House for the Homeless

In “Houses for the Homeless,” I think that Ivana has a much more objective position towards the group she is studying than Cintron does in his chapter from “Angels’ Town.”  She even points out when she is not being objective enough with statements such as, “I allowed myself to base my opinions on what I heard from other people, without ever trying to hear the stories of the homeless themselves…But I felt ashamed.”  Cintron was extremely subjective in his portrayal of Angels’ Town; however, he did not preface his subjectivity.  Also, I prefer Ivana’s placement of her self-descriptions to Cintron’s.  Interweaving self-descriptions where they apply in the text seems a more appropriate method than putting the entire description at the beginning where the reader would need to flip between that and the body of the text.  The only positioning aspect of Cintron’s paper that I preferred was his textual positioning.  I found the language of his paper much more sophisticated and interesting that that of Ivana’s article.

Question:  Does Ivana’s recognition of her subjectivity make her ethnography more objective?

Respons to House for the Homeless

Cushman and Ivana both position themselves subjectively in their writing--Cushman writes that he identifies with "individuals sitting on their front stoops in the inner city" (p 4) and Ivana identifies with the people at the homeless shelter where she volunteers. Ivana continuously sympathizes with people in the shelter throughout her writing and reflects on her own background often. Cushman states his position in the beginning and then moves toward discovering the "deep games" inner city residents play through their language and "critical consciousness" (p 5). To me it seems that both papers lead the audience to question his or her own position in looking at the groups being observed and recognize the unfair conclusions we may come to because of our positions.

Throughout her writing, Ivana returns to her own background and tells us how she can relate to the people she is describing. In my opinion, she didn't really leave us much to think about while reading her paper--the content of her ethnography wasn't surprising at all to me. This has me wondering about how much to include about oneself, and also if maybe we should try not to relate so much to the group we are observing. Maybe sometimes when we think we relate to someone, we jump to conclusions and judge them based on ourselves. Thoughts? I apologize for how wordy that question ended up being!

Positioning in "House for the Homeless"

In “House for the Homeless,” Ivana addresses her positioning by describing her experience as a Bosnian refugee and the struggles her family faced adjusting to their new lives. She believes that her “personal experiences have made [her] more responsive and sensitive to the misfortunes of others” (46). Her compassion for the homeless, as well as her lack of understanding regarding their situation, seemed to be the motivating force behind her research. Throughout her ethnography she periodically mentions assumptions and preconceptions she has about the homeless shelter, such as when she “expected to find a place saturated with religion” (47). Similarly, her father’s work experience causes her to make certain assumptions about Solomon’s situation (50). I think Cintron was much more thorough in addressing his fixed and subjective positioning in the opening chapter of Angel’s Town. He gives much greater detail when describing his motivation for his research and his influences throughout the process. However, this is likely the result of his research being a larger and more extensive endeavor. I think Ivana did a better job in addressing her subjectivity throughout her analysis and allowing the reader to see how her personal experiences affected her perceptions of the homeless people she encountered.

Question: Do you think Ivana’s experience as a Bosnian refugee significantly affected what she looked for at the homeless shelter or how she perceived those she was observing? Do you think she adequately addressed this possible bias as she explained her interpretations?

Response to "House for the Homeless"

In "House for the Homeless," Ivana Nikolic uses positioning in a very different manner than Cintron does in Angel’s Town. Both authors provide both their fixed and subjective positions at the beginning of their writings, but that is where the similarities end. Cintron provides the reader with a great deal of background information in the first chapter of Angel’s Town, but then provides very little throughout the chapter titled “A Boy and His Wall.” Nikolic provides some background information at the beginning, but then references her experiences throughout the ethnography, especially in areas where she states her conclusions. An example of this can be seen on page 8, where she states, “I have a great deal of respect for people who have a goal in their lives … That is what kept me going as a refugee.” I find this style to be much easier to follow and more transparent for the reader.

Question:
Which method of revealing fixed and subjective positioning do you find to be more practical: Providing all of the needed background information at the start, or providing some at the beginning and revealing more later as it becomes relevant to the writing?

