Using the summary guideline provided please do a short summary on the readings, videos, and lectures attached and linked . PLEASE FOLLOW SUMMARY GUIDELINES!!!
PLEASE FOLLOW SUMMAET GUIDELINES THERE IS A TEMPLATE ON HOW TO DO THE SUMMARY.

the guidelines are attached
the readings are attached ONLY CHAPTER 2&3

ANT 3497 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

MODULE SUMMARY GUIDELINES

Module summaries should not take any additional time and effort. You are expected to take some notes while reading and watching the assigned materials for the module.

Use the following template and guidelines when writing your module summary. Always have sections and titles.

PART-1: READINGS (CHAPTER/S AND ARTICLE/S) 40 pts

READING-1: CHAPTER X OR ARTICLE Y- TITLE

KEY LEARNING POINT-1: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-2: 3-5 sentences

READING-2: CHAPTER Z OR ARTICLE N- TITLE

KEY LEARNING POINT-1: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-2: 3-5 sentences

READING-3: CHAPTER OR ARTICLE-TITLE

KEY LEARNING POINT-1: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-2: 3-5 sentences

PART-2: LECTURES AND VIDEOS 40 pts

LECTURE-1: TITLE

KEY LEARNING POINT-1: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-2; 3-5 sentences

LECTURE-2 OR VIDEO-1: TITLE: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-1: 3-5 sentences

KEY LEARNING POINT-2: 3-5 sentences

LECTURE-3 OR VIDEO-X: (IF ANY MORE ASSIGNED)

PART-3: KEY CONCEPTS AND OVERALL REFLECTIONS 20 pts

LIST AND DEFINE 3 NEW CONCEPTS/KEY WORDS FROM THE ASSIGNED READINGS. 1-2 SENTENCE PER CONCEPT.

OVERALL REFLECTIONS ON ASSIGNED READINGS. 4-5 SENTENCES.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

12- or 11-point font, Times News Roman, 1-inch margins, Double-spaced

Make sure to only include key points from the assigned work.

Use template and titles to identify each assigned reading in your summary.

The grading rubric will be tailored based on the number of works assigned.

See a sample rubric below.

RUBRIC

PART-1: READINGS.. 40 pts

Reading-1: Key point-1 … 10pts
Key point-2 . ……… 10pts
Reading-2: Key point-1 . . 10pts
Key point-2 . . 10pts

PART-2: LECTURES AND VIDEOS . .. 40 pts

Lecture-1: Key point-1 .. . 10pts
Key point-2 . …. . 10pts
Lecture-2: Key point-1 . .. 10pts
Key point-2 . .. 10pts

PART-3: CONCEPTS & REFLECTIONS… 20 pts

TOTAL . 100 pts

1 WRITING

ETHNOGRAPHIC

FIELD NOTES

[COND [OITION

Chicago Guides
to. Edltl,_

and Publishing

On Writing,Editing, and Publishing
Jacques Banun

Telling about Society
Howard S. Becker

Tricks of the Trade
Howard S.Becker

Writingf or Social Scientists
Howard S. Becker

Permissions, A Survival Guide
Susan M. Bielstein

The Craft of Translation
John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, editors

The Craft of Research
Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and
Joseph M.Williams

The Dramatic Writer’s Companion
WillDunne

Gl ossary of Typesetting Terms
Richard Eckersley, Richard Angstadt,
Charles M. Ellerston, Richard Hendel,
Naomi B. Pascal, and Anita Walker Scott

Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes
Robert M.Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, and
Linda L. Shaw

Legal Writing in Plain English
Bryan A. Garner

From Dissertation t o Book
William Germano

Getting It Published
William Germano

The Craft of Scientific Communication
Joseph E. Hannon and Alan G. Gross

Storycraft
Jack Hart

A Poet’s Guide to Poetry
Mary Kinzie

The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography
Luke Eric Lassiter

How to Write a BA Thesis
Charles Lipson

Cite Right
Charles Lipson

The Chicago Guide to Writing about
Multivariate Analysis
Jane E. Miller

The Chicago Guide to Writing about Numbers
Jane E. Miller

Mapping It Out
Mark Monrnonier

The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science
Scott L. Montgomery

