Annotated Bibliography- Sources Used
Conis, Elena. "Crystalline Fructose - Is Crystalline Fructose a Better Choice of Sweetener? - Page 2 - Los Angeles Times." Featured Articles From The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 02 Feb. 2009. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/health/he-nutrition2/2.
Elena Conis’ article, Is crystalline fructose a better choice of sweetener?, provides an argument for the benefits and detriments of crystalline fructose. On the one hand, there is not a large degree of difference in make up or nutrition between high fructose corn syrup and crystalline fructose, yet every little bit helps. Specifically, crystalline fructose is a form of sugar that due to its processing is a better choice to lower volume, calories, and glucose levels. Due to this, less of it needs to be used and it is “20% sweeter than sucrose” (1). From a diabetes perspective, it is unclear as to whether crystalline fructose is a positive or negative alternative to sugar for the reason that it does not contain glucose or require insulin, yet there is speculation as to whether it is a contributor to obesity and diabetes for these same reasons. Furthermore, anything, especially sugar, should not be taken in excess regardless of type.
Facebook Discussion Board. (2010 August). "No consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage." [Msg 29]. Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=50540568485&topic=13876
VitaminWater’s facebook holds a discussion board link where I found this intriguing conversation based upon Coca-Cola’s claim about the general public pretty much being fools. Within the 29 posts to this discussion, I found a myriad of perspectives that target different aspects of the lawsuit with guilt. Specifically, Paul strongly suggests that VitaminWater is “weak sugar water plus color, minimal nutrients, and aggressive marking” (1), yet “the truth is depressing and makes for boring advertising. He later goes on to say that the advertising conclusions are based in fantasies and factual benefits associated with the vitamins that are actually included in VitaminWater. Opposing Paul is Gary, who poses a question as to whether “we should bow to our corporate masters and blindly believe their what they say and not question their deceptive practices?” Clearly, these two gentlemen are arguing the two sides I predicted before researching: Who is to blame? Is it a matter of Coca-Cola lacking integrity, or the public being ignorant? Lisa adds a thought –provoking comment when she inquires about the legality of displaying all, not some, of the ingredients on labels. Furthermore, John, an avid supporter of VitaminWater, believes that it is a matter of opinion and preference, thereby not serving as a justifiable argument. I did find it plausible and interesting that multiple users did not understand why everyone seems so outraged at VitaminWater when Hawaiian Punch, Gatorade, and all sports drinks for that matter are just as bad if not worse and are advertised in the same fashion. In addition, several members of the conversation pointed out that while some can argue that VitaminWater is not the healthiest drink, it is a better alternative than soda. The most researched and insightful contributor, however, is Brett. He brilliantly advocates that “no one can truly make a claim either way and be fully justified, regardless of position. [His] reasoning behind this is that the term ‘healthy’ is relative. There is no single definition for healthy” (4).
VitaminWater’s facebook holds a discussion board link where I found this intriguing conversation based upon Coca-Cola’s claim about the general public pretty much being fools. Within the 29 posts to this discussion, I found a myriad of perspectives that target different aspects of the lawsuit with guilt. Specifically, Paul strongly suggests that VitaminWater is “weak sugar water plus color, minimal nutrients, and aggressive marking” (1), yet “the truth is depressing and makes for boring advertising. He later goes on to say that the advertising conclusions are based in fantasies and factual benefits associated with the vitamins that are actually included in VitaminWater. Opposing Paul is Gary, who poses a question as to whether “we should bow to our corporate masters and blindly believe their what they say and not question their deceptive practices?” Clearly, these two gentlemen are arguing the two sides I predicted before researching: Who is to blame? Is it a matter of Coca-Cola lacking integrity, or the public being ignorant? Lisa adds a thought –provoking comment when she inquires about the legality of displaying all, not some, of the ingredients on labels. Furthermore, John, an avid supporter of VitaminWater, believes that it is a matter of opinion and preference, thereby not serving as a justifiable argument. I did find it plausible and interesting that multiple users did not understand why everyone seems so outraged at VitaminWater when Hawaiian Punch, Gatorade, and all sports drinks for that matter are just as bad if not worse and are advertised in the same fashion. In addition, several members of the conversation pointed out that while some can argue that VitaminWater is not the healthiest drink, it is a better alternative than soda. The most researched and insightful contributor, however, is Brett. He brilliantly advocates that “no one can truly make a claim either way and be fully justified, regardless of position. [His] reasoning behind this is that the term ‘healthy’ is relative. There is no single definition for healthy” (4).
Facebook Discussion Board. (2010 October). What do you have to say about the crystalline fructose in your drink? [Msg 10]. Message posted to http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=50540568485&topic=14050
VitaminWater’s homepage for the time being is a link to their facebook, which has an interesting tab for discussion board. Within this link, I found this conversation about crystalline fructose found within VitaminWater. The originator of this conversation was questioning its use within the “health” product. Robyn, a contributor to the conversation” simply added that it is the sweetener, yet she continued with a profound point:
There are tons of serious problems, and I think it’d be grand to have companies take a step back and look at ways to make their foods healthier/more natural, but this country should be called the UCA- united corporations of America. No one ever gets invested or scrutinized because they help fund the major administrations around the country (1).
Serena, another perspective in this discussion mentioned that she thinks VitaminWater due to the vast amounts of celebrities used in campaigns has become “a status thing” (1) and later accused Coca-Cola of advertising Vitamin Water to be more than double what it is.
VitaminWater’s homepage for the time being is a link to their facebook, which has an interesting tab for discussion board. Within this link, I found this conversation about crystalline fructose found within VitaminWater. The originator of this conversation was questioning its use within the “health” product. Robyn, a contributor to the conversation” simply added that it is the sweetener, yet she continued with a profound point:
There are tons of serious problems, and I think it’d be grand to have companies take a step back and look at ways to make their foods healthier/more natural, but this country should be called the UCA- united corporations of America. No one ever gets invested or scrutinized because they help fund the major administrations around the country (1).
Serena, another perspective in this discussion mentioned that she thinks VitaminWater due to the vast amounts of celebrities used in campaigns has become “a status thing” (1) and later accused Coca-Cola of advertising Vitamin Water to be more than double what it is.
Gregory, Sean. "Is Vitaminwater Really a Healthy Drink?" TIME: Business & Technology. TIME, 30 July 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2007106,00.html>.
Time’s article, Is Vitaminwater Really a Healthy Drink?, is filled with quote-worthy text. The author, Sean Gregory, covers Coke’s purchase of VitaminWater and its growth since. In addition, the text touches on some of the controversial issues associated with the lawsuit including the amount of sugar, name of the product, and advertising tactics. CSPI is even quoted as saying “Consumers shouldn’t have to assume that the front of the label is a lie. You cannot deceive in the big print and tell the truth later” (1). Furthermore, despite Coke’s push to have the case dismissed, the Judge has ruled to let the case continue based on the ruling that there are potential FDA violations, similar to that of the jellybean rule (2). In talking specifically about VitaminWater’s marketing objective, arguments for justifiable “inferences” and “semantic networks” are holding in court. Finally, based on the mixed-message marketing” (1), this case could go to the extent that a judge will determine whether the legality of VitaminWater’s name.
Time’s article, Is Vitaminwater Really a Healthy Drink?, is filled with quote-worthy text. The author, Sean Gregory, covers Coke’s purchase of VitaminWater and its growth since. In addition, the text touches on some of the controversial issues associated with the lawsuit including the amount of sugar, name of the product, and advertising tactics. CSPI is even quoted as saying “Consumers shouldn’t have to assume that the front of the label is a lie. You cannot deceive in the big print and tell the truth later” (1). Furthermore, despite Coke’s push to have the case dismissed, the Judge has ruled to let the case continue based on the ruling that there are potential FDA violations, similar to that of the jellybean rule (2). In talking specifically about VitaminWater’s marketing objective, arguments for justifiable “inferences” and “semantic networks” are holding in court. Finally, based on the mixed-message marketing” (1), this case could go to the extent that a judge will determine whether the legality of VitaminWater’s name.
Jolliffe, Tanya. "Nutrition 101: What Is Crystalline Fructose?" DailySpark.com - Your Healthy Lifestyle Blog. DailySpark, 25 May 2009. Web. 02 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asppost=nutrition_101_what_is_crystalline_fructose>.
While Tanya Joliffe’s article, Nutrition 101: What is Crystalline Fructose?, repeated many of the same generally accepted conclusions about this sugar substitute, it also presented some questions worth considering. One benefit that I did not come across until reading this text is the benefit of flavor and shelf-life. Another added benefit of crystalline fructose is the low glycemic index. Despite all of the technicalities between sugar types, however, Tanya posed a thought-provoking suggestion:
Instead of asking why there is crystalline fructose in my flavored water or energy drink, ask yourself why you are drinking the flavored water or energy drink to begin with. Is it really something you need or would you be better off drinking water with fresh squeezed lemon, lime, or orange juice in its place.
<http://www.dailyspark.com/blog.asppost=nutrition_101_what_is_crystalline_fructose>.