Response to Weston's Question

I believe that weaving positioning into an ethnography is the most effective method of conveying your subjective opinions because it helps illustrate cause and effect during the research project. By incorporating this strategy into your ethnography you can illustrate whether your biases were accurate or not.

homeless response

Within “House for the Homeless,” Ivana Nikolic utilizes positioning in order to convey her subjective thoughts. This is especially seen through Nikolic’s use of assumptions in her writing. For example, Nikolic assumes that the homeless people are infected, which represents her own subjectivity. This type of positioning is similar to Cintron’s ethnography, as he assumed that the walls of the Valerio household were representative of the social conflicts in Angelstown. Cintron’s and Nikolic’s use of positioning is vital to the integrity of their articles, as it provides readers with an understanding of each author’s biases. In turn, the author’s can use their biases to illustrate how and why their assumptions may or may not be accurate.

Question: In “House for the Homeless,” how would your perception of Nikolic’s ethnography change if she had chosen to omit the background of herself?

response of "House For The Homeless"

I like the writing style of the Rick’s article “House For The Homeless” better than Cintron’s report “Struggle and the Tools.” This is because Cintron tries to emotionally separate himself from the members of the group he was observing despite their common background and ethnicity. This procedure makes me feel that Cintron has eliminated personal bigotry and is very objective in his arguments. On the other hand, Rick definitely uses more emotional appeals to express her subjective opinions. It is very obvious that she feels deeply for the homeless people and she uses the homeless peoples’ stories to remind herself and the audience of their woes. Moreover, Most people usually think homeless people deserve to be homeless because they are not really willing to work and most of them are addictive to drugs and alcohol. But In Rick’s paper, Rick collects homeless people’s stories and explains how their stories change her opinions about the truth of homeless people.

Question: I feel Rick is being very subjective in her article. On the one hand, we should be objective while we analyze the data. On the other hand, I feel Rick’s emotional writing has more impact on us. Do you think the emotional writing is necessary to show the writer’s interpretation?   

Response to Homeless

Ivana does a study in a field that she is very familiar with just like Ralph. Their positions allow them to see the reasons behind the activities of the individuals they are studying. Their positions give the reader valuable insight but I wonder how much it blinds them. I feel that it limits the questions they ask because they ‘understand’ what the person is going through. Despite how their positions could limit their research, Ivana’s interpretations due to her positions are very detailed and easy for the reader to understand. Ralph has similar interpretations based on his positions but they are not as easy for the reader to follow.

How does the language become a barrier in Ivana’s research? Some of the individuals are immigrants like her so does their understanding of English impact the research?

House for the Homeless

The overall positioning in Ivana Nikolic’s “House for the Homeless” is much more straightforward and easy to understand the intentions and reasoning behind her choice to investigate the homeless community. She expresses her immediate interest when her family moved from Bosnia, unlike Citron, whose subjective position behind looking at the Latino community is never clearly disclosed. Throughout the piece, Ivana is able to weave her positioning in a positive manner and is aware that her volunteering may have resulted in her missing aspects of the community, whereas Cintron’s writing eventually cuts off all outside meaning and it is more difficult to understand his goal and message.

Can being directly involved in your fieldwork site be positive? Do you think Ivana was successful without being a complete outsider in her situation?

house for the homeless response

I think Ivana is much more involved in her research than Cintron was, or at least has a bigger stake in it. Ivana seemed to have a fixed and subjective position that is similar to that of the homeless people she is studying . She talked about being a refugee that had little income and were struggling to get by is a similar fixed position as the people in the shelter, and her experiences in navigating the waters of being in a desperate situation gives her a similar subjective position. I think too that Ivana remained a little more neutral and did not insert her own biases as much as Cintron did. I thought it was interesting too how Ivana noted her selection bias in saying that her "crop" of homeless people may have been to narrow and not a completely fair group to judge.

Question: Where is "the line" between becoming too involved in your research subject? Is there even a line that can be crossed?

House for the Homeless Response

In "House for the Homeless: A place to Hang Your Hat", Ivana Nikolic begins by defining her fixed position as well as some subjective positioning.  She says that she is from Bosnia and has a younger brother and parents.  She explains her early childhood experience as well by describing her family's life as refugees.  This helps the reader to understand where she is coming from and what her biases might be before they read the rest of her work.  In Ellen Cushman's "The Struggle and the Tools", she starts by briefly describing a bunch of experiences she has had, which helps define her subjective positioning.  However, she does not show her fixed positioning quite as easily.  She hints at being an African American and a woman, but she never explicitly says it.  Although both authors go about their positioning in different ways, overall they both do a good job of defining their positions so the reader can infer the subjectivity in their writing.

Question:
Do you think it is more effective to define your fixed position and give some subjective positioning right away or to weave it into your writing, making it more subtle?