Indexing Books
Nancy C.Mulvany

Developmental Editing
Scott Norton

Getting into Print
Walter W. Powell

TheSubversive Copy Editor
Carol Fisher Saller

A Manual for Writers of Research Papers,Theses,
and Dissertations
Kate L. Turabian

Student’s Guide for Writing College Papers
Kate L. Turabian

Tales of the Field
John Van Maanen

Style
Joseph M.Williams

A Handbook of Biological Illustration
Frances W. Zweifel

WRITING

ETHNOGRAPHIC

FIELD NOTES

UCOND [DIJION

Robert M. Emerson

Rachel I. Fretz

Linda L. Shaw

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AN LONON

ROBERT M. EMERSON is professor emeritus in the Department of Sociology
at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the author of Contemporary Field
Research: Perspectives and Formulations, now in its second edition. RACHEL r.
FRETZ is a lecturer in the Writing Programs unit at UCLA. LINDA L. SHAW is
professor in and chair of the sociology department at California State University,
San Marcos.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
1995, 2011 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2011.
Printed in the United States of America

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-20683-7 (paper)
ISBN-10: 0 -226-20683-1 (paper)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Emerson, RobertM.
Writing ethnographic fieldnotes / Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz,

Linda L. Shaw. – 2nd ed.
p. cm. – (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-20683-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-226-20683-1 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1.Ethnology-Authorship. 2. Ethnology-Fieldwork. 3. Ethnology

Research. 4. Acadelnic writing. I. Fretz, Rachel I. II. Shaw, Linda L. III. Title.
GN307.7.E44 2011
808′ .066305-dc22

2011016145

@ This paper meets the requirements of AN sr/NI so z39.48-1992
(Permanence of Paper).

To our friend and colleague,

Mel Pollner (1940-2007)

57

Contents

Preface to the Second Edition ix

Preface to the First Edition xiii

Fieldnotes in Ethnographic Research 1

Ethnographic Participation 2

The Complexities of Description 5

Inscribing Experienced/Observed Realities 12

Implications for Writing Fieldnotes 15

Reflections: Writing Fieldnotes and Ethnographic Practice 18

2 In the Field: Participating, Observing, and Jotting Notes 21

Participating in Order to Write 24

What Are Jottings? 29

Making Jottings: How, Where, and When 34

Reflections: Writing and Ethnographic Marginality 41

3 Writing Fieldnotes I: At the Desk, Creating Scenes on a Page 45

Moving from Field to Desk 48

Recalling in Order to Write 51

Writing Detailed Notes: Depiction of Scenes

Narrating a Day’s Entry: Organizational Strategies 74

93

173

193

8 243

In-Process Analytic Writing: Asides and Commentaries 79

Reflections: “Writing” and “Reading” Modes 85

4 Writing Fieldnotes II: Multiple Purposes and Stylistic Options 89

Stance and Audience in Writing Fieldnotes 90

Narrating Choices about Perspective

Fieldnote Tales: Writing Extended Narrative Segments 109

Analytic Writing: I n -Process Memos 123

Reflections: Fieldnotes as Products ofWriting Choices 126

5 Pursuing Members’ Meanings 129

Imposing Exogenous Meanings 131

Representing Members’ Meanings 134

Members’ Categories in Use: Processes and Problems 151

Race, Gender, Class, and Members’ Meanings 158

Local Events and Social Forces 166

Reflections: Using Fieldnotes to Discover/Create Members’ Meanings 167

6 Processing Fieldnotes: Coding and Memoing 171

Reading Fieldnotes as a Data Set

Open Coding 175

Writing Code Memos 185

Selecting Themes 188

Focused Coding 191

Integrative Memos

Reflections: Creating Theory from Fieldnotes 197

7 Writing an Ethnography 201

Developing a Thematic Narrative 202

Transposing Fieldnotes into Ethnographic Text 206

Producing a Completed Ethnographic Document 229

Reflections: Between Members and Readers 241

Conclusion

Notes 249

References 269

Index 283

Preface to the Second Edition

Over the past twenty-five years or so, ethnography has become a widely rec

ognized and generally accepted approach to qualitative social research. But

ironically, in the years since the publication of the first edition of Writing

Ethnographic Fieldnotes in 1995, the surge of interest in ethnographic writing

we noted at that time seemingly has receded. Sociologists and anthropolo

gists no longer take up the complexities of representation in ethnography as

frequently as they did in the 1980s and 1990s; they offer fewer considerations

of the nature and effects of writing in ethnographic research than in those

decades, although these issues seem to remain lively concerns in commu

nity studies and writing programs. But the earlier concern with the pro

cesses of writing fieldnotes, as opposed to polished ethnographic articles

and monographs, does appear to have made significant marks on the prac

tice of ethnography: Some ethnographers now publish articles on key issues

and processes in writing fieldnotes, including Warren (2000) and Wolfinger
(2002). In addition, and probably more significantly, some ethnographic an

