: determine a method of inquiry, gather information, and then think about what this information might mean.
ReplyDeleteArmeneta relies on a significant amount of research presented in other articles to make apparent a base of knowledge, some of it quantitative, regarding many of the problems she will seek to illuminate in her study. Her study, however, focuses on qualitative research and observation. One of the things that I like most (and a technique I hope to employ) is the way she structures her data section. Since it is qualitative research, she is able to develop and nearly narrative-like quality using observations and quotations. It still feels very professional and objective but it also reads very “smoothly”
Although this paper is far more analytical and study focused than the other pieces we have read, it still seems to carry some similarity to the others. While it has the obvious section that are found in a study: Abstract, data and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections, it interlaces them in a way that allows the paper to still flow as a piece. It also still starts off with a hook, a mention of the influx of household workers in affluent neighborhoods and how that strengths the social inequalities between workers and their employers, but also how it serves as the basis for increased strength in the relationship between fellow co workers.
ReplyDeleteThe paper goes on to group the relationships that are present for latina nannies in the case study that was performed. Those of the employer-employee, and those with fellow co workers. It talks about the opportunities present for those nannies to create community with others of their culture, it this very different, very non-latino neighborhoods in which they work and/or live.
The paper mentions how when the nannies are together at the park, it creates a much different atmosphere than when they are in their employer’s home. At the park, the nannies will rely on each other for support and bonding, much different to when they are at home and have only themselves and the child they look after, never sharing any really meaningful interaction with their employers.
When looking at this study, it helps me to think about how I might set up my own piece. The way in which these reports are structured is familiar to me from the labs of my sciences courses, but I was having trouble understanding how I was going to be able to relate that to this more social science way of writing. Reading this paper helped me to understand how I can set it up so that there are still all the necessary sections, but still give it flow and not just cold hard splits from one section to the next.