The purpose of this exercise is for you to begin to observe and take notes in your field setting and to help you to develop a number of key research skills:
• note taking/recording
• organization of data
• research design
“LIVE AND UP CLOSE” OBSERVATION: Conduct short (10-30 minute) observations (2-4) on the topic that you are planning to research this term. Choose a place and time to observe that allows you to take continuous notes without interruption.
Create a Field note Label
• Record the date, day of week, time of day, weather, and other factors that you think may be relevant to understanding what is happening.
• Describe the setting.
• Make a “map” or take a picture of the activity noting features of the physical environment that seem to be significant.
• Write a brief general description of what is going on. This is mainly for background and context. Also record your reactions and thoughts about what is going on.
• Describe in detail the activity you are seeing. At this point, keep it concrete, specific and chronological: “The light changed from ‘walk’ to ‘wait.’ Three of the people at the intersection slowed and stopped, but the other four hastened across.” is better than “No one was paying attention to the traffic signal.” You may wish to alternate between the outline of collective picture and focus upon a particular aspect, perhaps an individual or dual cluster within the setting. Mark off sections in your notes where you speculate upon motives, perceptions, patterns, or other thoughts about the bigger picture of what you are seeing.
• When you have completed a “round” of observation” (don’t stretch it out too long) go back and fill in important but missing details from memory. You can star, number or otherwise mark the first text to cross-reference this second run-through.
• List some possible research angles and how you would investigate this further. Include discussion of problems and obstacles that you anticipate in going further with a research problem or two that you have isolated. Consider the degree of human interference your project will entail, including how that might affect both your access and other people’s privacy, comfort level, or well-being. Compare your style in these notes with the other observations you have completed yourself, or with styles we have seen from each other and handouts, noting especially any anticipated shortcomings in your own method.
Write-Up (To be Turned In)
• Once you have done a few of these exercises (1-4), choose one promising sample and write it up (about 500 words)
• You may wish to revisit the site for a redraw of your map (but note how things change!). There will naturally be organizational and coherency changes in this version, and probably new ideas, perhaps you will have discussed the project with someone else in the meantime, and your new version reflects that added perspective.
What you will turn in will consist of a detailed report of your observation. You should have several sample options in your notes, from which you choose one to “write-up” for this exercise. Note that this exercise brings you face to face with the important question of access. Although you have not yet done the “negotiation” process, this will help you think about what range human activities are actually available to you.
Observation Write-up Due:
Example Pilot Observation ‘Write-Up’
The Neverwinter Nights online RPG server “the Lost Dale;” Sunday, January 25; 2:48 PM. Because the players live in an assortment of places across North America and Europe, the out-of-game atmosphere varies. In-game, five characters are gathered just inside the southern gate of a small town located on an island within the fantasy realm of Faerun, four of whom are female. They are participating in a role-play event led by a DM, or game master. I watch from nearby as another DM. The in-game time is twelve o’clock on the tenth day of January. The weather is sunny.
A DM event is an occasion where several people come together on digital avatars to role-play, while a game master controls external factors like the environment or NPCs (characters that are not played by anyone except the DM). The role-play is text-based. On their individual computers, the players type out the things which their characters might do or say. The text boxes appear in a window near the bottom left of the screen. Just as I arrive, the DM informs me that this particular event is an “Exorcist tribute.” The DM explains to me that demonic influences are leading the characters toward insanity. A few of these characters have been on the server for several months; two of them were only created that day. The server itself proclaims a devotion to role-play, allowing the traditional game mechanics to occur only as they support the realistic and creative development of each character. DM events often only last up to a few hours in real time, and it occurs to me that this one has been going on for a while. As far as I can conclude, there is nothing abnormal about the event.