thologies (e.g., Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, and Lofland’s Hand

book of Ethnography) and qualitative research guides (e.g., Lofland, Snow,

Anderson, and Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings, fourth edition; Warren and

Karner, Discovering Ql!alitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Anal

ysis, second edition) now provide extended discussions of how to produce

and work with fieldnotes. These developments provide some indication that

X PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

addressing policies and practices for writing fieldnotes is increasingly part

of ethnographic training for many social scientists.

These developments provide part of the motivation for a second edi

tion of Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. But our own experiences teaching

ethnographic fieldwork to another generation of students played a much

larger role in this decision. As we continued to work with both undergradu

ate and graduate students in fieldwork courses, we were struck again and

again by the pivotal role that writing fieldnotes plays in introducing ethnog

raphy and in molding and deepening students’ research experiences. And

we remain intrigued by the varieties of writing issues that students have to

grapple with and try to resolve in order to create lively, detailed, and accu

rate fieldnote depictions of the social worlds they are trying to comprehend.

Teaching in large part from Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes had another

effect: As the result of continuing student questions and confusion, we saw

at close hand some of the limitations in parts of the book. These student re

actions led us to make changes at a number of points in the text, although

we have tried to retain as much continuity as possible with the first edition.

In particular, we have substantially reorganized chapters 3 and 4 on strate

gies and tactics for writing fieldnotes to more closely mirror the sequencing

of stages through which beginning ethnographers pass in learning to write

fieldnotes. In these chapters, we deepened our discussion of point of view,

in particular, focusing on the shifts between first and third person as well

as showing the benefits of writing in focused third person. We also clarified

the many ways that fieldnote writing is a kind of narrating, both in creating

a loosely structured day’s entry and in composing more cohesive fieldnote

tales within those entries. We have made fewer and less drastic changes in

the other chapters, although we have provided a fuller discussion of the

issues of race, class, and gender as well as the relationship of fieldnotes and

ethnography to broader social patterns and structures. Throughout, we

have updated our references to reflect contributions to ethnographic prac

tice since the pub Ii cation of the first edition and included new student field

note excerpts that exemplify our concerns and recommendations.

In terms of the actual substance of these changes, in our teaching we now

place strong emphasis on beginning analysis as early as possible. Develop

ing theory from fieldnote and interview data is not an easy or straightfor

ward process and should be started early enough to allow the fieldworker to

look for, find, and write up observations that will advance such analysis. The

new edition reflects these concerns: We now urge writing brief asides and

more elaborate commentaries from day one in the field, one-paragraph sum-

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xi

mary commentaries at the end of each set of fieldnotes, and lengthier

in-process memos within a matter of weeks. We continue to distinguish

these forms of in-process analysis and analytic writing from the full-bore

processes of coding and memo writing that best occur after a substantial

amount of field data has been collected.

We want to acknowledge the help and support of a number of students

from our courses who have contributed feedback on the first edition and/or

fieldnotes that we have incorporated in this second edition. These students

include Diego Avalos, Caitlin Bedsworth, Stefani Delli Quadri, Marie Eksian,

Katie Falk, Christy Garcia, Graciella Gutierrez, Blaire Hammer, Brian Harris,

Heidi Joya, Eric Kim,Jaeeun Kim, Norma Larios, Grace Lee, Nicole Lozano,

Miles Scoggins, Sara Soell, and Jennifer Tabler.

We would also like to thank the following family, friends, and colleagues

for their intellectual and personal support in this project: Bruce Beiderwell,

Sharon Cullity, Amy Denissen, Sharon Elise, Shelley Feldman, Bob Garot,

Jack Katz, Leslie Paik, Mary Roche, Garry Rolison, Bob Tajima, Erin von

Hofe, and Carol Warren.

