Day: February 15, 2017

The interview with Humans of New York creator Brandon Stanton and the IIT Institute of Design’s “Getting People to Talk: An Ethnography & Interviewing Primer” video detail the techniques involved in ethnography and the qualities needed to become a good ethnographer. I feel that Brandon Stanton really got the message behind ethnography through when saying that he didn’t want to be the best at “telling the story of humanity”, but instead wanted to be the best at telling the story of the person in front of him. As an ethnographer, it is important to construct the truth of the story accordingly but not to twist it like the media often does. You will want to leave the politics out of it, because if you start asking questions molded by your own views in order to construct some political message, you won’t get to know your subject very well.

For instance, if you were part of a political group conducting a study and you asked a simple question to your subject about what their thoughts were about the group, the subject will likely be intimidated into giving a positive constructed response instead of a real response. You could conduct a whole study but not have meaningful information in the end. Therefore, as an ethnographer it’s important to be able to get your subjects to speak truthfully to you. If they give you a constructed response and you do not call them out on it, your study won’t be telling you much about who they really are, how their experiences have shaped them, or how they truly feel about something.

Just like the IIT video showed, there are many tips for novice ethnographers regarding what to do and what not to do. The first thing you might want to do is to make sure your subject is relaxed. If they are in a noisy or busy location, then they are not going to feel comfortable and will likely not be able to give you a good response. Another thing to do is re-examine the question you are asking – is it likely to illicit a positive response or will it simply be ignored. In a place like New York, getting your message to the subject quickly and as accurately as possible is important, and is something that novice ethnographers can work on by learning from their mistakes and by practicing.

At the start of his interview, Brandon Stanton asks a very simple yet powerful question. “…Are you truly listening to the person in front of you or are you trying to fit them in to some view of the world or some sort of message you’re trying to preach?” It is not rare in this day and age to find a person or community’s story twisted to fit a political agenda. Stanton discussed how the essence of Human of New York is to take the story for its face value without the political twists, to the point where if he feels someone is purposely trying to change their story, he will call them out on it. The Harvard Political Review video pinpointed what HONY is about and what Stanton’s vision for it is. There is a lot of truth and good in wanting to get the story for what it is and not the bells and whistles that are supposed to come along with it. I think that is extremely valuable considering the society that we live in, a society where the basic story is often lost.

ITT Institute of Design defined the term ethnography as seeing the world through the eyes of different people. On a deeper level, it is trying to understand who people are and why they do what they do. They described the correct and incorrect ways to interview a subject to extract the best information possible. As simple as it sounds, it is important to remember that all verbal and non-verbal communication can have a huge impact on the flow of the conversation. I appreciated the way that the ITT Institute of Design broke down the process to digestible pieces. One thing they stated that stood out to me was the difference between being a fly on the wall versus a participant observer. The ide of the fly on the wall is false because in reality we act differently when people are watching. The term participant observer is acknowledging that being there has an impact on the actions of the subject. This is something that I will take with me as I interview people, as the tone and mood are the difference between a good and bad interview.

Both videos delved into the importance of focusing on the subject for who they are and what their story is. Keeping the focus on the story that is presented and not necessarily the bigger political issue is vital to truly capture what each person has to offer. Before I walk into an interview, I am going to keep Stanton’s question in the back of my mind.

In watching these two videos, I consider myself fortunate that I watched the Harvard interview before that of the video explaining ethnography, in that it allowed me to better understand the concepts which Brandon Stanton was speaking of.

The main takeaway I took from the Harvard interview was that it s necessary, when interviewing someone, to take one’s own agenda out of the equation.  The way Stanton thought of it, if he was trying to mold an interview to conform to a political message he wished to spread, he would be pruning potentially crucial facts away even as they were being said.   This idea coincides with a large portion of the general theme of Ethnography, and that was to try to better understand people, and do so from their own perspective.  The overarching narrative results in Stanton appearing to be the prime example of all the skills presented in the Ethnography video at their zenith.  He gives off this impression as he tells of his ability to mull out honest versus doctored information.  The essence of the Ethnography video was effectively describing the most efficient ways to obtaining this useful information.  Those provided included gain rapport, keep emotions at a normal level and to choose a non-intimidating environment.  My impression was that by mastering these skills, Stanton had mastered the art of gaining rapport, so that his subjects would speak truthfully to him.

Another interesting thing which these videos provided was a contrast between Ethnography done correctly versus incorrectly.  The man in the Ethnography video who kept pointing out his own flaws, such as being patronizing, uninterested, or asking leading or compound questions, provided a contrast to the skill spoke of by Stanton.  This illustrated to me what the incorrect actions that Brandon had managed to weed out were, so that he could be confidant that he would be capable of obtaining the true story of his subjects.

The primary takeaway from these videos is that the goal of this line of work, be in narrative journalism or ethnography, is to faithfully represent the information obtained in the manner in which the subject would like it to be presented, so that one’s own opinions or impressions or agendas are not the primary focus of the work being done.