While Tanya Joliffe’s article, Nutrition 101: What is Crystalline Fructose?, repeated many of the same generally accepted conclusions about this sugar substitute, it also presented some questions worth considering. One benefit that I did not come across until reading this text is the benefit of flavor and shelf-life. Another added benefit of crystalline fructose is the low glycemic index. Despite all of the technicalities between sugar types, however, Tanya posed a thought-provoking suggestion:
Instead of asking why there is crystalline fructose in my flavored water or energy drink, ask yourself why you are drinking the flavored water or energy drink to begin with. Is it really something you need or would you be better off drinking water with fresh squeezed lemon, lime, or orange juice in its place.
"Coke Sued for Fradulent Claims on Obesity-Promoting 'VitaminWater'." Center for Science in the Public Interest. Center for Science in the Public Interest, 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.cspinet.org/new/200901151.html>.
Right off the bat, the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s article, Coke Sued for Fraudulent Claims on Obesity-Promoting “VitaminWater,” makes strong arguments in nonconventional ways: “vitamins + water + sugar + hype = soda – bubbles” (1). The majority of this text covers the main arguments of CSPI and Coca-Cola within the context of the VitaminWater Lawsuit. In particular, CSPI objected to the “health buzz words [such as] ‘defense,’ ‘rescue,’ ‘energy,’ and ‘endurance’” (1) simply because they infer things that the drink does not necessary ensure. Furthermore, “[Coke] makes a wide range of dramatic claims, including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of chronic disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function” (1). Clearly, there are advantageous promises without pay. The problem associated with such claims lies within the fact that Coke is taking their chances with FDA regulations; CSPI would even accuses Coke of “outright fraud” (2). Interestingly, CSPI found that while VitaminWater names such as focus kiwi strawberry and endurance peach mango do not contain real fruit juice. Ultimately, CSPI advises the public to obtain their vitamins through foods other than sugary beverages.
Right off the bat, the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s article, Coke Sued for Fraudulent Claims on Obesity-Promoting “VitaminWater,” makes strong arguments in nonconventional ways: “vitamins + water + sugar + hype = soda – bubbles” (1). The majority of this text covers the main arguments of CSPI and Coca-Cola within the context of the VitaminWater Lawsuit. In particular, CSPI objected to the “health buzz words [such as] ‘defense,’ ‘rescue,’ ‘energy,’ and ‘endurance’” (1) simply because they infer things that the drink does not necessary ensure. Furthermore, “[Coke] makes a wide range of dramatic claims, including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of chronic disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function” (1). Clearly, there are advantageous promises without pay. The problem associated with such claims lies within the fact that Coke is taking their chances with FDA regulations; CSPI would even accuses Coke of “outright fraud” (2). Interestingly, CSPI found that while VitaminWater names such as focus kiwi strawberry and endurance peach mango do not contain real fruit juice. Ultimately, CSPI advises the public to obtain their vitamins through foods other than sugary beverages.
O'Reilly, Lara. "Coca-Cola's Vitaminwater Ad Slammed for Flu Jab Claims." Marketing Week. Marketing Week, 04 Feb. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/food-and-drink/soft-drinks/coca-colas-vitaminwater-ad-slammed-for-flu-jab-claims/3023110.article>.
Lara O’Reilly’s article, Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater ad slammed for flu jab claims, offers rich insight into several specific quotes from both Coca-Cola and CSPI in the lawsuit over VitaminWater. Within this reading, there are three different perspectives brought to light, that of the National Consumers League, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Advertising Standards Authority. To start, the NCL was concerned over claims that VitaminWater ads had made such as “flu shots are so last year,” saying that these ads are “’dangerously misleading’” (1). Furthermore, the ASA banned several ads adding the fact that “most people would not expect a nutritious drink to ‘have the equivalent of four or five teaspoons of added sugar’” (1).
Lara O’Reilly’s article, Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater ad slammed for flu jab claims, offers rich insight into several specific quotes from both Coca-Cola and CSPI in the lawsuit over VitaminWater. Within this reading, there are three different perspectives brought to light, that of the National Consumers League, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Advertising Standards Authority. To start, the NCL was concerned over claims that VitaminWater ads had made such as “flu shots are so last year,” saying that these ads are “’dangerously misleading’” (1). Furthermore, the ASA banned several ads adding the fact that “most people would not expect a nutritious drink to ‘have the equivalent of four or five teaspoons of added sugar’” (1).
Reed, Kari A. "VitaminWater: Appearance v. Reality." Personal interview. 5 Apr. 2011.
Today was the big day for interview number one with Kari Reed, a woman who has her Bachelors Degree in Graphic Design and is a well-informed member of the public when it comes to the food industry. Overall, the experience was richly insightful and eye-opening. I learned so much about the process of interviewing and the benefits of ditching the script and engaging in conversation, for it was as if she had a much better script in store than I could have ever anticipated. Likewise, I was pleasantly surprised that when I stopped worrying about the progression of the interview, I was relaxed enough to partake in the perceptive information that I would have missed if I put a stop to the tangents.
Walking into the interview, I expected to hear my sister argue about who was right and who was wrong, yet I walked out with a completely different perspective. There is no one guilty party in this lawsuit; however, there are three separate parties— The Center of Science for Public Interest, Coca-Cola, and the public—who would all benefit greatly from taking responsibility for their own errors in judgment while also holding the other parties accountable. Furthermore, I appreciate the tangents concerning crystalline fructose, graphic design, and justified roles. First, I learned that crystalline fructose, while better than high fructose corn syrup, can only be broken down in the liver, and so when taken in excess, it has the potential to cause liver damage. Also, I was shocked to hear that VitaminWater has a percentage, however small, of arsenic in its contents. Second, I learned that VitaminWater has a brilliant marketing campaign from the elements of simplicity to font to color. More specifically, Kari explained from the perspective of a graphic designer that VitaminWater chose colorful, yet muted dyes in order to send a message that indeed there is the presence of water in this beverage, yet their energized verbs are also subconsciously communicated. Finally, it is important to remember that at the end of the day, Coca-Cola is an industry, CPSI is an organization, and the public is busy. In other words, they all have motives and intentions that are package deals with the role in which they play.
At the same time that the interview itself went well, the video editing side of the project was phenomenal. With the help of my amazingly talented sister, Abby and I were able to add an intro slide as well as a music clip. As a side note, I must say my suggestion of using the song “Suga Suga” by BabyBash to the introduction slide is not only hysterical, but ironic when seriously considered. I hope that our audience takes the time to see the links between the lyrics and the discrepancy with VitaminWater especially in the play on the word “suga”:
“You got me lifted shifted higher than a ceiling
And ooh wee it¡¦s the ultimate feeling
You got me lifted feeling so gifted
Sugar how you get so fly?
Suga suga how you get so fly?
In addition, it is important to note that I was extremely nervous about making the 30-minute benchmark, yet we exceeded this time limit by nearly 7 minutes with more than 500 words of quote-worthy excerpts! Without a doubt, I can say that today’s experience was exhilarating and beyond my expectations. This was exactly the encounter with our topic that I hoping for to motivate Abby and I into further research and the creation of multiple genres. Next on the list are 3-minute interviews with close friends as well as a blind-taste-test at Barnes&Noble!
Today was the big day for interview number one with Kari Reed, a woman who has her Bachelors Degree in Graphic Design and is a well-informed member of the public when it comes to the food industry. Overall, the experience was richly insightful and eye-opening. I learned so much about the process of interviewing and the benefits of ditching the script and engaging in conversation, for it was as if she had a much better script in store than I could have ever anticipated. Likewise, I was pleasantly surprised that when I stopped worrying about the progression of the interview, I was relaxed enough to partake in the perceptive information that I would have missed if I put a stop to the tangents.
Walking into the interview, I expected to hear my sister argue about who was right and who was wrong, yet I walked out with a completely different perspective. There is no one guilty party in this lawsuit; however, there are three separate parties— The Center of Science for Public Interest, Coca-Cola, and the public—who would all benefit greatly from taking responsibility for their own errors in judgment while also holding the other parties accountable. Furthermore, I appreciate the tangents concerning crystalline fructose, graphic design, and justified roles. First, I learned that crystalline fructose, while better than high fructose corn syrup, can only be broken down in the liver, and so when taken in excess, it has the potential to cause liver damage. Also, I was shocked to hear that VitaminWater has a percentage, however small, of arsenic in its contents. Second, I learned that VitaminWater has a brilliant marketing campaign from the elements of simplicity to font to color. More specifically, Kari explained from the perspective of a graphic designer that VitaminWater chose colorful, yet muted dyes in order to send a message that indeed there is the presence of water in this beverage, yet their energized verbs are also subconsciously communicated. Finally, it is important to remember that at the end of the day, Coca-Cola is an industry, CPSI is an organization, and the public is busy. In other words, they all have motives and intentions that are package deals with the role in which they play.
At the same time that the interview itself went well, the video editing side of the project was phenomenal. With the help of my amazingly talented sister, Abby and I were able to add an intro slide as well as a music clip. As a side note, I must say my suggestion of using the song “Suga Suga” by BabyBash to the introduction slide is not only hysterical, but ironic when seriously considered. I hope that our audience takes the time to see the links between the lyrics and the discrepancy with VitaminWater especially in the play on the word “suga”:
“You got me lifted shifted higher than a ceiling
And ooh wee it¡¦s the ultimate feeling
You got me lifted feeling so gifted
Sugar how you get so fly?