House for the Homeless and positioning

The positioning in House for the Homeless seems to be a bit conflicted. Since Ivana volunteered at the shelter I feel she was at a disadvantage because she was not able to see everything from an outsider’s point of view. When she interacted with the workers of the shelter, they knew her or recognized her and/or her position at the shelter so it may have skewed their answers. Ivana was at an advantage with working at the shelter because she had the credibility of being helpful and a good person to the homeless that passed through the shelter so it is possible that they were more willing to open up to her since they recognized her.

Question: Do you think it is better or worse to be involved in your ethnographic site? Will it be more difficult or easier to get an outsider’s perspective and real responses if you are known at your site?

Positioning in "House for the Homeless"

The use of positioning varies significantly from Ralph Cintron’s “A Boy and His Wall”, and Ivana Nikolic’s “House for the Homeless”. In “A Boy and His Wall,” Ralph Cintron explicitly identifies his fixed position and implicitly suggests his subjective position in the first chapter of the ethnography. However, as Cintron’s writing continues the existence of his position becomes less blatant to the reader. In contrast, Ivana Nokilic is very direct in identifying both her fixed and subjective positions in “House for the Homeless”. Nokilic opens the ethnography with a detailed account of her flight from Bosnia and her experiences as a refugee. This strong positioning is further weaved throughout the writing, as shown by subjective statements like, “I remembered how before I came, I expected to find a place saturated with religion, and the mere thought made me feel slightly uneasy” (Nikolic 47).

Question: How does the difference in use of positioning effect your interpretation of the ethnography? Do you prefer a highly positioning style (Nikolic) over a less positioned style (Cintron)?

Positioning in "House for the Homeless"

Positioning in Ivana Nikolic's House for the Homeless is much easier to identify than positioning in Cintron's A Boy and His Wall. Nikolic tells the reader immediately about her background as a Bosnian refugee and the struggles her family faced when coming to America as immigrants, whereas Cintron leaves the reader somewhat in the dark regarding his fixed positioning. On the other hand, Nikolic's and Cintron's subjective positioning are similar in that they both are significantly influenced by the respective roles they play in their fieldworking sites: Nikolic as a volunteer at the homeless shelter, and Cintron as a keen observer acting almost as an additional family member of the Martinez'.

My discussion question for the class is: Now that we have been exposed to some examples of author's that have varying degrees of involvement with their fieldwork site (i.e. from Rick Zollo as an outsider interested in the truck driving community to Ivana Nikolic as a volunteer at the Ramsey House homeless shelter, and Cushman as a graduate student at a nearby university of inner city Quayville), do you see any advantages or disadvantages to their central arguments that correlate with their degree of involvement at the sites?

Positioning in "House for the Homeless"

Positioning functions quite differently in “A Boy and His Wall’ than it does in “House for the Homeless”. For instance, Cintron never discloses his subjective positions that caused him to research the Latino community, The writer of “House for the Homeless”, on the other hand, states she is interested in studying the homeless community to “better understand their culture”, which would help to “diminish the fear and stigma” she had begun to feel toward homeless individuals. Not only does the author of “House for the Homeless” disclose her positions at a greater frequency, but she also interweaves them throughout her writing. In contrast, Cintron reveals his positions at the beginning of his ethnography rather than throughout it. For example, the author of “House for the Homeless” often states her existing stereotypes based on her past experiences and how they are changed by observing individuals at the homeless shelter. This can be observed in the following statement, “The whole conversation was somewhat surreal. Here he was, a young, healthy intellectual, sharing his life philosophy with a stranger in the loud and dirty lobby of a homeless shelter. He was stepping over every stereotype I had of homeless people.” Unlike this author, Cintron rarely reveals his existing stereotypes.

Question:

How have your positions affected the fieldwork you have completed up to this point? Are your positions helping or hindering your observations?

Positioning in "House for the Homeless"

Positioning functions quite differently in “A Boy and His Wall’ than it does in “House for the Homeless”. For instance, Cintron never discloses his subjective positions that caused him to research the Latino community, The writer of “House for the Homeless”, on the other hand, states she is interested in studying the homeless community to “better understand their culture”, which would help to “diminish the fear and stigma” she had begun to feel toward homeless individuals. Not only does the author of “House for the Homeless” disclose her positions at a greater frequency, but she also interweaves them throughout her writing. In contrast, Cintron reveals his positions at the beginning of his ethnography rather than throughout it. For example, the author of “House for the Homeless” often states her existing stereotypes based on her past experiences and how they are changed by observing individuals at the homeless shelter. This can be observed in the following statement, “The whole conversation was somewhat surreal. Here he was, a young, healthy intellectual, sharing his life philosophy with a stranger in the loud and dirty lobby of a homeless shelter. He was stepping over every stereotype I had of homeless people.” Unlike this author, Cintron rarely reveals his existing stereotypes.