Preface to the First Edition

In recent years many ethnographers have emphasized the central place of

writing in their craft. Geertz’s (1973) characterization of “inscription” as the

core of ethnographic “thick description” and Gusfield’s (1976) dissection of

the rhetorical underpinnings of science provided seminal statements in the

1970s. Subsequently, Clifford and Marcus’s edited collection, Writing Cul

ture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (1986), Van Maanen’s Tales of the

Field (1988), and Atkinson’s The Ethnographic Imagination (1990) have ad

vanced consideration of ethnographic writing.

Yet examinations of ethnographic writing remain partial in scope: All

begin with already written fieldnotes and move on to examine matters such

as the rhetorical character of these fieldnotes or the more general structure

of the whole, finished ethnographies built up from them. In so doing, they

neglect a primal occasion of ethnographic writing-writing.fieldnotes. Thus,

they ignore a key issue in the making of ethnographies-understanding

how an observer/researcher sits down and turns a piece of her lived experi

ence into a bit of written text in the first place.

Indeed, most analyses of the “poetics of ethnography” (Clifford and Mar

cus 1986) take as their subject matter the polished accounts of social life pro

vided in published monographs. But such finished texts incorporate and are

built up out of these smaller, less coherent bits and pieces of writings-out

xiV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

of fieldnotes, many com posed long before any comprehensive ethnographic

overview has been developed. Moreover, fieldnotes in finished ethnogra –

phies are reordered and rewritten, selected and molded to some analytic

purpose. They thus appear in very different forms and carry very different

implications than the original corpus of fieldnotes that the ethnographer

produced in the field. In these respects, writing fieldnotes, not writing pol

ished ethnographies, lies at the core of constructing ethnographic texts.

On the practical methodological level, field researchers have similarly ne

glected issues of how to write fieldnotes. “How to do it” manuals of field

work provide reams of advice on how to manage access and relations with

unknown others in different cultures and settings. But they offer only oc

casional, ad hoc commentary on how to take fieldnotes, what to take notes

on, and so on.1 Field researchers, in general, have not given close, systematic

attention to how fieldnotes are written in particular projects. Nor have they

considered how to effectively train fieldwork novices to write more sensi

tive, useful, and stimulating fieldnotes. Instead, fieldwork manuals direct

practical advice toward how to work with existing fieldnotes in order to

organize and write finished ethnographies. For example, Strauss (1987) and

his coworkers (Strauss and Corbin 1990) provide detailed treatments of how

to code notes and how to work with codings to produce finished ethnog

raphies. But this focus on coding assumes that the ethnographer has com

pleted writing a set of fieldnotes and now faces the task of analyzing, or

ganizing, and making sense of them. These guides say nothing about how

ethnographers wrote these fieldnotes in the first place or about how they

might have written notes differently. Similarly, three practical guides to

field research-Fetterman (1989), Richardson (1990), and Wolcott (1990)

devote primary attention to developing and writing finished ethnographic

analyses in ways that presuppose the existence of a set of fieldnotes.

In the past few years, however, some ethnographers have begun to re

dress this problem, giving serious attention to the nature and uses of field

notes. In 1990, Sanjek’s edited volume, Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology,

brought together a collection of papers written in response to a symposium

call “to examine what anthropologists do with fieldnotes, how they live with

them, and how attitudes toward the construction and use of fieldnotes may

change through individual professional careers” (Sanjek 199ob:xii). The col

lection includes an extended history of “fieldnote practice” in Western an

thropology (Sanjek 1990d), as well as analyses of the research and personal

uses and meanings of fieldnotes to anthropologists (Jackson 1990b; Sanjek

1990c; Ottenberg 1990), of fieldnotes as means of describing and represent-

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION XV

ing cultures (Clifford 1990; Lederman 1990 ), and of reading and using others’

fieldnotes (Lutkehaus 1990).

At the same time, Atkinson’s The Ethnographic Imagination (1990) began

to examine the textual properties of classic and contemporary sociological

ethnography. Although he focuses on the rhetorical structure of completed

ethnographies, Atkinson does call attention to the importance of analyz

ing fieldnotes. Emphasizing that at the moment “field notes remain private

documents” unavailable for analysis, he urges the future importance of

close study of “the stylistic features of field notes from particular au tho rs or

sociological schools” (1990:57) and takes an initial step in this direction by

analyzing two fieldnote extracts originally published in Junker’s Field Work:

An Introduction to the Social Sciences (1960 ).