Suga suga how you get so fly?
In addition, it is important to note that I was extremely nervous about making the 30-minute benchmark, yet we exceeded this time limit by nearly 7 minutes with more than 500 words of quote-worthy excerpts! Without a doubt, I can say that today’s experience was exhilarating and beyond my expectations. This was exactly the encounter with our topic that I hoping for to motivate Abby and I into further research and the creation of multiple genres. Next on the list are 3-minute interviews with close friends as well as a blind-taste-test at Barnes&Noble!
Robbins, John. "The Dark Side of Vitaminwater." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Huffpost Living, 5 Aug. 2010. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/the-dark-side-of-vitaminw_b_669716.html>.
John Robbin’s article, The Dark Side of Vitaminwater, explores the seriousness and illogical nature of Coke’s defense in the lawsuit against VitaminWater claims. Coke’s statement that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage” has cause serious controversy. Robbins even goes so far as to inquire as to whether it is “okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?” (1). The health concern behind these false claims lie within the fact that obesity is at its height in America and with the general public not obtaining “nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquid” (2). While it is true that VitaminWater does contain “about a penny’s worth of synthetic vitamins” (1), it is not enough for the large-scale health benefits Coke is insinuating that this drink provides.
John Robbin’s article, The Dark Side of Vitaminwater, explores the seriousness and illogical nature of Coke’s defense in the lawsuit against VitaminWater claims. Coke’s statement that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage” has cause serious controversy. Robbins even goes so far as to inquire as to whether it is “okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?” (1). The health concern behind these false claims lie within the fact that obesity is at its height in America and with the general public not obtaining “nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquid” (2). While it is true that VitaminWater does contain “about a penny’s worth of synthetic vitamins” (1), it is not enough for the large-scale health benefits Coke is insinuating that this drink provides.
Tsirulnik, Giselle. "Vitaminwater Runs Text Campaign to Increase Brand Awareness." Mobile Marketer - The News Leader in Mobile Marketing, Media and Commerce. Mobile Marketer, 09 May 2008. Web. 02 Apr. 2011. <http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/messaging/968.html>.
Giselle Tsirulnik’s article, Vitaminwater Runs Text Campaign to Increase Brand Awareness, explains the new form of advertising and the hopes of the marketing group behind this modern approach. Coca-Cola had consumers text vitaminwater to a number and receive a coupon for their next purchase. Inevitably, this tactic was an attempt at building their brand with “consumers age 18-35” (1). Beyond receiving coupons in their inbox, consumers were also entered into a contest for the potential of winning a year’s supply of VitaminWater. While consumers can end the services at any time, Coke made out well by “[using] the list of those entered into the sweepstakes to promote future vitaminwater events, products, and promotions” (2).
Giselle Tsirulnik’s article, Vitaminwater Runs Text Campaign to Increase Brand Awareness, explains the new form of advertising and the hopes of the marketing group behind this modern approach. Coca-Cola had consumers text vitaminwater to a number and receive a coupon for their next purchase. Inevitably, this tactic was an attempt at building their brand with “consumers age 18-35” (1). Beyond receiving coupons in their inbox, consumers were also entered into a contest for the potential of winning a year’s supply of VitaminWater. While consumers can end the services at any time, Coke made out well by “[using] the list of those entered into the sweepstakes to promote future vitaminwater events, products, and promotions” (2).
Annotated Bibliography- Sources Consulted
Berry, Wendell. "The Pleasures of Eating." What Are People For? San Francisco [Calif.: North Point, 1990. 1-4. Print.
Wendell Berry’s article, The Pleasure of Eating, is a painfully honest and accusatory article, yet Berry has every right to make his argument because while he targets the ignorant he provides a solution. His Berry’s claim rests upon the fact that the public, who can be seen as either “passive” (1) or “victim[s]” (1), lacks the desire to connect their role in the production of their food. Berry uses this article to express his concern for the g rowing disconnect between the farm and the supermarket. He continues to imply that food producers would eat the food for the consumer if they could make money off of it (1), for they are already disguising the food through means that are better for income than integrity. Furthermore, Berry explores shifts the public can make in order influence the food market and protect their health. He suggests such things as growing one’s own food, cooking at home, supporting local farmers, and educating oneself. Above all, however, Wendell Berry was more concerned with promoting “pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance” (3) than pointing the finger at the food industry or the public.
Brown, Cynthia Stokes. "Conducting the Interview." Like It Was: a Complete Guide to Writing Oral History. New York: Teachers & Writers Collaborative, 1988. 31-49. Print.
While reading the article, Conducting the Interview, I found myself having a rich conversation with Cynthia Stokes Brown, the author. Certainly, she was not answering me in typical dialogue fashion, yet it was as if her text was interviewing me as the reader, encouraging me to dig deeper and interact with the text. While many of her points were simply review from my past experiences with interviewing, there were a few pages when I went highlighter-happy over her elegantly written insights. Please allow me to showcase the conversation I had with Brown by placing direct excerpts from her article followed by my responses in blue italics:
1. “Listening well is much more important than consulting a list of questions, especially if your narrator wants to talk” (35).
I can relate to the fact that when taking the role of the interviewer, listening should be elevated high above speaking. For me, I find that if I am worried about covering a list of questions, I am not listening intently as to what the narrator is saying. My prepared list of questions forces me to become more concerned with that I am going to say next rather than what the narrator is saying currently. Essentially it is hard to listen and think at the same time.
2. “leading questions” (36)
Leading questions were a major challenge for me. I find it very difficult, especially when interviewing students and faculty within a school not to input my own beliefs and perceptions into my questions. Cynthia Brown, however, pointed out the easy cure, which many of my professors have addressed prior to reading the article. The solution is to delve deeper and insert the words how and why when appropriate.
3. “Don’t be afraid to ask daring questions in order to get beyond the surface answer… But in an interview the usual roles for social conduct do not apply; you are likely to be rewarded for boldness. After all, the worst that can happen is that your narrator will become silent or say, “I’d rather not answer that question” (37).
The above excerpt is one of the portions that strike me as being very insightful. When I took time to reflect upon asking risky questions, I realized that in all roles— the interviewer, the narrator, and the observer— I appreciated the questions that do not generate generic answers. To illustrate, I will present a farfetched, yet familiar occurrence: Simon Cal on American Idol, 9 times out of 10, commented and inquired about the very things that all of us were not scared to think, but were scared to articulate. As a result, the audience tended to receive rich, transparent answers.
4. “Answers that are interesting include not just information, but also feelings and interpretations” (37).
I could not agree with this statement any more than I currently do. As stated in the article, yes and no answers are too vague to produce anything worth analyzing. From the perspective of the student, textbooks are only as interesting as the elements it provides beyond the information. For example, in a social studies book, I will become more interested if there are personal accounts, opinions, and perspectives on wars and social experiences than facts alone.
5. “Reading a good children’s book about a topic is always a good way to start your research” (40).
This suggestion excites me because I have such a passion for kids and believe with everything in me that children’s books have immeasurable lessons radiating from their pages. I have never thought of learning about history from children’s books, yet I am willing to try it when the situation presents itself.
6. “Interviews are always unique and unpredictable events. Each one is the interplay of two personalities. Your task as the interviewer is to be sensitive to what is happening, so that you can help your narrator become relaxed, talkative, and revealing as possible. An interview should be a monologue, not a dialogue; the narrator should do most of the talking, with the interviewer on the sidelines, encouraging and cheering on” (40).
I value this metaphor of the narrator being the star athlete and the interviewer being the coach/cheerleader. Certainly, I have been in interviewing situations where being sensitive to the concerns or story that the narrator was sharing paid off in the information and insight I walked away with.
7. “Go with these surprises—play detective— follow you instincts” (42).
The most exhilarating interview moment is when your narrator diverges from your plans and allows you access to lose yourself in their story. The narrator then becomes the tour guide and the interviewer becomes a fan with a VIP backstage pass. Personally, the best interviews I have ever conducted, and I use that word lightly, were with children. The best thing about kids is that they are completely unscripted and candid; whenever possible, I try to incorporate children into my research because they have no filter, thereby offering their sincere version of the truth!
8. “chemistry” (43)
I metaphorically high-fived Cynthia Brown when I came across this word. In my experience interviewing everyone from the school nurse to the superintendent of my assigned school for Clinical Practice, my eyes were opened to the importance of chemistry between the interviewer and the narrator. While I requested 15-20 minutes for each interview, I found that certain people offered me so much information and insight that I was able to pick and choose quotes from their monologue with which I wanted to present. On the other hand, those individuals that acted as though my interview was an obligation offered me the bare minimum thereby ruining all chances of chemistry before we even sat down.
