Week 8: Post 2

I remember an Anthropology professor of mine telling our class one of her moral dilemmas as an “overt ethnographer” was the decision to remain an “observer” of people in their natural setting and not become a “participant” in their practice. During the time she was writing one of her books on the class systems and economic disparities between the two Egyptian cities split by the Nile, El Gisa and Cairo, a child of one of the families experienced a medical emergency and needed transportation from El Gisa to the capital city of Cairo. A function of her role as a researcher was to “learn from observation” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379), but she found herself conflicting with her personal values and professional ethics as well as her power to access medical support. In addition to the mentioned dilemma, ethnographers “must constantly be [conscious of] prejudices that may bias their ability to understand a culture” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 380). I know, in the beginning of this class, we posted a similar response about prejudgments; it’s imperative an ethnographer practice separating their preconceived notions in order to present the most valid study.

For me, especially because maintaining impartiality and refraining from passing judgment on a student is critical to a consistent and fair disciplinary process, I constantly reflect on my hearings and my treatment of students. Since the range of violations and demographics of our students is expansive, I resolve numerous dilemmas with proactive self-work, which often means attending social justice trainings or pre-conference sessions focused on naming how “my bag of rocks” can obstruct the equality I strive for in my process as a judicial officer. I love my professional work and interacting with students in an educational manner to strengthen their commitment to civility and integrity through critical thinking and ethical decision-making. For them to be at their best, I have to commit to bettering my practice and myself too!

Week 8: Post 1

During my undergraduate career, I chose to make one of my minors Cultural Anthropology, as my department required us to have at least one complementary area of study per degree major. I LOVED the courses, the professors, and the research! For someone like myself, an inquisitive and kinesthetic learner, this academic and professional field encompassed numerous passions; and often, correlated with social justice concerns of classism, equity, health-care, etc. In one course, we were required to read Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, written by Alexandra Robbins, an author who “’[went] undercover as a participant” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 374) for an academic year investigating the processes and “rituals” of sororities (in the historically white, National Panhellenic Conference). This book exposed me to ethnography, an immersive research method intended to “understand how members of other cultures interpret their world” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379) without values imposition from the researcher(s).

Ironically, I saw the film Salt this weekend (Side note: HIGHLY RECOMMEND!), a movie directly related to a hindrance of the ethnographic method: deception. Because the main character (Salt), played by Angela Jolie, “took [a] covert role” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379) as a United States CIA agent (her real identity was lived as a Russian Spy), she struggled with deceiving both her husband (Mike) and her colleagues. In addition, she resisted the Russian regime where she, and numerous children, were reared and manufactured to annihilate the United Stated government. While I do not want to ruin the film for those who have not paid their $11.00 yet, I will say Salt’s mission as an “undercover” agent (i.e., “ethnographer”) becomes “so emotionally involved that [her] ability to make objective observations is threatened” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379). If I were to study the “aspect of deception” through the lens of Jolie’s character, as an ethnographer, I would postulate this guided, research question:

-How do indoctrinated children in Cold War Russia conceive of and negotiate the practices of the United States government?

Week 7: Post 3

From chapter 8, I found Trenholm’s (2008) sections on downward communication, upward communication, and horizontal communication to be useful in my current position. Often, I’m working at mock 100 ( ;) ) and I do not afford myself the time to reflect on the successes or the improvements needed to our office communication. Reading through this section, I have become clearer on when we use downward communication (and how it does cause dissatisfaction and uncertainty because of the distortion). As a mid-level professional, I have found both upward and horizontal communication to be a critical link to succeeding in both managing the daily tasks of the office and the long-term, large-scale programming. My former manager was intentional about teaching me the value of “[seeking] out bad news and encourage [team members] to tell the truth, no matter how negative” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 222). Because she was clear about the “hierarchy” in our office existing “only on paper,” we developed a mantra, “It’s us against them, never us against each other!” and established an authentic “climate of trust and openness” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 222). As a self-identified activist and advocate for students, I encourage coalition building and collaboration among my colleagues. I participate in numerous programming committees where idea sharing is free flowing and utilized to develop the best services for students. I understand the potential consequence(s) of horizontal communication, but I do believe when executed with a shared vision, as I experience with some of my colleagues, we’re able to cooperate in a way that only improves the students’ experience and development.