Several factors underlie this long-term, if perhaps now dissipating, ne

glect of ethnographic fieldnotes. To begin with, ethnographers are often un

easy or embarrassed about fieldnotes. Many seem to regard fieldnotes as a

kind of backstage scribbling-a little bit dirty, a little bit suspect, not some

thing to talk about too openly and specifically. Fieldnotes seem too reveal

ingly personal, too messy and unfinished to be shown to any audience. For

these and other reasons, scholars do not have ready access to original, un

edited fieldnotes but only to completed ethnographies with the selected, re

ordered fieldnotes they contain. As a result, how ethnographers write field

notes remains largely hidden and mysterious.

In contrast, later stages of ethnographic writing, centered around pro

ducing finished ethnographic monographs, are more theoretically driven

and less obviously personal. With a body of fieldnotes assembled, the eth

nographer withdraws from the field to try to weave some of these strands

into an ethnographic story. At this point, the ethnographer handles field

notes more impersonally as data-as objects to be studied, consulted, and

reordered in developing a tale for other audiences. The issues and proce

dures that mark this phase of ethnographic writing-coding, developing

an analytic focus, and so on-are closer to the finished, published product

and, thus, more amenable to presentation to others.

Furthermore, field researchers show no consensus on what kinds of writ

ing to term “fieldnotes,” when and how fieldnotes should be written, and

their value for ethnographic research. These diverse, and at times discor

dant views of the nature and value of fieldnotes, have stymied self-conscious

consideration of how to write fieldnotes.

In the first place, field researchers may have a variety of different forms

of written records in mind when they refer to “fieldnotes.” A recent inven-

xvi PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

tory (Sanjek 1990c) found that ethnographers talked about all of the follow

ing: “headnotes,” “scratch notes,” “fieldnotes proper,” “fieldnote records,”

“texts,” “journals and diaries,” and “letters, reports, papers.” Hence, there

is wide variation in what ethnographers characterize as fieldnotes. Some

field researchers, for example, consider fieldnotes to be writings that record

both what they learn and observe about the activities of others and their

own actions, questions, and reflections. Others insist on a sharp distinction

between records of what others said and did-the “data” of fieldwork-and

those notes incorporating their own thoughts and reactions. Yet deep differ

ences also exist between those who emphasize this distinction between writ

ings about others and writings about oneself: Some view only the former as

fieldnotes and consider the latter as personal “journals” or “diaries”; others

“contrast fieldnotes with data, speaking of fieldnotes as a record of one’s re

actions, a cryptic list of items to concentrate on, a preliminary stab at anal

ysis, and so on” (Jackson 199ob:7).

Second, field researchers may write fieldnotes in very different ways.

Many compose fieldnotes only as “a running log written at the end of each

day” (Jackson 199ob:6). But others contrast such “fieldnotes proper” with

“fieldnote records” that involve “information organized in sets separate

from the sequential fieldwork notes” (Sanjek 199oc:101). Furthermore, some

field researchers try to write elaborate notes as soon after witnessing rele

vant events as possible, typically sitting down to type up complete, detailed

observations every evening. Others initially produce less detailed records,

filling notebooks with handwritten notes to be elaborated and “finished”

upon leaving the field. And still others postpone the bulk of writing until

they have left the field and begun to grapple with writing a coherent ethno

graphic account.

Finally, ethnographers disagree about whether fieldnotes are a resource

or barrier to understanding. While some see them as the core of the research

enterprise, others suggest that they provide Ii ttle more than crutches to help

the field researcher deal with the stresses and anxieties of living in another

world while trying to understand it from the outside. Indeed, some contend

that fieldnotes stymie deeper understanding. As one anthropologist quoted

by Jackson noted (199ob:13): “[Without notes there is] more chance to sche

matize, to order conceptually . . . free of niggling exceptions, grayish half

truths you find in your own data.”