9. “Life has its dark side, and to leave it out is dishonest. Conflict, challenge, obstacles, tragedies—these are the times when a person’s real spirit emerges. But we all have trouble discussing some things or even admitting that they have happened to us they may see too awful or disappointing even to acknowledge. By not being afraid of raising sensitive questions and but not passing judgment on what you hear from your narrator, you’ll encourage your narrator to talk freely. You can accept whatever happened—it’s simply what happened, and you know already that life is a lot more complex than anyone ever expected it to be” (43).
This is by far my favorite excerpt of the entire article, Conducting the Interview. The words literally jumped off the page and danced in my mind for quite a bit of time! Admittedly, people are generally prone to expressing at length anything and anything they deem positive, yet they stutter, hesitate, and often hide that which they deem negative. The real story, however, lies within the combination of both the positive and negative elements of life. Furthermore, I find the statement, “life is a lot more complex than anyone ever expected it to be” (43) to radiate with truth!
10. “Usually the narrator will reveal the most sensitive material only after hesitating, if you rush with a question, you will miss it” (45).
While silence in my book is usually defined as awkward, I have learned to allow silence, pauses, and hesitation as a gift! As Cynthia Brown attested, narrators generally share their heart after a moment of reflection. If rushed, however, interviewers lose the most important component of the story—transparency.
While reading the article, Conducting the Interview, I found myself having a rich conversation with Cynthia Stokes Brown, the author. Certainly, she was not answering me in typical dialogue fashion, yet it was as if her text was interviewing me as the reader, encouraging me to dig deeper and interact with the text. While many of her points were simply review from my past experiences with interviewing, there were a few pages when I went highlighter-happy over her elegantly written insights. Please allow me to showcase the conversation I had with Brown by placing direct excerpts from her article followed by my responses in blue italics:
1. “Listening well is much more important than consulting a list of questions, especially if your narrator wants to talk” (35).
I can relate to the fact that when taking the role of the interviewer, listening should be elevated high above speaking. For me, I find that if I am worried about covering a list of questions, I am not listening intently as to what the narrator is saying. My prepared list of questions forces me to become more concerned with that I am going to say next rather than what the narrator is saying currently. Essentially it is hard to listen and think at the same time.
2. “leading questions” (36)
Leading questions were a major challenge for me. I find it very difficult, especially when interviewing students and faculty within a school not to input my own beliefs and perceptions into my questions. Cynthia Brown, however, pointed out the easy cure, which many of my professors have addressed prior to reading the article. The solution is to delve deeper and insert the words how and why when appropriate.
3. “Don’t be afraid to ask daring questions in order to get beyond the surface answer… But in an interview the usual roles for social conduct do not apply; you are likely to be rewarded for boldness. After all, the worst that can happen is that your narrator will become silent or say, “I’d rather not answer that question” (37).
The above excerpt is one of the portions that strike me as being very insightful. When I took time to reflect upon asking risky questions, I realized that in all roles— the interviewer, the narrator, and the observer— I appreciated the questions that do not generate generic answers. To illustrate, I will present a farfetched, yet familiar occurrence: Simon Cal on American Idol, 9 times out of 10, commented and inquired about the very things that all of us were not scared to think, but were scared to articulate. As a result, the audience tended to receive rich, transparent answers.
4. “Answers that are interesting include not just information, but also feelings and interpretations” (37).
I could not agree with this statement any more than I currently do. As stated in the article, yes and no answers are too vague to produce anything worth analyzing. From the perspective of the student, textbooks are only as interesting as the elements it provides beyond the information. For example, in a social studies book, I will become more interested if there are personal accounts, opinions, and perspectives on wars and social experiences than facts alone.
5. “Reading a good children’s book about a topic is always a good way to start your research” (40).
This suggestion excites me because I have such a passion for kids and believe with everything in me that children’s books have immeasurable lessons radiating from their pages. I have never thought of learning about history from children’s books, yet I am willing to try it when the situation presents itself.
6. “Interviews are always unique and unpredictable events. Each one is the interplay of two personalities. Your task as the interviewer is to be sensitive to what is happening, so that you can help your narrator become relaxed, talkative, and revealing as possible. An interview should be a monologue, not a dialogue; the narrator should do most of the talking, with the interviewer on the sidelines, encouraging and cheering on” (40).
I value this metaphor of the narrator being the star athlete and the interviewer being the coach/cheerleader. Certainly, I have been in interviewing situations where being sensitive to the concerns or story that the narrator was sharing paid off in the information and insight I walked away with.
7. “Go with these surprises—play detective— follow you instincts” (42).
The most exhilarating interview moment is when your narrator diverges from your plans and allows you access to lose yourself in their story. The narrator then becomes the tour guide and the interviewer becomes a fan with a VIP backstage pass. Personally, the best interviews I have ever conducted, and I use that word lightly, were with children. The best thing about kids is that they are completely unscripted and candid; whenever possible, I try to incorporate children into my research because they have no filter, thereby offering their sincere version of the truth!
8. “chemistry” (43)
I metaphorically high-fived Cynthia Brown when I came across this word. In my experience interviewing everyone from the school nurse to the superintendent of my assigned school for Clinical Practice, my eyes were opened to the importance of chemistry between the interviewer and the narrator. While I requested 15-20 minutes for each interview, I found that certain people offered me so much information and insight that I was able to pick and choose quotes from their monologue with which I wanted to present. On the other hand, those individuals that acted as though my interview was an obligation offered me the bare minimum thereby ruining all chances of chemistry before we even sat down.
9. “Life has its dark side, and to leave it out is dishonest. Conflict, challenge, obstacles, tragedies—these are the times when a person’s real spirit emerges. But we all have trouble discussing some things or even admitting that they have happened to us they may see too awful or disappointing even to acknowledge. By not being afraid of raising sensitive questions and but not passing judgment on what you hear from your narrator, you’ll encourage your narrator to talk freely. You can accept whatever happened—it’s simply what happened, and you know already that life is a lot more complex than anyone ever expected it to be” (43).
This is by far my favorite excerpt of the entire article, Conducting the Interview. The words literally jumped off the page and danced in my mind for quite a bit of time! Admittedly, people are generally prone to expressing at length anything and anything they deem positive, yet they stutter, hesitate, and often hide that which they deem negative. The real story, however, lies within the combination of both the positive and negative elements of life. Furthermore, I find the statement, “life is a lot more complex than anyone ever expected it to be” (43) to radiate with truth!
10. “Usually the narrator will reveal the most sensitive material only after hesitating, if you rush with a question, you will miss it” (45).
While silence in my book is usually defined as awkward, I have learned to allow silence, pauses, and hesitation as a gift! As Cynthia Brown attested, narrators generally share their heart after a moment of reflection. If rushed, however, interviewers lose the most important component of the story—transparency.
Clandinin, D. Jean., and F. Michael. Connelly. "What Do Narrative Inquirers Do?" Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000. 48-62. Print.
After reading D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly’s Narrative Inquiry, a piece exploring art, role, and focus of narrative inquirers, I am left reflecting upon a few, key excerpts that I found rather thought-provoking. Please allow me to present these quotes in bullet form followed by comments and thoughts in italics:
· Clandinin and Connelly focus on “four directions in inquiry: inward and outward, backward and forward. By inward, we mean toward internal conditions, such as feelings, hopes, aesthetic reactions, and moral dispositions. By outward, we mean toward existential conditions, that is, the environment. By backward and forward, we refer to temporality— past, present, and future” (Narrative Inquiry 50).
I wonder if as narrative inquirers we tend to focus on the direction which comes naturally to us, often overlooking other directions. This thought occurred because while reading I asked myself if I focus on the four directions in my writing, in which I could answer no unless prompted or corrected. For me, I gravitate toward exploring the inward direction, exploring my feelings and emotions more so than that which impacts the situation externally. Having said this, I know when placed in groups to analyze a situation, others seem to have their preferences just as I do, so when combined each direction is covered thoroughly.
· “Ming Fang’s long-ago China stories and present-day Canadian ones help us, as Blaise (1993) suggests, ‘live in their countries, speak their language, negotiate their streets on their buses and turn out keys in their locks’” (Narrative Inquiry 54).
Blaise’s words are richly insightful! When reading accounts of others’ life, we are granted access to their culture. Through this access, we are just as her metaphor suggests unlocking new experiences through our combined memories.
· Clandinin and Connelly describe the concept of the Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry Space:
1) “We might imagine the terms as an analytic frame for reducing the stories to a set of understandings.”
2) Think of terms as “pointing to questions, puzzles, fieldwork, and field texts of different kinds of appropriate to different aspects of the inquiry.”
3) “A third use of the terms… is the ambiguity, complexity, difficulty, and uncertainties associated with the doing of inquiry” (Narrative Inquiry 54-55).
Admittedly, I tripped over many of the concepts presented in this section, because the concepts and language at times seemed abstract; however, my understanding of the Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry can be described in three paths: 1) an outline for understanding, 2) dialogue for understanding, and 3) rhetoric of understanding. I’m using the term rhetoric loosely to stand for those thoughts and questions that are often debated as to whether an answer exists.
· “I think sometimes when you feel strongly about things though, that it marginalizes you” (Narrative Inquiry 57).
