Course Introduction: Ethnographic Methods of Assessing How People Exchange Text to Make Their Worlds Functional

Designing this class has been a challenge for me, which I report in the true spirit of ethnographic honesty and "thick description." This field of research methods is vast, with its origins in anthropology—often typified by the classic narrative of the Western anthropologist arriving in some remote South Asian jungle to study the "native population." The fields of rhetoric and technical communication have adopted some of the methods to study less exotic settings, such as an engineering workplace, a biology laboratory, a writing classroom for composition students, and the like. The goal in our fields is to apply ethnographic methods of careful observation, coding of findings, and analysis with writing that faithfully tries to represent the setting and people.

English 5389 is not a class on ethnography per se, but it will examine research in rhetoric and technical communication that uses ethnographic methods to understand how groups of people in society and the workplace exchange primarily written language (texts) in order to make their worlds functional and coherent. Those texts can be anything from police traffic accident analysis software (Spinuzzi) to Web pages at a science think tank (Baake book chapter) to gang graffiti in Chicago (Cintron). The course will touch on methods that are related to ethnographic methods, such as case studies and focus groups.

Ethnographic research for technical communication and rhetoric can be seen as having one of two purposes. One is focused and prescriptive research, where you do exactly that—observe and then problem solve. This is often required in business, the type of work consultants do. It is also typical of technical communication usability studies where the goal is seeing how people interact with technology (or fail to interact successfully) and then recommending changes either in the technology or the documentation that accompanies it. Most of you will take or have taken our May seminar course in Usability, so we won't make that an emphasis of this class. Still we will briefly consider usability and related areas of prescriptive inquiry in technical communication, specifically participatory and contextual design.

The other kind of ethnographic research would be descriptive, where your goal is to record the state of reality and analyze it—but not necessarily fix it. This is more typical of academic research and that borne out of traditional anthropology, where the researcher spends time in a culture and then describes the customs and behaviors but doesn't try to change them. Usually such research will include a discussion section that may include implications (lessons) for teachers or technical communicators, but these would not be the same as recommendations for a specific client as would be found in prescriptive research. Our look at discourse and written inscriptions among gang members in Chicago would be more of an example of descriptive ethnography.

This class involves three main activities and assignments during the semester: 1) Participation in the MOO discussion with each of you leading a MOO session, including writing short lecture notes and prompt questions in advance; 2) two reading response postings to Web Board, and 3) a mini ethnography each of you will conduct, including application for Human Subjects approval from Texas Tech. For many of you, this can be a dissertation trial balloon.

The class comprises online and onsite technical communication and rhetoric graduate students. The class will occur in two ways:

· Synchronously on Monday evening MOO meetings, which will involve class discussions about the readings and our projects as well as occasional collaborative activities.

· Asynchronously through written postings. Students and I will write prompts and responses to the class readings and previous class discussions. Each posting will go to the electronic bulletin board, known as Web Board.

1. Ethnography: Step-by-Step (Applied Social Research Methods) by David M. Fetterman

2. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design (Acting with Technology) by Clay Spinuzzi

3. Angels' Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and the Rhetorics of Everyday by Ralph Cintron

· Articles to be available on our Web Board or linked below in the course schedule.

· Lecture notes posted each week to Web Board including prompt questions for discussion in class and at Web Board, as well as a tentative agenda for each class. Notes will be written by students and by Ken Baake. Web Board URL is http://wb.engl.ttu.edu/~Baake_5389_Spring09

Objectives	Methods of Assessment
Students will develop a working knowledge of the field methods used in technical communication and rhetoric (TCR).	Class discussion and critiques of existing studies, Web Board postings, and the final mini-ethnography project.
Students will be able to choose an appropriate research question and the method to begin to answer it.	Final mini-ethnography project.
Students will understand the roots of ethnographic research in anthropology and how these roots have fed technical communication and rhetoric.	Class discussion and critiques of existing studies, Web Board postings.
Students will know how to critically assess ethnographic and related studies involving field research for trustworthiness, quality, and soundness of methods/results	Class discussion and critiques of existing studies, Web Board postings, and the final mini-ethnography project.
Students will learn the principles and ethics of descriptive and prescriptive field research in TCR.	Class discussion and critiques of existing studies, Web Board postings, and the final mini-ethnography project (particularly in seeking Texas Tech IRB approval).
Students will develop skills in writing, coding, summarizing, and synthesizing field notes.	One page summary/synthesis of the student-led class discussion, and the final mini-ethnography project.
Students will develop skills in instructing others in the techniques of field research in TCR.	Individual activity preparing lecture notes and leading a MOO discussion. Commentary on each other’s research projects.