In sum, ethnographers have failed to closely examine the processes of

writing fieldnotes. While this failure arises in part from differing views

of what fieldnotes are, it also results from disagreements about the skills

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION xvii

needed for ethnographic observation and writing and about how necessary

skills can be acquired. At one extreme, many field researchers assume that

almost any literate, adventurous person can simply go to the field and do

fieldwork; technical skills, if any, can be learned on the spot in a “sink or

swim” vein. At another extreme, others contend that ethnographic research,

particularly writing fieldnotes, involves God-given talents and sensitivities

that simplyecannot be taught. Some argue, for example, that only those with

the special abilities of an Erving Goffman can become insightful field re

searchers. Training is not an issue to those so innately skilled.

Still others seem to concede that aspects of field research should and can

be learned, but they exclude writing fieldnotes from these teachable skills.

They view fieldnotes as so deeply idiosyncratic and personal as to preclude

formal instruction. Both what the fieldworker does with those under study

and how she understands and recounts these events will vary from one per

son to another. Thus, different researchers write very different notes de

pending upon disciplinary orientation, theoretical interests, personality,

mood, and stylistic commitments. Writing fieldnotes supposedly resists

formal instruction because the sense and meanings of whatever ethnogra

phers write draw upon “tacit knowledge” and direct experiences that are not

explicitly included in the notes.

We reject both the “sink or swim” method of training ethnographers and

the attitude that ethnography involves no special skills or no skills beyond

those that a college-educated person possesses. We take the position that

writing fieldnotes is not simply the product of innate sensibilities and in

sights but also involves skills learned and sharpened over time. Indeed, we

maintain that ethnographers need to hone these skills and that the quality

of ethnography will improve with self-conscious attention to how to write

fieldnotes.

Furthermore, we contend that ethnographers can move beyond the im

passe created by differing conceptions of fieldnotes by making explicit the

assumptions and commitments they hold about the nature of ethnography

as a set of practical research and writing activities. Such assumptions and

commitments have direct implications for how to understand and write

fieldnotes. If, for example, one sees ethnography as collecting information

that can be “found” or “discovered” in much the same way by any researcher,

one can reasonably separate the “findings” from the processes of making

them and “data” from “personal reactions.” Similarly, the sense that field

notes get in the way of intuitive understanding and deeper analytic insight

reflects a theoretical commitment to grasping the “big picture” and to iden-

xviii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

tifying broad patterns of activity rather than to tracking day-to-day routines

and processes. This view, in turn, assumes that achieving these qualities can

get lost beneath “too many facts” or “too much detail.”

Thus, while universal guidelines for writing fieldnotes are quixotic, one

can develop specific guidelines appropriate to a particular understanding

of ethnographic research. In this book, we assume and draw upon an inter

actionist, interpretive understanding of ethnography that derives from the

traditions of symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology in order to elabo

rate one a pp roach to fieldnotes and to the processes of writing them. Clearly,

we offer only one among many possible approaches; field researchers start

ing with more positivist commitments or informed by other traditions

within ethnography would approach many of the issues and procedures we

discuss very differently. Nonetheless, we expect that much of what we rec

ommend will be useful and suggestive for anyone beginning to do field re

search and to write fieldnotes.

We pursue a further goal in this book: to demystify writing fieldnotes,

giving explicit attention to the processes of transforming observation and

experience into inspectable texts. To do so, it is critical to look at actual

working, “unfinished” fieldnotes rather than at published, polished field

notes and to consider how such notes are composed, rewritten, and worked

into finished texts. Thus, we focus on writing fieldnotes in its own right,

considering a variety of technical, interactional, personal, and theoretical

issues that arise with such writing. We also examine the processes and the

practicalities of working with fieldnotes to write analytic memos and final

ethnograp hie accounts for wider audiences.

Our goal is not only practical. We also want to bridge the gap that divides

reflections on ethnographic texts from the actual practice of ethnography.

By examining the practices actually used to write fieldnotes, we hope to ad

vance understanding of the nature of ethnography in calling attention to the

fundamental processes entailed in turning talk, observations, and experi

ences into written texts. It is misleading to try to grasp the transformation

of experience into text by looking only at finished ethnographies and the

fieldnotes they rely on. The problems and processes of writing initial, un

polished accounts of observations and experiences differ significantly from

those involved in reviewing, selecting from, editing, and revising fieldnotes

in order to produce a finished ethnography. Published fieldnotes are not

only polished; they are also highly selected because they have to be tied to

the specific themes used to construct the ethnography as a whole. In con

trast, unfinished fieldnotes, written more or less contemporaneously with

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION xix

the events depicted, are not theoretically focused or integrated, not consis-

tent in voice or purpose, or even always clear or stylistically compelling.