Question:

How have your positions affected the fieldwork you have completed up to this point? Are your positions helping or hindering your observations?

Response to "House for the Homeless"

Positioning in Ivana’s essay is clearer and more straightforward than that in Citron’s (Chapter 4 only) or Cushman’s ethnographies. There are three aspects in positioning: fixed position, subjective position and textual position. In the article, Ivana does not mention her social identity (for example, a graduate student or a social worker) or the exigency of writing (i.e., a class project or personal interest). Nonetheless, the other two aspects are conspicuous throughout the entire essay. She states her refugee experience and the devastating effect of that to her family, which arouse her sympathy towards the marginalized group but also her low tolerance to certain behaviors. This prejudice contradicts some of her interaction with the homeless; she discussed it unambiguously in the analysis. Her writing is mostly objective yet bears a sympathetic tone. There is a similarity between her positioning and that of Citron’s. The two authors tend to reflect on themselves after observing.

Question: Ivana seems more emotionally involve in the community she is observing, especially when she writes about Hope. What do you think about that? Do you like or dislike her style? Does that would make the writing less objective? How would you reconcile "objectivity" and "intersubjectivity" in your project?

"House for the Homeless" Response

In Ivana Nikolic’s ethnography, “House for the Homeless: A place to Hang Your Hat”, fixed positioning can be observed within the first paragraph. She explains that her and her family left Bosnia during the war and had lived as refugees for eight years. She explains that her family was once well respected and successful but was now struggling to earn an income. Her subjective positions are also often observed in this ethnography. A great example is seen on the top of page 46, when she writes “I knew how insecure, lost, scared, and lonely some of them must feel, since in a way I have been there too”. Here she is drawing on her personal experiences and assuming that they must feel the same as she did. Another example is seen on page 53 in her conclusion when she writes: “I tried to compare my own experiences to the experiences of the homeless. I shared similar experiences with some of them, and maybe that enabled me to sympathize with them.” We can also view her textual positioning in paragraphs where she describes the people that she interviewed. The language she uses suggests that she shows sympathy toward them. “I was overwhelmed by Hope’s story. My mind was burdened with one question: “How can all this happen to one innocent young human being (52)?” She is not looking down on the interviewers or degrading them for their lower social standing. For example, she doesn’t always refer to them as homeless people, but instead, treats them as equals. She uses words and phrases such as: “these people, or an innocent human being” when referring to them. One observation I’ve made throughout the ethnography was that sympathy was a major theme. Also, in every interview, when the topic of family comes up, there was always an emotional response from each of the interviewees; whether it was that “his eyes got teary (Alejandro)”, or “she got very emotional talking about her future without him (Hope’s dad)”, etc. From Cintron’s background information, we know that he grew up in a family of higher social class compared to Ivana. He seems to focus less on sympathy toward the family that he writes about than Ivana did.

Question: I mentioned that Cintron seems to focus less on sympathy toward the ones he’s observing than Ivana does. What are your opinions? Do you think this is because she is able to better relate to them, given the situation she had growing up, or do you think that her personal experiences play no such role in her style of writing?

11/1 Response

Noticing that it is indeed Halloween on Monday evening when I asked you to post to the blog, I decided to cut down your post a bit. Write a 100-word response talking about how position works in "House for the Homeless" compared to how it works in Cintron's writing or in Cushman's "Struggle and the Tools."

Then post one discussion question about positionality or other elements of ethnography as you find them in Cushman, Cintron, and Ilana's "House for the Homeless." ***Please also print or write down that question and bring it to class on Tuesday for discussion.***

Finally, post a brief, 25-50 word response, to someone else's post by 9:00 AM on Tuesday, 11/1.

Thanks--and have a good weekend and Halloween. 

positions positions..

In fieldworking, positioning describes the personal responses of the researcher to the data. This is important in ethnographic writing because such themes help to provide connections for the reader and writer of the study, and provides a credibility to the researcher as he/she recognizes their presence and influence in the ehtnography. Through observations and data collection the researcher may interpret and collect data in a seeminly subjective manner, although positioning essentially promotes "objectivity through intersubjectivity, the method of connecting as many different perspectives on the same data as possible" (131).

