Ariella Kornreich, Video Response

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.