As I arrive, one of the four female characters appears to be decaying. The second female is using magick on the male, who lies dead on the ground. The third female is trying to remove a mask that has adhered to her skin, with the help of the fourth female. The magick brings the male back to life, who sits up and appears confused. As this is happening, the DM alternates between continuing the storyline of the event and speaking with me in private messages. From an out-of-game perspective, I observe that each of the five characters conveys actions by applying asterisks to either side of the action commentary, like this: she demonstrates. Spoken phrases are typed without any identifying punctuation. During this time, spelling mistakes go generally unnoted. The DM posts actions within brackets. The first woman recovers from her “illness” just as the third woman is able to free herself from the mask. At this point, the player who controls the third woman remarks out-of-character to any listening DMs: “panic will do strange things to a girl :D” (I have added the quotations). The player then adds that he is having a “great time.” At this point, five minutes have passed. The DM causes a mass of writhing spiders to appear on the ground as the five characters are bandaging each other. The male then makes a concerned remark about a charm. The other characters direct his attention to the fourth woman, who is talking to no visible subject. This is a point of speculation I must note. Throughout the course of event I was able to observe the significance of the charm, but I was not able to learn how the event began, where the charm came from, or what exactly it did (the event ended and the players left before I had the chance to ask). I am also unable to view any private messages between the DM and the other players. The spiders envelop the fourth woman. Afterwards, when she looks for the charm, she is unable to find it. The male suggests they walk into town, where they might find answers. At this point I receive another private message from the DM, who remarks: “If the poor things head into the temple, they’re doomed xD” (once again, the quotations are mine). Near the temple, the man begins to scream for an imp to show itself. Like the charm, I was unable to learn the details of the imp’s role in this encounter. The town appears ghostly, and then all of the buildings begin to burn. Frightened, the male attempts to leave and is immediately teleported back to the site of the group. While his attempt marks the end of the fifteen-minute period which I chose as my round of observation, I continued to watch and take notes until the event’s conclusion.
Possible Research Angles:
This direction of thought is the very reason I’ve taken as my subject of interest: interactive group role-play as it appears online and in face-to-face settings. The ethnography of online interactions is still fairly underdeveloped, and for our era it seems like a promising direction. There are several research angles that could be interesting to take, among them: the linguistic differences between online and interpersonal role-play, the way social issues like gender or race are addressed through fictional characters and how those reflect back onto the players, or the differences in the ways people communicate out-of-character within the different gaming settings.
The most obvious problems that occur to me involve the limitations of online interaction. Vocal qualities, facial expressions, and any other attributes that the player does not choose to convey become subsequently inaccessible to the ethnographer. Another issue is the problem of honesty; anyone can be anyone online. Interviews and other methods of analysis are limited by the fact that players may choose to provide information that is not, by current social definitions, true. A forty-five-year-old father and husband from Texas could introduce himself as a twenty-four-year-old single woman from California. A twelve-year-old girl could present herself as a responsible nineteen-year-old adult. Age, gender, sexuality, geographic location, and any other statistical variables are entirely malleable. In addition to this, any difficulties that ethnographers generally have to grapple with must still be applied.