In both videos I have learned different ways to go about with ethnography that will be comfortable for the person that I am interviewing. My favorite types of interviewing are the expert view and participant observation. I like the expert interview because it allows me to ask questions that pertain to the topics that I am interested in, sand get that persons point of view without making them feel like I am prying too much into their personal lives. The downside of that type of interview is that I may not be able to fully understand how those topics affect the persons daily life because they can give a manufactured answer that the think I want to hear.  Completely opposite of the expert interview, I like the idea of participant observation, because you are able to physically experience the person’s daily life, therefore getting a better understanding on how the topics that I am thinking of allow them to function. By physically seeing and participating in their routine, you see them in their comfort zone, which may make them more comfortable to open up to you. The downside of participant observation is time to get to know their life.

Some pointers that I have gotten from both of the videos that I would like to implement in my own interviews are to be over prepared with questions so that I am more relaxed thus making my interviewee more relaxed with me.  I also will do my background research on the topic, so that I am not asking the person anything that is already written or may make them feel uncomfortable. I will start a conversation with the interviewee so that they do not feel nervous, which will help the interview flow naturally. I will use a location that they are pleased with and be charming, that way they can warm up to me and maybe even push the conversation themselves. I also will make sure that I am not political with the conversation that way they can give me an honest answer rather than one that may sound politically correct, or get a negative emotion out of them. I also will make sure that I keep my reactions neutral and stay engaged that way the person that I am interviewing feels invested in it. Overall, Both videos have showed me different ways to get a good interview that gives me great information to use and help me find the right topic.

Both the interviews with Brandon Stanton and the IIT Institute of Design touched on the importance of the subject and emphasized on telling their stories to the greatest accuracy possible.  In the beginning of Stanton’s interview, he placed a particular stress on the individual and the need to separate their personal stories from a grander over-arching theme. Personalization of stories are what make them unique and their independence from the larger society keep their individual meanings alive. However, while he doesn’t do so himself, it’s very difficult to ignore the context of the story and acknowledge its relevance to the rest of society. As the concept of the “social imagination” explains, society influences the individual and the individual contributes to society. After all, its individual people who make up a society and their differences are what construct the grounds for the tugs and pulls of a population. This begs the question of how does one tell the tale of a single person while taking into account the context to which it exists, but still treating it independent of it?

Moreover, Stanton mentions the need to get down to the realistic stories of his subjects rather than their “pre-constructed answers.” While I do understand the necessity of doing so especially when your work is renowned, but doesn’t that counteract placing control in the hands of the individual? If you want to take the person’s responses at face value, doesn’t it require some level of subjectivity to dictate whether they’re saying what they are in order to get more recognition and likes or if they actually do mean it? And so, wouldn’t that in some way be indirectly connecting someone’s response to a subjectively universal understanding of society and the people in it? To possibly counter some of that subjectivity, one can turn to ethnographic work such as participant observation as touched on by the IIT interview.

In addition, I found the part about letting the subject choose the place to be interviewed because it can say a lot about what and where they find comfort. This is something that has never crossed my mind, but is very relevant to any subject matter because as stated in the video, the more your subject is comfortable with you, the information you can get.  

I think the interview with Brandon Stanton, the creator of Humans of New York, was quite interesting. He states that he does not intend to be the political voice of any of the people he interviews. The people themselves are the story. He is only interested in what they have to say and what makes them who they are. This made me really think about what our project will be like based on narrative journalism. Contrary to what Stanton stated Humans of New York is all about, our project is using “sociological imagination” to see how and where one story fits into the overall picture. I mean think about it every person’s story is special and extraordinary in one way or another but ultimately they are a part of something much greater. I do understand that Stanton wants to treat the individual as an individual but ultimately if someone is reading a piece, they will generate thoughts and ideas about issues at large, from that one piece. Hence, I think Stanton’s approach of just listening to what an individual has to say is a great way to go about an interview since it is without bias and as a result makes people comfortable in sharing their individual story. However, the political message will automatically happen on its own, with or without intent. This is because people will perceive a piece based on how they see fit and how their values, beliefs, and political views make them see it. Perception is what will allow others reading a narrative piece, like a Humans of New York post, to decipher how that story fits into the underlying issues of society and basically allow it to have a political message.

Both videos touched upon the technique of ethnography and what makes a good ethnographic study. Based on my understanding of both videos, I think to be a good ethnographer means that you have to develop the ability to really connect with your subjects and have a mindset which allows you to become your subjects. Becoming a part of their environment allows you to get a true sense of who they are. In the second video which focused primarily on ethnography, it also stressed how important it is to observe the subject’s environment and not just rely on what the subject says to you. This is because they will not always be fully aware they are doing something. However, interviewing people who are close to them or even looking at artifacts in their home might say otherwise. Being flexible in ethnography is also highly important. An interviewer has to know when their subjects are giving pre-constructed responses and be able to change their questions in a way that allows their subjects to give realistic responses, as Stanton points out in the video. Lastly, establishing good rapport from the very beginning is what will allow ethnography to be successful. Charisma, charm, being genuinely interested and keeping emotions and responses to the subject’s answers consistent, all help to illicit real responses from subjects. I was surprised that even a small action such as singing can allow an interviewee to be comfortable with you. Moreover, I believe to be a good ethnographer you have to make your subjects feel that “Hey, I am human and I can empathize with you. I can be your friend and your confidante.” That way, they can truly express what they feel.