I connected to this quote, for when I am passionate about something it shows in my tone, word choice, body language, and the like. While feeling strongly about something shows significance to me, it also shows an inability to be open-minded on the issue and therefore can have a negative connotation of making yourself insignificant to the conversation.
· “What starts to become apparent as we work within our three-dimensional space is that as narrative inquirers we are not alone in the space. This space enfolds us and those with whom we work. Narrative inquiry is relational inquiry as we work in the field, move from field to field text, and from field text to research text” (Narrative Inquiry 60).
Certainly, when writing as a narrative inquirer it is not only the author that constructs meaning, but the responses of the audience which have a strong potential to alter the meaning. In other words, narrative inquiry is socially constructed!
· “As narrative inquirers, we share our writing on a work-in-progress basis with response communities. By this, we mean that we ask others to read our work and to respond in ways that help us see other meanings that might lead to future retelling” (Narrative Inquiry 60).
As stated in response to the previous quote, meaning making is in part the author and in part the audience. Neither part can exist alone for true narrative inquiry, for it would lack the test of debate.
· “As inquires we, too, are part of the parade. We have helped make the world in which we find ourselves. We are not merely objective inquirers, people on the high road, who study a world lesser in quality than our moral temperament would have it, people who study a world we did not help create. On the contrary, we are complicit in the world we study. Being in this world, we need to remake ourselves as well as offer up research understandings that could lead to a better world” (Narrative Inquiry 61).
I will not speak for others, but I have become very aware that my writing exposes my thoughts, intelligence, and perspective among many other things. While I could cringe and edit my writing to appear impartial, it would take away the sincerity and transparency that is valued in writing. If everyone approaches the table of narrative inquiry as open books, there is no telling the understanding that could result!
· Working in this space means that we become visible with our own lived and told stories. Sometimes this means that our own unnamed, perhaps, secret, stories come to light as much as do those of our participants. This confronting of ourselves in our narrative past makes us vulnerable as inquirers because it makes secret stories public. In narrative inquiry, it is impossible (or if not impossible, then deliberately self deceptive) as researcher to stay silent or to present a kind of perfect, idealized, inquiring, moralizing self” (Narrative Inquiry 62).
As stated in the comment on the previous quote, there is a necessity for narrative inquirers to be transparent in their writing. If there is a chance of walking away from the stories and research with any new understanding, it is based upon the ability of everyone involved to ditch their socially acceptable mask and be real. There is not a single soul that is unprejudiced in some area or another, so let’s embrace our perceptions of the world in order to gain new insight!
After reading D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly’s Narrative Inquiry, a piece exploring art, role, and focus of narrative inquirers, I am left reflecting upon a few, key excerpts that I found rather thought-provoking. Please allow me to present these quotes in bullet form followed by comments and thoughts in italics:
· Clandinin and Connelly focus on “four directions in inquiry: inward and outward, backward and forward. By inward, we mean toward internal conditions, such as feelings, hopes, aesthetic reactions, and moral dispositions. By outward, we mean toward existential conditions, that is, the environment. By backward and forward, we refer to temporality— past, present, and future” (Narrative Inquiry 50).
I wonder if as narrative inquirers we tend to focus on the direction which comes naturally to us, often overlooking other directions. This thought occurred because while reading I asked myself if I focus on the four directions in my writing, in which I could answer no unless prompted or corrected. For me, I gravitate toward exploring the inward direction, exploring my feelings and emotions more so than that which impacts the situation externally. Having said this, I know when placed in groups to analyze a situation, others seem to have their preferences just as I do, so when combined each direction is covered thoroughly.
· “Ming Fang’s long-ago China stories and present-day Canadian ones help us, as Blaise (1993) suggests, ‘live in their countries, speak their language, negotiate their streets on their buses and turn out keys in their locks’” (Narrative Inquiry 54).
Blaise’s words are richly insightful! When reading accounts of others’ life, we are granted access to their culture. Through this access, we are just as her metaphor suggests unlocking new experiences through our combined memories.
· Clandinin and Connelly describe the concept of the Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry Space:
1) “We might imagine the terms as an analytic frame for reducing the stories to a set of understandings.”
2) Think of terms as “pointing to questions, puzzles, fieldwork, and field texts of different kinds of appropriate to different aspects of the inquiry.”
3) “A third use of the terms… is the ambiguity, complexity, difficulty, and uncertainties associated with the doing of inquiry” (Narrative Inquiry 54-55).
Admittedly, I tripped over many of the concepts presented in this section, because the concepts and language at times seemed abstract; however, my understanding of the Three-Dimensional Narrative Inquiry can be described in three paths: 1) an outline for understanding, 2) dialogue for understanding, and 3) rhetoric of understanding. I’m using the term rhetoric loosely to stand for those thoughts and questions that are often debated as to whether an answer exists.
· “I think sometimes when you feel strongly about things though, that it marginalizes you” (Narrative Inquiry 57).
I connected to this quote, for when I am passionate about something it shows in my tone, word choice, body language, and the like. While feeling strongly about something shows significance to me, it also shows an inability to be open-minded on the issue and therefore can have a negative connotation of making yourself insignificant to the conversation.
· “What starts to become apparent as we work within our three-dimensional space is that as narrative inquirers we are not alone in the space. This space enfolds us and those with whom we work. Narrative inquiry is relational inquiry as we work in the field, move from field to field text, and from field text to research text” (Narrative Inquiry 60).
Certainly, when writing as a narrative inquirer it is not only the author that constructs meaning, but the responses of the audience which have a strong potential to alter the meaning. In other words, narrative inquiry is socially constructed!
· “As narrative inquirers, we share our writing on a work-in-progress basis with response communities. By this, we mean that we ask others to read our work and to respond in ways that help us see other meanings that might lead to future retelling” (Narrative Inquiry 60).
As stated in response to the previous quote, meaning making is in part the author and in part the audience. Neither part can exist alone for true narrative inquiry, for it would lack the test of debate.
· “As inquires we, too, are part of the parade. We have helped make the world in which we find ourselves. We are not merely objective inquirers, people on the high road, who study a world lesser in quality than our moral temperament would have it, people who study a world we did not help create. On the contrary, we are complicit in the world we study. Being in this world, we need to remake ourselves as well as offer up research understandings that could lead to a better world” (Narrative Inquiry 61).
I will not speak for others, but I have become very aware that my writing exposes my thoughts, intelligence, and perspective among many other things. While I could cringe and edit my writing to appear impartial, it would take away the sincerity and transparency that is valued in writing. If everyone approaches the table of narrative inquiry as open books, there is no telling the understanding that could result!
· Working in this space means that we become visible with our own lived and told stories. Sometimes this means that our own unnamed, perhaps, secret, stories come to light as much as do those of our participants. This confronting of ourselves in our narrative past makes us vulnerable as inquirers because it makes secret stories public. In narrative inquiry, it is impossible (or if not impossible, then deliberately self deceptive) as researcher to stay silent or to present a kind of perfect, idealized, inquiring, moralizing self” (Narrative Inquiry 62).
As stated in the comment on the previous quote, there is a necessity for narrative inquirers to be transparent in their writing. If there is a chance of walking away from the stories and research with any new understanding, it is based upon the ability of everyone involved to ditch their socially acceptable mask and be real. There is not a single soul that is unprejudiced in some area or another, so let’s embrace our perceptions of the world in order to gain new insight!
Clandinin, D. Jean. "Locating Narrative Inquiry Historically." Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007. 3-30. Print.
While reading “Situating Narrative Inquiry,” there were a few key excerpts that triggered something inside of me and cause me to create dialogue with the text. Please allow me to present the quote and then offer my thoughts in blue italics
:
“So while researchers have new respect for the human in the subjects they study, they continue to perceive themselves as capable of being objective” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 11).
“In this discourse, as researchers we continued to act in our role as researchers as if we were capable of remaining in some way intellectually and objectively separate from what we were studying— we did not remove the boundaries we had drawn around ourselves as researchers. We felt that in our role as researchers the self was unchangeable” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 12).
We are not robots who view everything in one of two spheres: black or white. As humans we contradict the components necessary to be objective by dictionary definition. Certainly, we can try to base our decision on facts, yet we would be lying if we said our conclusions are “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices” (dictionary.com). Through considering the role of judge or jury, we as humans, even when “putting energy into maintaining an objective stance” ( 12) insert our own moral compass and experience before rendering a verdict. Therefore, I find it more credible to say “the researcher and the researched in a particular study are in relationship with each other and that the parties will learn and change in the encounter” ( 9) because “humans and human interaction exists in context” ( 11). Essentially for humans the objective lens is always accompanied by the subjective lens.
The previous paragraph was written when I had only read up until page 12, so when I made it through the complete reading, I was thrilled that the text was conversing with me and supporting my argument. This occurred on page 15 with the idea of the “implausibility of being truly distant” and again in the conclusion where the authors argue that you cannot dispose of the “nonneutrality of curiosity and interest” (29).
“[Piaget] focused not on numbering the answers but on the children’s explanations (words) about their understanding of particular events” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 16) – a quote in reference to the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.
Student Teaching reinforced this concept for me. Children come at problems from all different angles, and while their answers on an objective test may be wrong, if asked to explain their reasoning in oral or written fashion, they often have perfectly intelligent logic. This goes to show that numbers cannot account for all reasons, for language must accompany those numbers.