The United States is home to probably the most famous and productive chronic executioners ever. Names, for example, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and the Zodiac Killer have become commonly recognized names because of the awful idea of their violations. Quite possibly the most productive chronic executioners in American history is John Wayne Gacy. Nicknamed the Killer Clown due to his calling, Gacy assaulted and killed at any rate 33 teen young men and youngsters somewhere in the range of 1972 and 1978, which is one of the most elevated realized casualty tallies. Gacy's story has become so notable that his violations have been highlighted in mainstream society and TV shows, for example, American Horror Story: Hotel and Criminal Minds. Criminological science has, and proceeds to, assume a significant part in the addressing of the case and ID of the people in question. John Wayne Gacy's set of experiences of sexual and psychological mistreatment was instrumental in arousing examiner's curiosity of him as a suspect. John Wayne Gacy was brought into the world on March 17, 1942, in Chicago, Illinois. Being the solitary child out of three kids, Gacy had a stressed relationship with his dad, who drank intensely and was frequently oppressive towards the whole family (Sullivan and Maiken 48). In 1949, a worker for hire, who was a family companion, would pet Gacy during rides in his truck; notwithstanding, Gacy never uncovered these experiences to his folks inspired by a paranoid fear of revenge from his dad (Foreman 54). His dad's mental maltreatment proceeded into his young grown-up years, and Gacy moved to Las Vegas where he worked momentarily in the rescue vehicle administration prior to turning into a funeral home specialist (Sullivan and Maiken 50). As a funeral home specialist, Gacy was intensely engaged with the preserving cycle and conceded that one night, he moved into the final resting place of an expired adolescent kid and touched the body (Cahill and Ewing 46). Stunned at himself, Gacy re-visitations of Chicago to live with his family and graduates from Northwestern Business College in 1963, and acknowledges an administration student position with Nunn-Bush Shoe Company. In 1964, Gacy is moved to Springfield and meets his future spouse, Marlynn Myers. In Springfield, Gacy has his subsequent gay experience when a colleague shakily performed oral sex on him (London 11:7). Gacy moves to Waterloo, Iowa, and starts a family with Myers. Notwithstanding, after consistently undermining his significant other with whores, Gacy submits his originally known rape in 1967 upon Donald Vorhees. In the coming months, Gacy explicitly manhandles a few different young people and is captured and accused of oral homosexuality (Sullivan and Maiken 60). On December 3, 1968, Gacy is indicted and condemned to ten years at the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Gacy turns into a model prisoner at Anamosa and is allowed parole in June of 1970, an only a brief time after his condemning. He had to migrate to Chicago and live with his mom and notice a 10:00PM check in time. Not exactly a year later, Gacy is accused again of explicitly attacking a teen kid however the young didn't show up in court, so the charges were dropped. Gacy was known by numerous individuals locally to be an energetic volunteer and being dynamic in local area governmental issues. His part as "Pogo the Clown" the jokester started in 1975 when Gacy joined a nearby "Cheerful Joker" comedian club that consistently performed at raising money occasions. On January 3, 1972, Gacy submits his first homicide of Timothy McCoy, a 16-year old kid venturing out from Michigan to Omaha. Guaranteeing that McCoy went into his room using a kitchen blade, Gacy gets into an actual squabble with McCoy prior to wounding him over and again in the chest. In the wake of understanding that McCoy had absentmindedly strolled into the stay with the blade while attempting to plan breakfast, Gacy covers the body in his unfinished plumbing space. Gacy conceded in the meetings following his capture that slaughtering McCoy gave him a "mind-desensitizing climax", expressing that this homicide was the point at which he "understood passing was a definitive rush" (Cahill and Ewing 349). Right around 2 years after the fact, Gacy submits his second homicide of a unidentified teen. Gacy choked the kid prior to stuffing the body in his wardrobe prior to covering him (Cahill 349). In 1975, Gacy's business was developing rapidly and his craving for young fellows developed with it. Gacy regularly baited young fellows under his work to his home, persuading them to place themselves in cuffs, and assaulting and tormenting them prior to choking them (Cahill 169-170). The greater part of Gacy's homicides occurred somewhere in the range of 1976 and 1978, the first of this time occurring in April 1976. A considerable lot of the adolescents that were killed during this time were covered in an unfinished plumbing space under Gacy's home. For the rest of the killings, Gacy confessed to losing five bodies the I-55 extension into the Des Plaines River; nonetheless, just four of the bodies were ever recuperated (Linedecker 152). In December 1978, Gacy meets Robert Jerome Piest, a 15-year old kid working at a drug store and offers him a work at Gacy's