1) How many classes you have attended. If you have to miss class, let me know in advance. More than one absence would cause you to lose points here, except in unusual circumstances.

3) How well you have engaged other class members and helped us shape an intellectually rich class discussion.

4) Each of you will post your project ideas and IRB proposals to Web Board after we work out details. While not required, I encourage you all to comment on each others’ project ideas, offering suggestions if appropriate. I will credit this commentary toward your participation score.

2) Writing brief lecture notes and discussion prompt questions (about two pages total) and posting them to Web Board by the Saturday prior to our class.

4) Write a one page summary/synthesis of the class discussion after reviewing the transcript and posting it in the same place as you posted your discussion prompt.

You should make postings to the class Web Board according to the due dates listed in the class schedule. To earn full credit you must make a total of 6 posts during the semester. The 6 posts are split up/divided as follows:

Two (2) posts will be your reading responses (see schedule for due dates). These work out to a midterm and final post. Each of these posts should be 2,000-2,500 words long (4-5 single spaced Word document pages), cite relevant readings, and be posted several hours before the Monday class that week. These posts will be worth ten points each (10 points per post x 2 posts = 20 points total), so they should be thoughtful, analytical, and should synthesize citations from the readings and topics since the previous post, with your own insights. They should carry a Works Cited section at the end. You can treat these posts as you would PhD qualifying exam answers.

Our lecture notes for each week's class will have some prompt questions that can help shape responses and class discussion. I may also provide additional prompt questions prior to the two due dates.

I will respond on the Web Board to your posts and email you privately with your grade. Posts will be evaluated as A +, A, B +, B, or C determined by these criteria:

c) How well it synthesizes various aspects of the class, including readings, class discussions, and one’s individual experiences

Four (4) posts will be responses to classmates’ postings—two for each of the two major responses described above. Each response to a classmate's posting should be around 500 words. This should be posted within a week of the original posting and should be directed to the person who posted immediately before you (unless you are the first to post, in which case you can choose from among the subsequent posts for both of your responses to classmates’ posts). Your second response post can be to anyone of your choosing. These four response posts can be more informal but should fully engage one or more of your classmates' postings. Each response post will be worth 2.5 points (2.5 points per post x 4 posts = 10 points total).

Your four responses to classmates’ postings will involve continuing a discussion raised by the classmate and commenting on his or her post. It is important to encourage each other in a class of this nature, but also be sure to engage professionally and critically the ideas presented by your classmate.

Your response to a fellow student’s posting might be very general. Here is an example: “Joe’s analysis of fieldwork in medical settings as presented in Willerton suggests that X is not as important as Willerton claims. Joe's argument is strong, but I would suggest that he is not taking into account Y and Z, as we have seen both in Willerton and in Spinuzzi’s book, etc."

Attendance is required. More than one absence would cause you to lose attendance points, except in unusual circumstances that you have discussed with me in advance. Any written work is due to me via an email attachment before the class in the assigned week. Late postings and papers create administrative headaches for an instructor and often cause a student to fall behind in other work. Still, I will accept late papers and postings in unusual circumstances that you have cleared with me in advance. This should happen rarely; if you have repeated problems with lateness, I will begin deducting points from your submissions.

Any student who, because of a disability, may require some special arrangements in order to meet course requirements should contact the instructor as soon as possible to make necessary arrangements. Students should present appropriate verification from Disabled Student Services, Dean of Students Office, 806-742-2405.

Week	Due	Description
Week 2 Jan. 19	Email to Ken proposing your research (No points, but required to proceed).	A short email that tells me what question you would like to research and a tentative plan of action. We will discuss this via email exchanges until we get something in place.
Week 3 and 4: Jan. 26 and Feb. 2	IRB proposal to Web Board and then to Ken (10 percent)	Each of you will submit a proposal for Texas Tech Human Subjects approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Most likely you will seek either exemption or expedited approval from the board. Forms and information are available at: http://www.ors.ttu.edu/Newors/newhome/home/trymain.html Suggested length is whatever is required for a complete application, usually 4-6 pages.
Week 9: March 9	Written introduction with a brief literature review and presentation of methods (15 percent)	Here you will introduce the workplace or social problem or academic question you are addressing and provide a short background on it, which should include a few sources from the literature that relates to the topic and convinces the reader that your research is needed. You will then describe your research design under a separate methods heading. Suggested length:4-6 single-spaced pages
Week 16: April 27	Written presentation of results, and discussion (20 percent).	This will come in the form of a final research paper that includes each of the two components above, (introduction and methods) revised based on my comments and your further reflection. The main new component of this paper will be the presentation of results and discussion. This paper will have the following sections (Boldface indicates new material): 1) Introduction with question and your very brief literature review 2) Methods 3) Results summarized 4) Discussion of results Length will vary according to whether you have data in tables, etc. Here is a rough guide: In addition to the pages that you will import from the earlier stages, I would expect at least 6-8 additional single-spaced pages for the results and discussion. So the whole project will be 10-20 pages, which includes headings, graphics, Works Cited, and your IRB proposal.
Week 16 and 17 (exam week)	Brief presentation in class of your research (5 percent)	You will each present your projects to the class during one of our last two meetings. This will involve a short Power Point that will guide discussion of your project.