“When the audience is presented with numeric findings, the reader must provide a narrative to explain and capture the relationships presented with statistical values” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 20).
“It is interesting to consider that not only should numbers be accompanied by words, but also words should be accompanied by numbers. As stated in the article, formulas, charts, graphs, and tables must be accompanied by words in order for relationships to be established and explained. Likewise, writing needs a sense of numbers, not in the traditional or literal sense, but in code. This code is known as sequence. Sequence words (first, next, then, last) serve the purpose of numbers in that they keep each occurrence “independent, interchangeable, and equal” (18). The difference between numbers and words in my opinion is that in writing, words can ground sentences making them dependent, contradictory, and even disproportionate. I believe the key is to use numbers and words together only when they serve to complement one another and offer a better explanation than providing words or numbers alone.
While my quotes are only concerned with the first two turns: 1) relationship of researcher and researched and 2) from numbers to words as data, I am not discounting the importance of turn 3) from the general to the particular of turn 4) blurring knowing. I will, however, say that turn 3 came as a given. Clearly more understanding comes from a more focused lens. Although, turn 4 I feel I still need some explanation of epistemology, or maybe I’m making too much of what I don’t completely understand and I do have a good grasp. Ultimately, I enjoyed this article for his depth and perspective despite its length.
While reading “Situating Narrative Inquiry,” there were a few key excerpts that triggered something inside of me and cause me to create dialogue with the text. Please allow me to present the quote and then offer my thoughts in blue italics
:
“So while researchers have new respect for the human in the subjects they study, they continue to perceive themselves as capable of being objective” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 11).
“In this discourse, as researchers we continued to act in our role as researchers as if we were capable of remaining in some way intellectually and objectively separate from what we were studying— we did not remove the boundaries we had drawn around ourselves as researchers. We felt that in our role as researchers the self was unchangeable” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 12).
We are not robots who view everything in one of two spheres: black or white. As humans we contradict the components necessary to be objective by dictionary definition. Certainly, we can try to base our decision on facts, yet we would be lying if we said our conclusions are “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices” (dictionary.com). Through considering the role of judge or jury, we as humans, even when “putting energy into maintaining an objective stance” ( 12) insert our own moral compass and experience before rendering a verdict. Therefore, I find it more credible to say “the researcher and the researched in a particular study are in relationship with each other and that the parties will learn and change in the encounter” ( 9) because “humans and human interaction exists in context” ( 11). Essentially for humans the objective lens is always accompanied by the subjective lens.
The previous paragraph was written when I had only read up until page 12, so when I made it through the complete reading, I was thrilled that the text was conversing with me and supporting my argument. This occurred on page 15 with the idea of the “implausibility of being truly distant” and again in the conclusion where the authors argue that you cannot dispose of the “nonneutrality of curiosity and interest” (29).
“[Piaget] focused not on numbering the answers but on the children’s explanations (words) about their understanding of particular events” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 16) – a quote in reference to the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.
Student Teaching reinforced this concept for me. Children come at problems from all different angles, and while their answers on an objective test may be wrong, if asked to explain their reasoning in oral or written fashion, they often have perfectly intelligent logic. This goes to show that numbers cannot account for all reasons, for language must accompany those numbers.
“When the audience is presented with numeric findings, the reader must provide a narrative to explain and capture the relationships presented with statistical values” (Situating Narrative Inquiry 20).
“It is interesting to consider that not only should numbers be accompanied by words, but also words should be accompanied by numbers. As stated in the article, formulas, charts, graphs, and tables must be accompanied by words in order for relationships to be established and explained. Likewise, writing needs a sense of numbers, not in the traditional or literal sense, but in code. This code is known as sequence. Sequence words (first, next, then, last) serve the purpose of numbers in that they keep each occurrence “independent, interchangeable, and equal” (18). The difference between numbers and words in my opinion is that in writing, words can ground sentences making them dependent, contradictory, and even disproportionate. I believe the key is to use numbers and words together only when they serve to complement one another and offer a better explanation than providing words or numbers alone.
While my quotes are only concerned with the first two turns: 1) relationship of researcher and researched and 2) from numbers to words as data, I am not discounting the importance of turn 3) from the general to the particular of turn 4) blurring knowing. I will, however, say that turn 3 came as a given. Clearly more understanding comes from a more focused lens. Although, turn 4 I feel I still need some explanation of epistemology, or maybe I’m making too much of what I don’t completely understand and I do have a good grasp. Ultimately, I enjoyed this article for his depth and perspective despite its length.
Fontaine, Sheryl I., and Susan Hunter. "You Think/I Think; Therefore, We Are: How Do I Need to Think about Knowledge and Language If I Am to Write Collaboratively?" Collaborative Writing in Composition Studies. Boston: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. 1-36. Print.
Illustration of Collaborative Writing
Illustration of Collaborative Writing
Pollan, Michael. "The Farm." The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. 32-56. Print.
To be honest, I did not enjoy reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for it was extremely dry in the way it presented fact after fact. There came a point in reading this text in where I had to force myself to go back to paragraphs over and over again because the only things my brain was catching were the words corn, nitrogen, and government. Admittedly, The Omnivore’s Dilemma— in my opinion— was a mind-numbing read that could be condensed to half its size. Despite my critical perspective, however, all texts offer something insightful, and so I pushed through to discover the following through Pollan’s article:
As Americans, we become so obsessed with being health conscious that we lose all ability to make sophisticated choices about nutrition. Certainly, a small percentage pretends to analyze labels and tries to avoid fast food, yet we do not avoid the “American Paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily” (3). Pollan continues this line of thinking by discussing three aids in making food choices: memory, taste buds, and culture (4), as well as “three principle food chains: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer” (7). He points out the growing concern for the government’s and technologies’ push to alter the natural process of making food by creating monocultures, adding chemicals, and replacing the sun. All of this, nevertheless, was simply background knowledge serving as the introduction for the beef of Pollan’s argument that corn can either serve as a friend or a foe to farmers. He illustrates this assertion through the testimonies of a farmer in Iowa named George Naylor, who prefers nature over technology, yet who is not blind to pressures other farmers faced when giving into government demands. Certainly, farmers are in need of a “higher yield” (37) in order to earn a high enough profit to support a family and the costs it takes to keep a farm running. So what happened to other crops? Well, with the invention of the tractor, and the overabundance of corn that can be grown over and over again, there grew a lack of necessity for rotating crops and animals at the farm level. Having said this, corn is also a much easier crop to produce in that it only requires “riding tractors and spraying” with the possibility of “spending the winter in Florida” (40), which is a stark contrast to the typical mindset that views faming as hard labor. Another point Pollan made was the shift from a dependence on the sun to a dependence on fossil fuels. This eventually led to a decrease in diversity on farms as well since things no longer required cultivation but cost. In the later pages of this article, Pollan switches his attention to two influential men in the production of corn- Fritz Haber and Earl “Rusty” Butz. The first mentioned realized the necessity of combining nitrogen and hydrogen atoms to yield life, and it is with this realization that he won a Nobel Prize for the synthesis of ammonia. The second mentioned was a secretary of agriculture who altered the New Deal that was in effect to a more promising deal of direct pay to farmers (52). Despite the potential that was seen at the beginning of this shift, there was a major pitfall in this plan where farmers were stuck with the pay cut. Finally, The Omnivore’s Dilemma comes full circle with the recurrence of George Naylor’s story in which he presents the Naylor Curve and a prime example of “’Thoreau’s line: Men have become the tools of their tools”’ (56).
To be honest, I did not enjoy reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, for it was extremely dry in the way it presented fact after fact. There came a point in reading this text in where I had to force myself to go back to paragraphs over and over again because the only things my brain was catching were the words corn, nitrogen, and government. Admittedly, The Omnivore’s Dilemma— in my opinion— was a mind-numbing read that could be condensed to half its size. Despite my critical perspective, however, all texts offer something insightful, and so I pushed through to discover the following through Pollan’s article:
As Americans, we become so obsessed with being health conscious that we lose all ability to make sophisticated choices about nutrition. Certainly, a small percentage pretends to analyze labels and tries to avoid fast food, yet we do not avoid the “American Paradox—that is, a notably unhealthy people obsessed by the idea of eating healthily” (3). Pollan continues this line of thinking by discussing three aids in making food choices: memory, taste buds, and culture (4), as well as “three principle food chains: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer” (7). He points out the growing concern for the government’s and technologies’ push to alter the natural process of making food by creating monocultures, adding chemicals, and replacing the sun. All of this, nevertheless, was simply background knowledge serving as the introduction for the beef of Pollan’s argument that corn can either serve as a friend or a foe to farmers. He illustrates this assertion through the testimonies of a farmer in Iowa named George Naylor, who prefers nature over technology, yet who is not blind to pressures other farmers faced when giving into government demands. Certainly, farmers are in need of a “higher yield” (37) in order to earn a high enough profit to support a family and the costs it takes to keep a farm running. So what happened to other crops? Well, with the invention of the tractor, and the overabundance of corn that can be grown over and over again, there grew a lack of necessity for rotating crops and animals at the farm level. Having said this, corn is also a much easier crop to produce in that it only requires “riding tractors and spraying” with the possibility of “spending the winter in Florida” (40), which is a stark contrast to the typical mindset that views faming as hard labor. Another point Pollan made was the shift from a dependence on the sun to a dependence on fossil fuels. This eventually led to a decrease in diversity on farms as well since things no longer required cultivation but cost. In the later pages of this article, Pollan switches his attention to two influential men in the production of corn- Fritz Haber and Earl “Rusty” Butz. The first mentioned realized the necessity of combining nitrogen and hydrogen atoms to yield life, and it is with this realization that he won a Nobel Prize for the synthesis of ammonia. The second mentioned was a secretary of agriculture who altered the New Deal that was in effect to a more promising deal of direct pay to farmers (52). Despite the potential that was seen at the beginning of this shift, there was a major pitfall in this plan where farmers were stuck with the pay cut. Finally, The Omnivore’s Dilemma comes full circle with the recurrence of George Naylor’s story in which he presents the Naylor Curve and a prime example of “’Thoreau’s line: Men have become the tools of their tools”’ (56).
