Day: February 12, 2017

In his video interview, Brandon Stanton, creator of Humans of New York, discusses the purpose and method of his project. He talks about the importance of allowing an interviewee to speak directly and openly to an interviewer so that the interviewee does not stage himself for the world but presents his real self. Getting people to talk freely, without their guard up, is difficult. You get more out of an interviewee by not treading on the interviewee’s personal mental space, allowing him to voice honest thoughts. It’s interesting that Mr. Stanton is himself being interviewed by someone who apparently came with pre-formulated questions, and Stanton seems to respond in a way that calls attention to himself and his successful endeavors. He seems to pride himself on his ability to ferret out the real person being interviewed, to get that person to talk openly and unreservedly. Stanton claims to have a certain feel for getting past the unseen masks that people being interviewed put on. It seems to me that interviewing has to be learned by trial and error in order to become proficient in it.

The ITT School of Design Video featuring some of the school’s professors and students engaged in the “art” of ethnographic interviewing also emphasizes the importance of getting to know the person being interviewed. This means getting the person talking in a space he finds comfortable. For example, one person who is interviewed spends his days surrounded by jeans. Interviewing him where he is surrounded by what interests him, will make it easier for the interviewer to bring out his opinions. This is in contrast to the student in the street who has difficulty flagging people down to ask them a couple of questions about jeans. The film also presents the problem of how to listen in such a way to what the interviewee is saying without coming off as a nodding “ yes” person so as to keep the interview going. How can an interviewee feel free to speak his mind without some trepidation or feeling of being monitored? One professor says that the interviewer should try to get the interviewee to sing. This is a good metaphor, in that I think by that she means that the interviewer should have fun with the interviewee and thereby loosen him up. The best of all worlds according to this film is to get the interviewee to forthrightly tell his story.

In Response to the Harvard Political Interview with Brandon Stanton: In Humans of New York, it is very clear that the purpose is to tell the story of the individual in front of the creator, Brandon Stanton. The politics are not as relevant, what is constructed is useless. I knew beforehand that his purpose was to humanize New York, to make it such that the crowds of people we pass every day are not just colorful blurs but individuals just like ourselves with their own truths.  He deals not in larger themes: he deals with the struggle of the person in front of him, and only that point. If it happens to highlight an issue, then it does. But it does not necessarily have to, as such is when one’s brother marches in when someone has a girl over (as referenced in the video).  Such aspects of his approach are important to note.

In Response to “Getting People to Talk”: Ethnography as defined by the video, or at least to my understanding, is the acquirement and presentation of knowledge as experienced by those who directly experience it. In order to be ethnography, it must be presented from the perspective of the people being studied. It is helpful in order to understand people better, in the way they live and the way they interpret the world around them, in order to interact with them more meaningfully or market to them better. The value in ethnographic interviews is not all in what they are saying, but also very rooted in what they actually are, and where they are, what their environment can tell the interviewer about them. In contrast, expert interviews put more emphasis on what is said and gaining knowledge that way; the context matters less. For ethnographic interviews, having the right environment, the right tone, and the right engagement with the subject is crucial, as the more comfortable the subject is, the more information, and the more meaningful information, they are likely to divulge. Reactions should be normal and not over-the-top or bored-seeming, again for information distraction reasons. Do not lead the subject, ask very compounded questions, or use patronizing terms like “interesting”, and don’t talk very much.

Integration: Both sources emphasize on listening to the person in front of you and trying to get the most out of few sources, rather than the science I am used to—many data points all answering a specific question. To the fine whistle of the data I’m used to collecting from many subjects, a lot of this is more a loud broadband sound from few sources. That’s something I still need to get over.

Although it may not be helpful in solving quantitative problems as say perhaps a survey would, it does seem like an effective way to gather the insight and perspective on issues or simply the way things are we may not necessarily get from people. The second video, the ethnography tutorial, hurt my ability to take it seriously due to the topic it chose to focus on. Jeans? Okay, great. Why should I care about how we market jeans? I wish it had chosen to examine something less trivial-seeming. I suppose that’s our job. The creator of “Humans of New York” won a bit more consideration as he doesn’t seem to be filtering for a specific topic, and will catch whatever is in front of him. That being said, the second video was good for its purpose, making students aware of techniques, problems, and uses for ethnography, even if it didn’t really get me to appreciate it. I might not have to appreciate it much in order to do it.