Brandon Stanton is confident in his ability to get strangers to open up to him when interviewing them for Humans of New York. He obviously has gained a great deal of experience throughout the course of HONY, along with a lot more recognition. I found it interesting that he now has trouble getting people to be as free and nonchalant with their responses just because they know who he is, where their story will end up, and the widespread audience that will read it. The fact that he is still able to solicit genuine responses from these people is a testament to his skill as an interviewer. However, I would like to get some insight on how he managed to get the interviewees to trust him with their stories when he first started out. Did he appeal to their egos by telling them why he was compelled to document their existence? Did he catch their attention by thoroughly explaining his purpose? Or were people willing to share the details of their life with this stranger just out of pure curiosity?

The other video, “Getting People to Talk: An Ethnography & Interviewing Primer,” was very informative to someone like me who is a novice at interviewing people. I appreciated the parts of the video where the experts told stories and showed examples of what not to do when interviewing a subject. I also found the choice of the word “sing,” which was used to describe the way a subject may talk when they feel that they can be open with the interviewer, to be interesting. This description made sense to me, because now I think of interviewing as the interviewer listening to a cacophony of uninteresting noise, straining to hear a glimpse of a tonal melody. This image fits with the readings from Telling True Stories and Stanton’s HONY, since everyone seems to be trying to find a needle in a haystack–the perfect story in a long stream of words.

These two short videos highlighted the most prominent idea that I have garnered thus far from the Telling True Stories readings: the subject, and his or her comfort, consent, and clarity of shared narrative, is of utmost importance to story tellers and ethnographers. Though the point may seem obvious, it is important to recognize and to understand fully, as it remains the difference between treating an individual with a story to tell as such versus treating them as a story fitting into a larger narrative, and therefore as less than a unique human with a unique human experience to share. Brandon Stanton comments on this phenomenon when he noted in the video that he did not, “want to be the best at telling the story of humanity,” but rather wanted to focus his energies on telling the effective, truthful, and meaningful accounts of the people stood in front of him. In this way, Stanton comments on his own investigative standard in the HONY series, and emphasizes further, in conjunction with the authors that we have read so far, the primacy of the fair treatment of the subject above all else in ethnographic work.

Even though I have learned about ethnography in the past, the “Getting People to Talk” video taught a number of unexpected lessons. The first shift in my view occurred when one of the “expert” ethnographers stated that ethnography was not a set of beliefs, but rather a “philosophical observation.” In my mind, this triggered a discourse regarding the accepted definition of ethnography, including what can and cannot be classified as ethnography, and what purpose there is in deeming the practice a philosophical enterprise as opposed to a checklist of techniques. After watching the video and thinking more on the topic, I think I understand better the linguistic and practical divide between the two ideas. Classifying ethnography as a philosophical technique by which to learn more intimately the behaviors, feelings, and thoughts of a subject allows for greater latitude in investigation. If a researcher was to follow strictly a checklist of steps or functions to fulfill in an interview setting, it is possible that there would be difficulty connecting and building rapport between interviewer and subject because the conversational environment of a specific situation may not be conducive to certain methods of discussion. I think of this most clearly with the differentiation in technique noted in the video between the approach to “extreme users” and the “fly on the wall” technique. With a checklist mentality, it seems unlikely to me that the form of participant observation necessary to understand and observe the behavior of extreme users, many of whom have internalized their study-able behaviors, would exist. Further, I think that the benefit to consideration of ethnographic pursuits in a philosophical framework exists in the gained ability of researchers to craft more nuanced messages and statements about the human condition.

Though I understand better how ethnography should work on a practical level, I do still have questions about the practice and how to implement some of the suggestions for successful ethnography in my own policy project. Touched on in the shorter video was the idea that people craft responses that are not entirely truthful. Stanton responded to this by saying that as he has become more known in New York, more people seem inclined to fabricate accounts; however, coinciding with this rise, Stanton had become much better at interviewing and picking out lies. This is all fine and well for HONY and for Stanton, but for my purposes, as a relatively unskilled interviewer, I am wondering how I must deal with statements that seem less than true and additionally how I should go about securing interviews (re: that montage at the beginning of the IIT video–street rejection in NYC is real). Without the prestige of a project like HONY it seems like the only real way to get this done is to put in serious legwork and hope for the cooperation of those around you. And then the real work—dealing with a multi-dimensional, flawed subject who may breathe politically correct sentiments and lies—begins.