Qualley, Donna J. "Teaching Composition as Reflexive Inquiry." Turns of Thought: Teaching Composition as Reflexive Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1997. 1-30. Print.
Donna Qualley’s article, Turns of Thought, was perceptive and thought-provoking. There were many times when I was immersed in thinking about the text that I found the author almost predicting the pitfalls I would encounter. After reading this article, I still feel as though I am constructing my understanding of reflexivity, yet my understanding of it up until this point is as follows:
Reflexivity is a “systematic, self-critical”(3) fight for understanding that often takes place in the state of “between” (10), yet by no means does reflexivity suggest fighting alone; nevertheless, people often confuse reflexivity with reflection, metacognition, comprehension, and even processing, all of which are solitary acts serving as a stark contrast to the true meaning of reflexivity. Admittedly, the characteristic of looking inward is a critical component of reflexivity; however, this simplistic action alone cannot hold the weight necessary to make any of the previously mentioned words interchangeable with the term reflexivity. Although, the problem lies not in the individual’s willingness to think critically, but in his or her lack of willingness to actively change after consulting the other. To clarify, the other as defined by Donna Qualley is, “an other idea, theory, person, culture, text, or even an other part of one’s self” (11). Certainly, there is abstractness that when added to the mix helps most if not all view the other subjectively or objectively, yet this alone cannot match the authority of reflexivity because reflexivity requires these two entities to entangle themselves and work together. Likewise, reflexivity resembles more of the characteristics of dialogue than a monologue simply because reflexivity is “bidirectional” (12), not “unidirectional” (11). Pursuing this further, reflexivity not only impacts the thinking of the other or oneself, but also one’s perception of the world. The key in reflexivity is to practice the art of reflection and then push beyond the importance of oneself to not only consider the other, but also allow this shift to confirm or contradict one’s previous thinking while leading to change. Essentially, reflexivity is requesting participation rather than perfection; this particular form of participation leads to a conversation whose population is larger than one and whose topic is open to interpretation. In sum, reflexivity is a transparent, self-motivated activity that lingers in the hmm between the head and the heart in order to meet the goal of self-actualization.
Donna Qualley’s article, Turns of Thought, was perceptive and thought-provoking. There were many times when I was immersed in thinking about the text that I found the author almost predicting the pitfalls I would encounter. After reading this article, I still feel as though I am constructing my understanding of reflexivity, yet my understanding of it up until this point is as follows:
Reflexivity is a “systematic, self-critical”(3) fight for understanding that often takes place in the state of “between” (10), yet by no means does reflexivity suggest fighting alone; nevertheless, people often confuse reflexivity with reflection, metacognition, comprehension, and even processing, all of which are solitary acts serving as a stark contrast to the true meaning of reflexivity. Admittedly, the characteristic of looking inward is a critical component of reflexivity; however, this simplistic action alone cannot hold the weight necessary to make any of the previously mentioned words interchangeable with the term reflexivity. Although, the problem lies not in the individual’s willingness to think critically, but in his or her lack of willingness to actively change after consulting the other. To clarify, the other as defined by Donna Qualley is, “an other idea, theory, person, culture, text, or even an other part of one’s self” (11). Certainly, there is abstractness that when added to the mix helps most if not all view the other subjectively or objectively, yet this alone cannot match the authority of reflexivity because reflexivity requires these two entities to entangle themselves and work together. Likewise, reflexivity resembles more of the characteristics of dialogue than a monologue simply because reflexivity is “bidirectional” (12), not “unidirectional” (11). Pursuing this further, reflexivity not only impacts the thinking of the other or oneself, but also one’s perception of the world. The key in reflexivity is to practice the art of reflection and then push beyond the importance of oneself to not only consider the other, but also allow this shift to confirm or contradict one’s previous thinking while leading to change. Essentially, reflexivity is requesting participation rather than perfection; this particular form of participation leads to a conversation whose population is larger than one and whose topic is open to interpretation. In sum, reflexivity is a transparent, self-motivated activity that lingers in the hmm between the head and the heart in order to meet the goal of self-actualization.
Schlosser, Eric. "The Dark Side of the All-American Meal." Introduction. Fast Food Nation: the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. 1-8. Print.
Eric Schlosser’s introduction to his book, Fast Food Nation, is an eye-opening, easy read. I personally appreciated his didactic tone and use of familiar metaphors. In reading the eight-page introduction, I found myself figuratively fumbling the ball, or more literally losing my hold on the knowledge I once considered true in light of new evidence. While the fast food industry makes a ridiculously high profit, provides an immense amount of new jobs, and offers “uniformity” (4) on nearly every corner of the nation, it also has led to the demise of home cooked meals, the extinction of family farms, as well as safe and fair working conditions. Admittedly, the number one fast food chain, McDonalds, has overcome many challenges and should pride itself on its advertising abilities; however, the company should consider the contradiction between claiming that they are “inexpensive and convienent” (8), when in reality they create a reckless receipt and compromising challenges for farmers, workers, and consumers. The following are key excerpt of the Schlosser’s article where the facts were so convincing that I was forced to write “WHAT?!?!” in the margin as I contemplated the fast food industry’s impact on society in comparison to other large-scale issues such as religion, economy, and voice:
Ò “The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross” (4).
Ò “The United States now has more prison inmates than full-time famers” (8).
Ò “The federal government has the legal authority to recall a defective toaster oven or stuffed animal – but still lacks the power to recall tons of contaminated, potentially lethal meat” (8).
If the previously mentioned quotes from Fast Food Nation’s introduction do not spark a need for change, then Schlosser simply proved an unfortunate fact that fast food has become “so commonplace…[it is now] a fact of modern life” (6).
Eric Schlosser’s introduction to his book, Fast Food Nation, is an eye-opening, easy read. I personally appreciated his didactic tone and use of familiar metaphors. In reading the eight-page introduction, I found myself figuratively fumbling the ball, or more literally losing my hold on the knowledge I once considered true in light of new evidence. While the fast food industry makes a ridiculously high profit, provides an immense amount of new jobs, and offers “uniformity” (4) on nearly every corner of the nation, it also has led to the demise of home cooked meals, the extinction of family farms, as well as safe and fair working conditions. Admittedly, the number one fast food chain, McDonalds, has overcome many challenges and should pride itself on its advertising abilities; however, the company should consider the contradiction between claiming that they are “inexpensive and convienent” (8), when in reality they create a reckless receipt and compromising challenges for farmers, workers, and consumers. The following are key excerpt of the Schlosser’s article where the facts were so convincing that I was forced to write “WHAT?!?!” in the margin as I contemplated the fast food industry’s impact on society in comparison to other large-scale issues such as religion, economy, and voice:
Ò “The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross” (4).
Ò “The United States now has more prison inmates than full-time famers” (8).
Ò “The federal government has the legal authority to recall a defective toaster oven or stuffed animal – but still lacks the power to recall tons of contaminated, potentially lethal meat” (8).
If the previously mentioned quotes from Fast Food Nation’s introduction do not spark a need for change, then Schlosser simply proved an unfortunate fact that fast food has become “so commonplace…[it is now] a fact of modern life” (6).
Schneider, Stephen. "Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement." College English 70.4 (2008): 384-402. Writing, Research, and Technology. Web. 1 Apr 2011.