Our attention to issues of writing fieldnotes grew out of our own experi

ences in teaching field research to undergraduate and graduate students. In

the early 1980s two of us-Robert Emerson and Linda Shaw-began teach

ing a UCLA undergraduate course on field research methods. Organized as

a practicum focused on fieldnotes and the field experiences they depicted,

the course insisted that all students go to a field setting and immediately

begin to write fieldnotes about what they saw and heard. In addition to in

tensive small group discussions of students’ notes, we devoted class time to

examining a xeroxed page or two of students’ “notes of the week” -excerpts

selected to illustrate key issues in field relations, writing strategies, or theo

retical focusing. Throughout the course, students posed endless questions

about writing fieldnotes, beginning with such matters as “What do I write

about?” and concluding with problems of”How do I write it all up in a final

paper?” Emerson and Shaw increasingly sought the experience of faculty in

the Writing Programs at UCLA for advice in these matters. They met with

Rachel Fretz, a folklorist with extensive field experience in Africa. These

consultations led to the decision to coordinate a course on writing ethno

graphic fieldnotes with the existing field research methods course.

This manuscript began to take shape while team teaching these courses

as part of an Immersion Quarter program at UCLA in the mid-198os. Stu

dents in this program participated in internships while enrolled in a clus

ter of three courses-field research methods, ethnographic writing, and a

variable topic substantive course (mental illness; control of crime; gender,

race, and ethnicity in schools). The field methods and writing courses were

tightly integrated, with coordinated topic, readings, and field assignments.

As instructors, we met regularly to discuss the problems and successes of

our students. We pooled our experiences and problem-solved, giving one

another ideas for better ways to work with students as they learned to sub

ject real world experience to sociological analysis. The ideas that comprise

the core of the manuscript developed early on as a result of these meetings

and their collective processes.

Junker’s Field Work:An Introduction to the Social Sciences (1960) provided a

model for assembling and presenting our materials. Field Work resulted from

a collection of materials, “Cases on Field Work,” created at the University of

Chicago in a project organized by Everett C. Hughes to conduct “field work

on field work” (Hughes 1960:v). This project invo

SHOW MORE…

Paper

Week 3 Assignment – Strategic Planning and Development
Introduction
Within the last 10 years, the health care industry has seen big changes, not only in philosophy, but also with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There have been changes in political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors that influence strategic planning. Americans desire increased quality patient care, wellness, and prevention programs. Health care organizations are seeing changes in volume and demographics related to their patients, along with labor and technologies related to the health care organization.For this assignment, select a health care organization from the following list:

St. David’s Healthcare
American Academy of Pediatrics
Massachusetts General Hospital’s Department of Neurology

Imagine you have been selected by the facilitys executive committee to develop a strategic plan that aligns to the organizations mission and vision. Use critical thinking skills and research current events of your chosen organization to prepare your assignment.
Assignment Instructions
Write an 810 page strategic plan. Your plan must include the elements listed below. Note that the instructions correspond to the grading criteria for this assignment. You may also want to review the performance-level descriptions for each criterion in the scoring guide to see how your work will be assessed:

Differentiate between strategic management, strategic thinking, strategic planning, and managing strategic momentum.
Propose one specific analytical tool suitable for use as an adaptive strategy that will be the most effective in helping an organization achieve its strategic plan.
Propose the manner and provide an example of how the selected analytical tool will be used to support the strategic proposal.
Research three internal and three external factors that could become barriers to the success of the proposed strategic plan.
Recommend at least one solution to each of the possible barriers to implementing your proposed strategic plan.
Determine the specific segment of the market that your organizations strategic plan will target.
Recommend the most effective approach to marketing your strategic plan and provide examples.
Use at least three quality academic resources.

Use the Basic Search: Strayer University Online Library for resources.
Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as academic resources.

Meet requirements for clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting.

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.The specific course outcome associated with this assignment is:

Design a comprehensive strategic plan that accounts for the internal and external factors that impact an organization.

Resources

St. David’s Healthcare
American Academy of Pediatrics
Massachusetts General Hospital’s Department of Neurology