There are several methods in which a researcher may position themselves in relationship to the enthnography. Fixed positions include relatively invariable factors like age, class, gender, race of the researcher. These are usually not examined or considered during a study, according to the article. Subjective positions include the researchers life experiences that may influence the study, especially on an emotional level. Lastly, textual positions consist of the language choices implemented throughout the study to interpret and present the data.

Such positions in ethnographic writing can be observed in Ralph Cintron's "A Boy and His Wall". An example of a fixed position may be the authors background as an American male - his middle class caucasian background is shown as he is studying the Latino community. This is especially evident when he first describes Valerio's home and family. Furthermore, subjective positioning elements of Cintron can be seen as well. His childhood and life growing up in the United States would influence this writing. Any especially obvious example would include that provided on page 100, where he describes Valerio's feelings towards the word chero, and how he can relate to the experience, suggesting that he had also had a similar personal experience in the past. Additionally, the author recognizes that spending time with Valerio and the family influences the way he began to think and interact - experiences from the study itself prove to have also promoted subject positioning elements in his ethnography. His writing as a whole is certainly influences by his background and and personal experiences in relation to the Latino community, from which the textual positioning elements are derived. His word choices and descriptions of different situations reveal his underlying feelings towards the community, which in a sense re-iterate his background an socioeconomic class (he alludes to this on several occasions).

Question: if you have already completed your first fieldworking session, do you find any of these elements already present, or have a sense of these elements may be present next time or in your writing? Do you perhaps notice any obvious subjective/fixed positioning (like these had influenced Citron's writing and feelings( already occurring in your research?

Positioning Response

Positioning includes anything that yields a response from a researcher when doing fieldwork. This includes fixed positions (age, gender, race), subjective positions (life history), and textual positions. All of these positions should not be avoided in one's work, in fact the author includes a statement from Horace Miner's study on Nacrimena claiming that complete objectivity is not possible. From the readings, I've gathered that is important to first realize how you are responding to something and why you are responding to something and to then make sure that you include this information in your ethnography.

I believe that Ralph Citron positions himself in the "A Boy and His Wall" chapter just by explaining himself. He doesn't jump to conclusions, but really takes the time to let the reader in on why he has assumed something. For example, he talks about the cars on the wall and about Valerio's dream of being strong. Citron goes on to make connections other images (military and police careers) that create a feeling of strength for other young men Citron knows.

Response to "Positioning"

Positioning is an interpretation approach allowing the fieldworker to address all subjective responses affecting his or her study of culture. This method engenders a relative objectivity, which is termed intersubjectivity: the interpretation of a phenomenon from as many perspectives as possible. It deals with the “objectivity” controversy in anthropological research; it is important because it generates a different and better description of culture compared to the obsolete methodologies. Previous studies avoided the use of “mundane” word, which is part of one’s culture; and the application of “objective” description ridiculed the reality and only to reveal one’s effort to detached from one’s involvement in culture. On the other hand, if one can admit his or her familiarity with a certain culture and to describe it fully in his or her ethnography, the reader would know the fieldworker’s position, which would enable a second analysis on the author upon reading the work. In return, this may give out a more objective image. Positioning allows the fieldworker to place himself or herself in three categories: fix position, views related to one’s personal factors, i.e. age, gender, class, nationality etc.; subjective position, views based on one’s personal history and experience; and textual position, views emanated form one’s specific usage of language.

In Angelstown, Ralph Cintron positions himself through two aspects: subjective position and textual position. He comments on the language therapist’s diagnosis on Valerio’s learning disability. He brings up the question of “not knowing” and “not knowing well” a second language, “might ‘word retrieval’ and ‘latency time’ have been official but obfuscating description of being half-out and half-in a language?” (103). Such questions attacks the credibility of the test but also, it reveals Cintron’s background of having an experience of either learning or teaching a second language. On the other hand, the vocabulary he uses in the article exemplifies his sympathy towards the Latino youth and his questioning of the current system. For instance, when he describes the immigrants tried to construct their culture: “nostalgic,” “separate […] his family […] from the source of power,” “circumscribed by expert knowledge” and others, he shows his own attachment to the “subject” and that is indeed quite powerful and emotional.

Question: which of the three positions do you think you would use the most in your project? Which one do you think you would take for granted most easily?