Week 7: Post 2

As I read Marshall McLuhan's media logic and proclamation that “‘the medium is the message’”(Trenholm, 2008, p. 307), I began to consider the parallel between his theorizing and the radical feminist Carol Hanisch’s (1969) essay “The Personal is Political.” Briefly stated, Hanisch attributed the personal struggles of a woman’s experience to systematic oppression; women were not to be conceptualized as “bad” or “evil” because of their “emotions” or “PMS,” but because of male power and privilege, sexism, and ubiquitous gender inequities. Simply, Hanisch’s essay functioned as a “call to action” for both politicians and women. She wanted women, who now had a “voice” in determining the political process to become active and committed to shifting the gender inequalities in policies. In addition, she solicited the attention of politicians, primarily white, heterosexual males, to consider the status of women, i.e., how the epidemic of sexual harassment in the workplace was impacting both a women’s professional productivity and her personal longevity. Both Hanisch and McLuhan’s theories “[affect] how we experience the world” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 307) through the conscious and unconscious consumption of messages. McLuhan’s philosophy incorporates mediums as an extension of ourselves; and therefore our exposure to both personal and social (political) messages are malleable because of our abilities to create change.

To evaluate McLuhan’s “idea that television is a cool medium,” I would have to comment on his invitation to us, as viewers, to suspend our disbelief, placing the onus on us to “fill in the detail” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 307). In considering his concepts of “cool” and “hotter” for the mediums of television and radio, respectively, I think about (similar to the 1960 presidential debates example) who, presently, is ruling those mediums and what messages are they sending on them to capture viewers. While this isn’t a statement with numerical accuracy, in my experiences I hear more daily talk radio discussing religion than I do on television; I often see those on Sundays. And, I believe McLuhan’s cool-hot distinction has validity when you consider those numbers and the success of Oprah on television verses radio. Her “coolness” for the medium of television has made her the mogul of daytime whereas “hotter” personalities like Ryan Seacrest and Glen Beck are magnates of the radio programs.

Week 7: Post 1

While I have not developed any of my friendships "exclusively in cyberspace," I have maintained numerous "social relationships"/collegial relationships through electronic media such as Facebook, Twitter, and through e-mail communication. Something often mentioned about my professional field (Student Affairs/Higher Education) is our degree of separation is more like two people rather than six! (I have CERTAINLY found this to be fact!) Because we travel often, present at conferences annually, and "turn-over" in our positions, as common practice, every 2-3 years, the opportunity to expand a sizeable cyber-friend list tends to be lofty. For me, the differences in these relationships are their focus:"business;"meaning our students, our functional areas, and the progress of our field. We use these mediums as an opportunity to track who is attending what conferences, what are the new trends, and when jobs are posted for review. In addition, rarely do I speak to these people via telephone, as our interactions and relationship building have not extended beyond the surface layers (quite similar to Duck's Filtering Theory, Trenholm, 2008, p. 158) and are not focused on reaching an intimate status. As I age and develop my position in the field, I have more appreciation for the purpose of these relationships, as I have often been someone who strives to develop authentic, rich relationships with EVERYONE I meet. I have learned, for my self-care's sake ( ;) ), this is not possible with all people. Each person serves a purpose in my personal and professional life and our relationships are not less authentic because they occur through a computer; this is the agreed upon communication understanding of the people engaging in the relationship and needs are met.

Week 6: Post 3

Often in my professional field (Student Affairs), the argument of leaders being “born” or “made” is both animated and ubiquitous. As I read through this chapter, I found Fisher’s belief “that in the beginning, all members of a group are in contention for the leadership position” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 195) useful to consider when preparing leadership trainings for my student advisees. Also, I believe I can use this belief to empower my staff team through our long-term, large-scale initiatives. I supervise one student assistant, an office manager, and a conduct coordinator. I believe each one of them has a unique skill set with the capabilities to make progress on our tasks. I agree with Trenholm’s (2008) statement “groups do not need to have a single leader” (p. 195) to be successful as a group/team. As much as we distribute the daily tasks through predetermined job descriptions, I believe we can delegate the leadership so it’s distributed equally.

Week 6: Post 2

Two years ago, I ended a “serious” intimate partner relationship; and it wasn’t until a year had passed (and a budget was adopted for quality therapy ;)) that I had been able to name one of the top reasons our relationship failed: lack of interpersonal bond. In my opinion, and through intentional reflection, I recognized our sociological cues (we were spending the first summer we’d met together) increased our “probability of contact” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 158) and our preinteraction cues (style of dress, flirtation, physical appearance, etc.) were exactly what Trenholm (2008) stated: “surface details” (p. 159). I believe we spent the summer in the “honeymoon” phase, lusting more over the new experience and the excitement of something refreshing and “healthy” (as I’d left my prior relationship because it was abusive). From this relationship, I learned how important, for me, it was to learn the cognitive cues while developing a friendship (before it progresses into a romantic relationship). I’m opinionated, I’ll admit it ( ;) ) and I’m also half Italian ( ;) ), and while I’m open to someone with differing belief systems, I believe the two of us found out too late in our relationship how dissimilar we were and we could not repair our relationship in either context.