Category: Response Papers (Feb 15) (Page 2 of 2)

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.

Brandon Stanton says he must “steer the conversation away from pre-constructed answers” while interviewing people, and wants the honest truth, not what the interviewees think the right answer is. How can I point out the honest truth and steer the conversation? I feel I’ll understand once the interviews occur but I’m not exactly 100%. What if I try to steer their answers and it turns out to be a disaster? How do I steer their answers to honest answers with an invisible hand?

During the interview, Stanton wants to understand the person and not to squeeze him/her into a political category. If the class is interviewing people with an issue in mind, we will have policy ideas that they will fit in to. I thought I should ask questions about their lives that don’t pertain to any policy issues I previously had in mind, and maybe I would understand the individual just a bit more. Thoughts anyone?

While I watched the ethnography video, I kept thinking how I have to speak to strangers and how can I make them feel comfortable when I will most definitely not be comfortable. I know the interviewee must be comfortable for reliable data to be told. But what do I do? Fluff up a pillow for them and let them know I’m nervous as well? I understand the video but understanding what to do and actually doing it are completely different. At the end of the video, Colleen Murray suggests to watch other interviewers to see the ethnography process. I probably need a run through of an interview process, for example, to understand what transitions words to use, but not transition words that will make the rapport weaker.

The video also suggested that interviewers can’t just observe what their interviewees are saying, but the interviewers must participate with the interviewees. But if I’m interviewing people about human trafficking or homelessness, I can’t participate as they are forced to work and I can’t sleep with the homeless overnight (I mean I could but not if I just met them). I don’t want to butcher their stories. How do I work my way around that and truly understand my interviewees if I can’t participate?

The main thing that I took away from watching these videos was how much attention must be placed on making the subject of your interview as comfortable as possible. While that is something that seems obvious to most people, I never realized how many little things can possibly lead to you either offending or scaring the person you are interviewing, as well as many other effects you can have on your subject. In the “Getting People to Talk” video, there were a plethora of things that were pointed out as terrible things to do. Amongst them were reacting strongly to something that was said (like when one of the interviewers was so shocked that the woman he was interviewing was only 24), nodding your head too much/repeating words such as ‘yea’ ‘uh-huh’, in addition to other things that could lead to you subject losing their comfort with you.

In the interview with Brandon Stanton, he mentioned briefly that he never looks to have an agenda and then fit the people he interviews into it. He feels that in order to get the best out of people he has to have one interest only and that is them; meaning, he focus all his attention on the individual and nothing else. This also shows the importance he places on making sure your subject gets the sense you care about them and making sure they are comfortable.

Another thing spoken about in “Getting People to Talk” was how to set up the room (i.e. how many cameras, recorders, people should be there for the interview), who the subject should be allowed to give the interview with, etc. Once again, the main focus is all on doing whatever can be done to ensure that the person sitting across from you, or next to you, doesn’t feel the least bit uneasy.

After completing both videos, I left with more of a sense of just how important it is to do everything in your capabilities to make sure the subject of your interview feels extremely comfortable with you and their surroundings. Just saying one misplaced word, or not saying something when you should, or nodding your head a few times too many, are just some of the things that can turn a potentially golden interview into one in which the person is now not as comfortable and therefore not going to share as much information as they would have.

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.