firm. Piest advises his mom regarding this and neglects to restore that night. The Piest family records a missing individual's report and the drug specialist educates police that Gacy would no doubt be the man that Jerome addressed about a work. When addressed by the police, Gacy denied any contribution in Piest's vanishing. Notwithstanding, the police were not persuaded, and Gacy's set of experiences of sexual maltreatment and battery incited the police to look through his home. Among the things found at Gacy's home were a 1975 secondary school class ring with the initials J.A.S., different driver's licenses, binds, dress that was excessively little for Gacy, and a receipt for the drug store that Piest had worked at. Throughout the span of the following not many days, agents got various calls and tips about Gacy's rapes and the puzzling vanishings of Gacy's workers. The class ring was at last followed back to John A. Szyc, one of Gacy's casualties in 1977. Futhermore, after inspecting Gacy's vehicle, agents found a little group of strands looking like human hair, which were shipped off the labs for additional examination. That very night, search canines were utilized to recognize any hint of Piest in Gacy's vehicle, and one of the canines showed that Piest had, indeed, been available in the vehicle. On December 20, 1977, under the pressure of consistent police reconnaissance and examination, Gacy admits to more than 30 killings and illuminates his legal counselor and companion where the bodies were covered, both in the unfinished plumbing space and the waterway. 26 casualties were found in the unfinished plumbing space and 4 in the waterway. Gacy is captured, indicted for 33 killings, and condemned to death by deadly infusion. He endeavored a craziness request yet was denied, and was executed on May 10, 1994. There were a few criminological pointers that agents used to attach Gacy to the homicides. A portion of these include fiber investigation, dental and radiology records, utilizing the deterioration cycle of the human body, and facial recreation in recognizing the people in question. Specialists discovered strands that took after human hair in both Gacy's vehicle and close to the unfinished plumbing space where the bodies were covered. Notwithstanding these hair tests, agents additionally discovered filaments that contained hints of Gacy's blood and semen in a similar region. Blood having a place with the casualties was found on a portion of the filaments, which would later straightforwardly attach Gacy to the violations. The strands in Gacy's vehicle were dissected by measurable researchers and coordinated Piest's hair tests. Moreover, the hunt canines that confirmed that Piest had been in Gacy's vehicle showed this by a "passing response", which told agents that Piest's dead body had been within Gacy's vehicle. Out of Gacy's 33 known casualties, just 25 were ever decisively recognized. A significant number of Gacy's casualties had comparable actual depictions and were in this way difficult to distinguish by absolutely asking the general population. To distinguish the people in question, examiners went to Betty Pat Gatliff, a pioneer in scientific science and facial reproduction. Facial remaking is the way toward reproducing the facial highlights of a person by utilizing their remaining parts. Certain facial highlights, for example, facial structures, nasal design, and in general face shape can be helpful in recognizing a casualty even long in the afterlife. By utilizing these highlights, and with the assistance of program, measurable agents can make a picture of an individual's face, which is instrumental in recognizing casualties after their bodies have rotted. Facial remaking should be possible in a few measurements. Two-dimensional facial reproductions is utilized with skull radiographs and depend on pre-demise photos and data. Be that as it may, this isn't really ideal in light of the fact that cranial highlights are not generally noticeable or at the correct scale (Downing). To get a reasonable and more exact portrayal of the casualty's face, a craftsman and a measurable anthropologist are generally important (Downing). Three-dimensional facial reproduction is finished by figures or high goal, three-dimensional pictures. PC programs can make facial reproductions by controlling filtered photos of the remaining parts and use approximations to reproduce facial highlights. These will in general create results that don't look counterfeit (Reichs and Craig 491). Once in a while, specialists will utilize a strategy called superimposition as a procedure for facial reproduction. Sadly, it's anything but a normally utilized technique, as it expects examiners to have some information about the personality of the remaining parts they are managing. By superimposing a photo of a person over the skeletal remaining parts, agents can check whether the facial highlights line up with the anatomical highlights, permitting them to recognize a casualty. On account of John Wayne Gacy's casualties, specialists had the option to utilize facial reproduction to recognize nine of the bodies found in the unfinished plumbing space. The accompanying realistic shows the facial recreations of these nine casualties: Since facial reproduction was adequately not to recognize the entirety of the v>GET ANSWER