English 5389-Baake: Schedule
Week/Date	Class Focus, Activities	Readings in addition to weekly lecture notes at Web Board (WB)	Assignment Due
1 Jan. 12	Brief overview of research methods, introduction to each other and our goals	Review syllabus Gambrell: “ Practitioner’s Guide to Research Methods” (WB) Campbell: “Qualitative Methods for Solving Workplace Problems” (WB)
2 Jan. 19 (MLK holiday; we will hold class.)	The roots of ethnographic research in anthropology and how these roots have fed technical communication and rhetoric	Fetterman book Ethnography: Step-by-Step Baake book chapter selections: “Introduction…” and “A Technical Writer at the Think Tank” from Metaphor and Knowledge (WB)	Email to Ken with project ideas. After I approve your project, please summarize it on Web Board for all to read.
3 Jan. 26	Principles and ethics of descriptive research	Doheny-Farina and Odell: Ethnographic Research on Writing (WB) Skim the following from TTU IRB Web Page: Belmont report TTU memo TTU Human subjects forms IRB examples: Spinuzzi, Baake (WB)	Draft IRB Proposal due to Web Board for comment from Ken and classmates.
4 Feb. 2 MOO Leader ________	Examples of descriptive field research in technical communication and rhetoric	Susan Youngblood dissertation Doheny-Farina: “Writing in an Emerging Organization” (WB)	Final IRB Proposal due to Ken, who will submit it to the TTU Office of Research Services
5 Feb. 9 MOO Leader ________	Striving for trustworthy information and an example we can discuss as to its trustworthiness	Baake: “Limitations of the Research….” (WB) Odell et al: “The Discourse Based Interview. (WB) Winsor: Ordering Work (WB)
6 Feb. 16 MOO Leader ________	Principles of prescriptive research in technical communication and rhetoric	Blomberg: Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relation to Design (WB) Spinuzzi: “Investigating the Technology-Work Relationship” (WB)
7 Feb. 23 MOO Leader ________	Prescriptive field research in technical communication and rhetoric	Coble et. al: “Using Contextual Inquiry to Discover Physicians True Needs” (WB) Raven et al: “Using Contextual Inquiry to Learn About Your Audiences” (WB)	Midterm Web Board Post
8 March 2 MOO Leader ________	Spinuzzi	Spinuzzi book: Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design
9 March 9 MOO Leader ________	Spinuzzi	Spinuzzi book: Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design	Introduction and Methods Sections Due
Week 10 March 16 (Spring Break)
11 March 23 MOO Leader ________	Focus on two methods that often accompany ethnographic research (Case Studies, Focus Groups)	Elling: “Revising Safety Instructions with Focus Groups.” Willerton: “Writing Toward Reader’s Better Health…” (WB)
12 March 30	Current example of challenges in the messy world of field research	Baake presentation of current research project on how people in the South Plains of Texas understand their water supply and challenges to it. Class will talk Baake down from the ledge. J Baake .ppt (WB)
13 April 6 MOO Leader ________	A full-blown and exceptional ethnography that has elements of TCR but mostly defies boundaries	Cintron book Angel’s Town (Part I)
14 April 13 (University says no classes)	Optional workshop in the MOO on your own research projects and challenges.
15 April 20 MOO Leader ________	A full-blown and exceptional ethnography that has elements of TCR but mostly defies boundaries	Angel’s Town (Part II) Case study of arrival scene images in folk art from the Congo (WB)	Final Web Board Post
16 April 27		Student presentations	Final Project Due
17 May 4 (Exam period)		Student presentations Exam time is 7:30 – 10:00 p.m. We have class at the regular time unless the university tells me otherwise.