We met to discuss chapters 3 and 4 in To Remain an Indian. Amy went through the two chapters explaining how the authors discussed how the arts and songs were "domesticated" to create the "safe zone" around notions of the Other as Native American. The chapters also discussed how N-A's carved out spaces of "Indian-ness' despite such efforts at domestication and cultural oppression.
We then talked a little about what methodology this book represented as an "exemplar." We talked about interpretivism, document analysis, and phenomenology before talking more at length about Foucauldian lenses- particularly the conscious weaving of story and "fact" to trouble an "official" history as well as the authors stated desire to "find the overlooked, recovering what has been suppressed, and recognizing the unexpected requires excavation, rehabilitation, and imagination. All history does." (pg 15).
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
March 6th Notes
March 6th Notes:
We began our review of To Remain an Indian today. Jay reviewed the
introduction. The text focuses on the ways in which we sue policy to make
things safe-in this case, Native American culture. The introduction
reviews the methodological underpinnings of the text. The authors use
archival records, life histories, indigenous cultural ethnographies,and
their information as partial insiders and outsiders of Native American
culture to weave together a narrative. The ultimate goal of the text is
to understand the ways in which policies have intersected with Native
American agency to determine the ability to which a Native American can
"remain an Indian." We split up the chapters and will be reviewing them
over the course of the next several weeks.
We also discussed the implications of post-structuralism and the idea of
the person as political. This week we talked about testimonios and
journals as qualitative inquiry. We questioned how far qualitative
inquiry can go before it is not longer considered valid. If a journal is
a cultural text, than everything is a cultural text. While we did not
disagree with this fact, we wondered where the line is in terms of actual
lived experiences. Examples in the text include fabricated
testimonios-the story was not actually experienced. Since it was not a
true event, is it really a valid text? Or is it valid based on its
ability to transform and empower individuals? We hope to explore this
further in class.
We began our review of To Remain an Indian today. Jay reviewed the
introduction. The text focuses on the ways in which we sue policy to make
things safe-in this case, Native American culture. The introduction
reviews the methodological underpinnings of the text. The authors use
archival records, life histories, indigenous cultural ethnographies,and
their information as partial insiders and outsiders of Native American
culture to weave together a narrative. The ultimate goal of the text is
to understand the ways in which policies have intersected with Native
American agency to determine the ability to which a Native American can
"remain an Indian." We split up the chapters and will be reviewing them
over the course of the next several weeks.
We also discussed the implications of post-structuralism and the idea of
the person as political. This week we talked about testimonios and
journals as qualitative inquiry. We questioned how far qualitative
inquiry can go before it is not longer considered valid. If a journal is
a cultural text, than everything is a cultural text. While we did not
disagree with this fact, we wondered where the line is in terms of actual
lived experiences. Examples in the text include fabricated
testimonios-the story was not actually experienced. Since it was not a
true event, is it really a valid text? Or is it valid based on its
ability to transform and empower individuals? We hope to explore this
further in class.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Jan. 23rd Meeting
First IP Group Meeting
Jonathan and I met at Kofenya for our first meeting. We checked in with one another to see how we were doing. We are both in Peter Magolda’s Fieldwork Inquiry seminar as well as Lisa’s seminar, so we talked about ways in which the courses are enhancing one another. We split up the reading for the week, so I shared feminist theory and critical race theory with Jon, and he focused on critical theory as a whole. We talked about the overlap in political focus of the three approaches, and also chatted about the ways in which each theoretical perspective focuses on a particular population (excluding critical theory as a whole). I taught Jon a bit on feminist discourse outside of what the text offers in terms of different kinds of feminism (liberal, radical, etc.). We both liked the way that we could focus more deeply on a chapter or two versus having a broad understanding of all three.
Jonathan and I met at Kofenya for our first meeting. We checked in with one another to see how we were doing. We are both in Peter Magolda’s Fieldwork Inquiry seminar as well as Lisa’s seminar, so we talked about ways in which the courses are enhancing one another. We split up the reading for the week, so I shared feminist theory and critical race theory with Jon, and he focused on critical theory as a whole. We talked about the overlap in political focus of the three approaches, and also chatted about the ways in which each theoretical perspective focuses on a particular population (excluding critical theory as a whole). I taught Jon a bit on feminist discourse outside of what the text offers in terms of different kinds of feminism (liberal, radical, etc.). We both liked the way that we could focus more deeply on a chapter or two versus having a broad understanding of all three.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Meeting on 2-27-07
Amy and I met today and discussed the exemplar book we will be reading and how we want to divy up chapters to read. We also then spent some time discussing the differences between contsructivism and interpretivism resolving that interpretivism seems to be more oriented toward questions of ontology and methodology whereas constructivism seems more focused on questions of epistemology. Both position themselves in relation to what they perceive as the faulty effort to bring natural science to social research. We then talked some about what it might mean to do research from an "emic" perspective or, whether, once you decide to "do" research you are no longer exclusively emic but etic as well.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Group Log
Tuesday, Jan. 30th 11:00 am
We met in the Ed Cafe for one hour. Discussed which exemplar we were going to choose (To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy...) as well as what we planned for our pilot studies. Then we discussed chpts 9, 4, and 5 with a particular emphasis on indigenous knowledge and research paradigms as well as what it means to be an "organic intellectual" and whether or not current research in education meets the standards of useful and approachable by those we supposedly serve (teachers, students, etc.)
We met in the Ed Cafe for one hour. Discussed which exemplar we were going to choose (To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy...) as well as what we planned for our pilot studies. Then we discussed chpts 9, 4, and 5 with a particular emphasis on indigenous knowledge and research paradigms as well as what it means to be an "organic intellectual" and whether or not current research in education meets the standards of useful and approachable by those we supposedly serve (teachers, students, etc.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)