Stephen Schneider’s article, Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement, is dynamic and discerning. He provides a strong foundation and framework with which to explore the Slow Food Movement, and he is not afraid to showcase contradictions and criticisms. My understanding of Schenider’s assertions including the origin, mindset, concerns, goals, and criticism are as follows:
The Slow Food Movement was started by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s and traces back to Bra, Italy due to its ideal location. The motivation behind this movement is based in educating and shifting the mindset of the public to reflect a stronger connection between consumers and producers. Carlo Petrini urges people to consider “food [as the] primary defining factor of human identity” (388). He argues this claim based upon food’s ties to economic, political, and social acts. Specifically, Petrini admires Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin for the angle she takes on gastronomy, for she considered a complete study of food to include things beyond nutrition like “agriculture, cooking, and tasting” (391). Having said this, the Slow Food Movement is not against science so long as it complements tradition; likewise, this movement does not stand in opposition to globalization, for it finds globalization necessary to the extent that it promotes relationships between the varied partners in food production and consumption. It is important, however, to continue the discussion of the Slow Food Movement to include its main concerns and goals. As a result of food being tainted with alterations for efficiency, “the small landowner gives way to the factory farm, which churns out food that is fast, cheap, abundant, and standardized” (394). Clearly, the word fast is a stark contradiction to the objective of the Slow Food Movement. Carl Honore offers a clear distinction between fast and slow:
Fast is busy, controlling, aggressive, hurried, analytical, stressed, superficial, impatient, active, quantity-over-quality. Slow is the opposite: calm, careful, receptive, still, intuitive, unhurried, patient, reflective, quality-over-quantity. It is about making real and meaningful connections—with people, culture, work, food, everything (395).
Admittedly, the food production industry, alongside many consumers, prefers to follow Bill Gates’ “desire to do business at the speed of thought” (393). This is detrimental to the idea of changing the perspective on food as well as goes against the core values of the Slow Food Movement. For one, this movement begs both producers and consumers to consider three principles when describing the quality of food- flavor, environment, and farmers (390). Pursuing this further, Petrini strives to use his movement to promote small-scale farmers and regionally grown food. All things considered, the Slow Food Movement has not escaped criticism. Critics claim that there is a lack of structure, an inability to see the big picture, and an ignorance toward realistic thinking; yet the Slow Food Movement continues to push forward, educating and advocating for the death of the disconnect and fast-paced food production.
Stephen Schneider’s article, Good, Clean, Fair: The Rhetoric of the Slow Food Movement, is dynamic and discerning. He provides a strong foundation and framework with which to explore the Slow Food Movement, and he is not afraid to showcase contradictions and criticisms. My understanding of Schenider’s assertions including the origin, mindset, concerns, goals, and criticism are as follows:
The Slow Food Movement was started by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s and traces back to Bra, Italy due to its ideal location. The motivation behind this movement is based in educating and shifting the mindset of the public to reflect a stronger connection between consumers and producers. Carlo Petrini urges people to consider “food [as the] primary defining factor of human identity” (388). He argues this claim based upon food’s ties to economic, political, and social acts. Specifically, Petrini admires Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin for the angle she takes on gastronomy, for she considered a complete study of food to include things beyond nutrition like “agriculture, cooking, and tasting” (391). Having said this, the Slow Food Movement is not against science so long as it complements tradition; likewise, this movement does not stand in opposition to globalization, for it finds globalization necessary to the extent that it promotes relationships between the varied partners in food production and consumption. It is important, however, to continue the discussion of the Slow Food Movement to include its main concerns and goals. As a result of food being tainted with alterations for efficiency, “the small landowner gives way to the factory farm, which churns out food that is fast, cheap, abundant, and standardized” (394). Clearly, the word fast is a stark contradiction to the objective of the Slow Food Movement. Carl Honore offers a clear distinction between fast and slow:
Fast is busy, controlling, aggressive, hurried, analytical, stressed, superficial, impatient, active, quantity-over-quality. Slow is the opposite: calm, careful, receptive, still, intuitive, unhurried, patient, reflective, quality-over-quantity. It is about making real and meaningful connections—with people, culture, work, food, everything (395).
Admittedly, the food production industry, alongside many consumers, prefers to follow Bill Gates’ “desire to do business at the speed of thought” (393). This is detrimental to the idea of changing the perspective on food as well as goes against the core values of the Slow Food Movement. For one, this movement begs both producers and consumers to consider three principles when describing the quality of food- flavor, environment, and farmers (390). Pursuing this further, Petrini strives to use his movement to promote small-scale farmers and regionally grown food. All things considered, the Slow Food Movement has not escaped criticism. Critics claim that there is a lack of structure, an inability to see the big picture, and an ignorance toward realistic thinking; yet the Slow Food Movement continues to push forward, educating and advocating for the death of the disconnect and fast-paced food production.
"What Is Oral History?" History Matters: The U.S. Survey Course on the Web. Web. 09 Mar. 2011. <http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/oral/what.html>.
What is Oral History, an insightful article exploring the “maddeningly imprecise term” (1) of Oral History, provides a compelling set of guidelines with which to compare Oral History to my own journal writing. In the process, I found riveting parallels and stark contrasts in the areas of motivation and style. To start, there is a similarity between the shift toward the story of the everyday person and the fact that I am just an average girl who is sincerely attempting to tell my version of the truth (2). Are the topics covered in my journal necessarily life altering? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, yet they usually address some form of “social experience” and provide me, the “historically—silent,” (2) a voice. The divergence enters in three major concepts: point of view, purpose, and publicity. While Oral History is meant to provide multiple perspectives, my journal consists of one narrator. At the same time, Oral History attempts to “democratize the record,” (2) whereas my journal is solely under my jurisdiction. Furthermore, Oral History is noted for its “dialogue” (3) and “self-conscious, disciplined conversation” (2-3); however, I can argue that my journal holds internal dialogue that can be calculated and confrontational. The differences are that this dialogue is fashioned out of two different roles within myself and is written as opposed to being spoken. Certainly, my journal writing lacks the interview process required to make it susceptible to outside influences, but technically even that which I believe is original or solely mine was crafted with the help of my environment that includes people and events that have shaped and possibly manipulated my thinking. Having said this, my journal embodies qualities found within Oral History that help to preserve honest accounts:
[This includes a] thinking-out-loud quality, as perceptive questions work and rework a particular topic, encouraging the narrator to remember the details, seeking to clarify that which is muddled, making connections among seemingly disconnected recollections, challenging contradictions, evoking assessments of what it all meant then and what it means now (3).
This excerpt in particular struck me as a critical and intriguing lens with which to compare Oral History to my journal writing. Admittedly, my journal contains elements of each characteristic mentioned above. The differences lie within style. The thought process has merely shifted from the subconscious to ink. The line of questioning has merely shifted from an interviewer to an inner-self; nevertheless, the questions are still critical, challenging, and require a great deal of courage to ask. Inevitably, details are provided in the manner and to the degree that I can conjure up an image simply by revisiting my writing in order. This allows me to readdress my perspective from then to now. I often attempt this process to illustrate my maturity over time. Luckily, in doing so, my eyes have been opened to things I was once blind. More importantly the connection between Oral History and my journal writing is based upon the fact that not only does everyone have a story to be told, but also a desire for it to be told in his or her own words; essentially, when you take the text out of the context, you are left with a con which interestingly is the argument behind the importance of Oral History.
What is Oral History, an insightful article exploring the “maddeningly imprecise term” (1) of Oral History, provides a compelling set of guidelines with which to compare Oral History to my own journal writing. In the process, I found riveting parallels and stark contrasts in the areas of motivation and style. To start, there is a similarity between the shift toward the story of the everyday person and the fact that I am just an average girl who is sincerely attempting to tell my version of the truth (2). Are the topics covered in my journal necessarily life altering? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, yet they usually address some form of “social experience” and provide me, the “historically—silent,” (2) a voice. The divergence enters in three major concepts: point of view, purpose, and publicity. While Oral History is meant to provide multiple perspectives, my journal consists of one narrator. At the same time, Oral History attempts to “democratize the record,” (2) whereas my journal is solely under my jurisdiction. Furthermore, Oral History is noted for its “dialogue” (3) and “self-conscious, disciplined conversation” (2-3); however, I can argue that my journal holds internal dialogue that can be calculated and confrontational. The differences are that this dialogue is fashioned out of two different roles within myself and is written as opposed to being spoken. Certainly, my journal writing lacks the interview process required to make it susceptible to outside influences, but technically even that which I believe is original or solely mine was crafted with the help of my environment that includes people and events that have shaped and possibly manipulated my thinking. Having said this, my journal embodies qualities found within Oral History that help to preserve honest accounts:
[This includes a] thinking-out-loud quality, as perceptive questions work and rework a particular topic, encouraging the narrator to remember the details, seeking to clarify that which is muddled, making connections among seemingly disconnected recollections, challenging contradictions, evoking assessments of what it all meant then and what it means now (3).
This excerpt in particular struck me as a critical and intriguing lens with which to compare Oral History to my journal writing. Admittedly, my journal contains elements of each characteristic mentioned above. The differences lie within style. The thought process has merely shifted from the subconscious to ink. The line of questioning has merely shifted from an interviewer to an inner-self; nevertheless, the questions are still critical, challenging, and require a great deal of courage to ask. Inevitably, details are provided in the manner and to the degree that I can conjure up an image simply by revisiting my writing in order. This allows me to readdress my perspective from then to now. I often attempt this process to illustrate my maturity over time. Luckily, in doing so, my eyes have been opened to things I was once blind. More importantly the connection between Oral History and my journal writing is based upon the fact that not only does everyone have a story to be told, but also a desire for it to be told in his or her own words; essentially, when you take the text out of the context, you are left with a con which interestingly is the argument behind the importance of Oral History.
