A series of written assignments have been created to help you develop your thesis text. These will be submitted to your Supervisory Group for feedback. WAs should be submitted as a google doc to your supervisor and group members before the class session in order to provide the rest of your group and your supervisor time to read and comment on each other’s assignments in advance.
Note: Although there are no general reading requirements, students should be substantiating their research with self-led reading, viewings, and audition on an ongoing basis. Written Assignment 5b requires students to submit an annotated reference list with 15-20 new entries beyond the proposal. To avoid unnecessary pressure at the end of the course, it is advisable to be adding a couple entries on a weekly basis.
Copy the template document in the shared google folder and rename the file according to this format: EA1_firstname.
Based on your work during the Organizing, Editing, & Analysis pop-up field school, produce a 1-page output plan (500 words) that briefly describes your anticipated research output (Text & AV). This Output Report should reflect on your process of logging and organizing your data, the kinds of insights you’ve gained and patterns you have analyzed, and how these indicate possibilities for a finalized form in both textual and audiovisual modalities.
In planning your AV output, you should consider the transformation of your AV materials from Sequences to Scenes (from the logic of your experience in the field, to the logic of the viewer’s experience of your film) and how these give shape to particular ideas for conveying your research through cinematic expression. It would be appropriate to consider the role of montage and fragmentation of perspectives. Consider the way Suhr and Willerslev frame the idea of the invisible as a necessity and the gap that is evoked in practices of montage. As you continue through the process of selection you should think about how taking material away also helps clarify what is still there.
In planning your Text output, you should consider the relationship your text will have to your AV output, what aspects of your data you’ll utilize, and the kind of argument that you intend to advance. Consider these options:
- You explain that your field work was centered around making a film, but most of the data you draw on in the article is NOT to be found in the film (or in the rushes for the film – e.g., it may have occurred while the camera was turned off), so no further detailed reference to the film is required.
- You use the article to interpret in other ways, and in relation to other contexts, the data on which the film itself draws: your article includes, as well as a methodological summary of your filming methods, detailed reference to the sequences in the film where the data used overlap with the article.
- You use the article to reflect on methodological and theoretical issues arising from your field work as an ethnographic filmmaker; the article does not simply reference data contained in the film, but explicitly engages with film as method and as form – as a way of doing fieldwork that produces “data” that could not be produced by any other means.
Although the Text & AV components typically exist separately, you are encouraged to consider a multimodal hybrid thesis that combines text, sound, and image in more integrated ways.
Peer Review Guidelines: Feedback should consider the scope and feasibility of the planned output, how well the different output elements complement each other, whether the output makes the best use of the data you’ve seen, and the potential of the outputs to engage intended (and unintended) audiences, including the research interlocutors.
Before the Supervisory Group session (ideally more than 2 hours in advance), read all your group member’s assignments in the shared google folder and add your feedback using the “Suggesting mode” and “Add a comment” options. Reviewers may also “reply” to particular comments where appropriate. The collective comments will be used to guide feedback.
Copy the template document in the shared google folder and rename the file according to this format: EA2_firstname.
WA2a: Revised Research Questions: Revisit your research question and the descriptive subquestion(s) that you identified in your research proposal. Did the who, what, and where of your proposal change? Even if slightly, how might this be significant for how you conceptualized the research you aimed to do? Did you discover something different than expected? Reflect on how this may help you nuance your research analysis and perhaps give you an opportunity to challenge assumptions that you had beforehand, whether your own or those you learned from other sources. Take some time to consider if your original questions are still relevant. If not, revise them to better fit the direction of your research. This may take a few attempts and further contemplation, so don’t feel like what you do for this assignment is final and unchangeable. (approx. 50-100 words)
Refer to part 5 of RPA4 to aid you in this assignment. You may want to consider how you addressed prompts about your research questions in Field Report 1 and Field Report 2.
WA2b: Descriptive Ethnographic Vignette: Elaborate in rich descriptive detail an episode from your research that exemplifies the object of your study, presents key forms of evidence, and helps a reader imagine the ethnographic reality of your research site. Try choosing a person or event from your research, for which you have significant material from participant observation and/or interviews (preferably both). Write a sketch that provides background information about this person (or group of people) and/or event, using vivid sensory details about them (perhaps describing the place of the interviews, their dress, the neighborhood they live in, etc.), with actual snippets of conversation wherever possible, and so on. This assignment has several purposes: a) to cultivate awareness of how the ‘field’ is framed and constructed as a creative process, b) to consider how empirical depictions both expand and delimit the scope of the argument, and c) to lead with the empirical details of your data en route to developing your conceptual framework. (1000 words max)
Peer Review Guidelines: Feedback should consider the applicability and precision of the questions and the ability of the author to help you imagine this other world.
Before the Supervisory Group session (ideally more than 2 hours in advance), read all your group member’s assignments in the shared google folder and add your feedback using the “Suggesting mode” and “Add a comment” options. Reviewers may also “reply” to particular comments where appropriate. The collective comments will be used to guide feedback.
Copy the template document in the shared google folder and rename the file according to this format: EA3_firstname.
WA 3a: Methodological Reflection: Imagine the section of your thesis text in which you elaborate on the methods used. Envision this as a text that will be integrated in your article. While possibly inserted as a self-contained section for detailed attention, an effective use of ethnographic description and methodological reflection often builds through a text in a more dispersed way.
Address the methods you used in the field and reflect on how you deployed them to learn particular things. Reflect on how your methods related to epistemological issues. This is particularly important to do in relation to the visual ethnographic approach. Consider the cinematic choices and how they relate to epistemological insights. For instance: introduction and impact of research with the camera, agreements made on what could be filmed, decisions with regard to protection of participants, and how you (intend to) share outcomes and knowledge with participants through feedback and distribution of text and film or otherwise.
Consider your positionality by addressing your relations with participants as well as your role, presence, impact, and participation in the field. Consider how you gained insights through your subjective experiences versus from other sources. (1000 words max)
Cite the relevant ethnographic methodologies you used (minimally 3 textual sources and 2 films/multimodal outputs that inspired your approach and methodology.
WA 3b: Reflexive Ethnographic Vignette: Elaborate in rich descriptive detail an episode from your research that addresses key forms of individual positionality, research reflexivity, ethical challenges, and/or methodological approaches. (1000 words max)
Peer Review Guidelines: Feedback should consider how well the methodological approach has been described in both didactic (explanation) and evocative (narrative description) registers.
Before the Supervisory Group session (ideally more than 2 hours in advance), read all your group member’s assignments in the shared google folder and add your feedback using the “Suggesting mode” and “Add a comment” options. Reviewers may also “reply” to particular comments where appropriate. The collective comments will be used to guide feedback.
Copy the template document in the shared google folder and rename the file according to this format: EA4_firstname.
WA 4a: Table of Contents (TOC): Draft a tentative table of contents that suggests a preliminary outline of the thesis. The headings should be specific enough to understand your particular project. Provide a 250-word summary on how the table of contents responds to the research questions, thus giving a structure for the argument made in the text (approx. 1 page total
WA 4b: Theoretical Framework: Revisit the theoretical framework from your proposal and revise it according to the ways in which your research shifted. Do some of your ideas need to be nuanced or modified in hindsight? Are there sections that need to be replaced? What new concepts do you need to integrate to address any changes in your analytical sub-questions? What new theoretical discourse(s) do you need to engage to enable you to interpret and understand your research-data and support your argument? What evidence have you collected that supports these claims? (max. 1500 words)
Refer to part 5 of RPA4 to aid you in this assignment.
Peer Review Guidelines: Feedback should consider the relationship between parts a and b and whether the theoretical framework substantiates the arguments outlined in the TOC.
Before the Supervisory Group session (ideally more than 2 hours in advance), read all your group member’s assignments in the shared google folder and add your feedback using the “Suggesting mode” and “Add a comment” options. Reviewers may also “reply” to particular comments where appropriate. The collective comments will be used to guide feedback.
Copy the template document in the shared google folder and rename the file according to this format: EA5_firstname.
WA 5a: Abstract: Write an abstract that encompasses both the written and audiovisual components of your thesis using the guidelines in Wendy Belcher’s text (55-57). (200 words max)
WA 5b: Extended Detailed Outline (EDO): Make an Extended Detailed Outline of your written thesis that produces a bullet point for every paragraph of the thesis. Ideally, you identify every idea, fact, statistic, image, quotation, etc. that you will use in your thesis. The assignment aims to provide a blueprint for your written thesis and provide a scaffold for your argument. Minimum 2 pages (based on 50+ paragraphs).
WA 5c: Annotated Reference List: For this assignment, create an annotated bibliography / filmography / mediography for your thesis. An annotated reference list will likely include 15-20 new items beyond your proposal, including chapters from Transcultural Montage. Your brief annotations (up to 100 words) for each item should show how it relates to your thesis project (ethnographically, methodologically, thematically, and/or theoretically). The reference list should be as complete as possible and properly formatted according to the institute’s Style Guide. A strongly supported final thesis should have 40-50 relevant reference entries
Peer Review Guidelines: Feedback should consider how well the abstract adheres to the recommendations by Belcher, while demonstrating how each aspect of the thesis (e.g., film and text) contributes to the aims of the thesis. The EDO should show a logical progression with coverage of all necessary elements. When reviewing the reference list, consider which items may could be borrowed for your own thesis and any others you know that the author may want to consider.
Before the Supervisory Group session (ideally more than 2 hours in advance), read all your group member’s assignments in the shared google folder and add your feedback using the “Suggesting mode” and “Add a comment” options. Reviewers may also “reply” to particular comments where appropriate. The collective comments will be used to guide feedback.
