Title?

1/28/2011

I will start out by using an anecdote. I started to become interested in my topic when I interviewed a friend during Field Studies Prep Class last year. I was doing a project on gender in South Africa, so I interviewed my South African friend about his gender (male). My friend is also a rugby player, and I really enjoy watching rugby. I began to wonder how his answers in the interview were influenced by the fact that he had been playing rugby since childhood. I kind of forgot about it for a while until I was walking down the street in East London. I was walking past a rugby pitch at a primary school where I had watched a part of a game a few weeks earlier. As I was walking past I thought about the game that we saw, and about how my friend had played rugby since childhood, and I wondered how boys who played rugby learned values, especially values that made up masculinity ideologies. I kept thinking about this topic for the rest of my time in East London, and when I came back, I talked to the office about it. And here I am today.

I think my topic (how do rugby players learn values, and how do those values shape masculinity) is important to sociology because it explores both the sociology of sport and the sociology of gender. It also looks at value construction within sports, which is a topic that could be important for criminology studies, family studies, and social work. All of these fields look for ways to strengthen human behavior and to limit deviance. A popular idea in society is that sport offers a way to do these things. I want to see if a) that is true, b) if there are negative costs to sports, and c) if the costs outweigh the benefits, and d) if there are ways that we can improve sports to better achieve our goals and diminish the negative impacts. I hope that through literature reviews I can establish A and B well enough that I can spend most of my study in South Africa on gathering data on them, and focusing on C and D in my analysis. I guess. Who knows, really?

I anticipate that my study will look something like this while I am in East London:

1. Arrive, reorient myself to the city, orient other students to the city

2. Gain entry into 1-3 rugby teams

a. Talk to administrators at school

b. Talk to coach at schools

c. Talk to parents of team members?

3. Do mapping(?) activities with coaches

4. Observe practices and games

5. Do mapping/focus groups/informal interviews with team members

6. Give reciprocity to teams by taking photos of games?

7. Wrap up and go home

8. Be really sad to be back in Utah

9. Throughout the whole project I will be taking field notes every day.

Right now I am trying to determine what possible interview questions would be. I know that I could possibly wait until after mapping activities with coaches, but I also want to get some practice with interviewing before I go. I have a “key-informant” in my previously mentioned friend who said that he could help me get interviews with teammates or coaches. So I should probably start thinking now about potential interview questions.

Brainstorming (not to be judged)

Coaches

1. Do you think that rugby teaches values to those that play it?

2. If so, what are those values?

3. Did you play rugby growing up?

4. What values do you think you learned from playing rugby as a child?

5. Are these values inherent in the sport, or do you teach them on purpose?

6. How are these values taught (regardless of answer to previous question)?

7. What does a typical pep talk sound like?

8. What points do you try to get across in pep talks?

9. How do you interact with players during practice?

10. How do you interact with players during games?

11. If there is a difference, why is there a difference?

Players

1. Why did you decide to play rugby?

2. When did you start playing rugby?

3. What do you like most about rugby?

4. What are your relationships like with your teammates?

5. Has your personality changed since you started playing rugby?

6. How has it changed?

7. How do you act during practice?

8. How do you interact with your teammates during practice?

9. How do you act during games?

10. How do you interact with your teammates during games?

11. How do you interact with members of the opposing teams during games?

1/31/2011

So the end of January would be a good thing, if it meant that it was getting warmer, instead of colder. Prepare to enter the bleakest and most strenuous month of my life.

I’ve been thinking recently about the scope of my project, and the limitations as well. Originally I wanted to include spectators as a part of my study, because it seems to me that spectators have quite the effect on athletes. Supposedly, athletes only play sports in order to entertain spectators, so the athletes should do what the spectators want. However, including spectators will take up a lot of my time, and they are a much harder group to keep track of. I realize with my sample of young rugby players, most spectators are going to be parents and family members of the players, which brings me to my next point: parents. I realize that parents have a huge effect on the gender socialization of their children, as well as value teaching, motivations for playing rugby. However, including parents seems like a headache. I feel like I am including more variables than I can keep track of in three months. I don’t want to over-extend myself, but at the same time, I don’t want to do less than the best that I possibly can. I guess this is a question for my faculty mentor. I think I just don’t want to have an overly complicated and convoluted project like I did last year.

Asking Good Questions

1/19/2011

In field research we put a lot of emphasis on asking the right questions. We try to ask the right questions in our specific research questions, as well as in the questions we ask in interviews we conducts and the surveys we send out etc. I find that I am often trying to focus my questions so that they are clear and ask exactly what I want to ask. Which is great. Being clear is something I am not so good at, but it is necessary, and I would like to be good at it some day. However, what about the idea of letting questions be open to interpretation? Someone suggested that one of the benefits of in-depth interviews is that questions are open to interpretation. Now, I guess this could mean, from my paradigm, that you are able to delve further into questions, and get more than surface level answers. However, I also thought about truly having a question open to interpretation. Let me organize my ideas into paragraphs.
When preparing for cross-cultural research, we try to ask our questions in such a way that people from the culture we are in will be able to answer the questions. If they answer a question other than the one that we asked, we try to reframe our original question so that they will understand and answer it. This way we can collect the data that our research question told us to collect. This all makes sense. And it’s good. However, the question that I raise, that has probably been raised before (I do not pretend to be insightful), is what can we learn from answers to questions other than the ones that we pose. Here is a great example of how I am not clear. What I mean is, what can we learn from answers to ‘misunderstood’ questions? If that makes any more sense. Perhaps an informant was answering the question that should have been asked, rather the one that was asked. Let me give you a silly example. In the recent political discourse, politicians and pundits have tried to tone down the dialogue so that it is less violent. An amendment to an earlier passed bill has been proposed by the Republican Party that has a title that uses the word ‘killing’ in there somewhere. Democrats immediately jumped on that and pointed out that the word is violent and should be removed from the civil discourse. This is apparently a big issue, because it has been receiving a lot of commentary lately (though I do not mean to undermine the work to get rid of violent phraseology from the civil discourse. In fact, I am all for it). On a Fox News segment, they had a Republican and a Democrat weigh in on the issue. When they asked the democrat, he expressed his thoughts on the bill and why he thought the amendment shouldn’t be passed. The Fox News correspondent leading the discussion interrupted him and told him that he answered the wrong question, and he was supposed to talk about the wording of the amendment title. They then talked to the Republican about the amendment, and he said something about how the title was appropriate because the bill would in fact kill jobs, or at the very least destroys them, or something. When the correspondent asked for the democrats final thoughts, he again talked about how the bill wouldn’t kill jobs, and he was interrupted again and told how he answered the wrong question. Then the correspondent laughed, because the democrat just didn’t get it. But when you think about it, maybe the democrat did get it. Maybe he realized that while removing vitriol from our political dialogue was important, what was really important for Americans to know was what was in the bill itself, and what is in the amendment. The correspondents correcting of the democrat made it seem like understanding the issue wasn’t important.
In my own research, I wonder if I ever seem like correspondent. Perhaps I laugh too quickly when my informants answer the question I didn’t ask. What might be gained from learning from those answers? How can we learn from those answers? Are they still data?
I don’t really know how to answer those questions really. But I guess I can try. I think we can learn more about our own paradigms and biases by really listening to misunderstood answers to questions (and yes, I still haven’t found a satisfactory way to refer to them. Deal). But what I don’t know is how one can delve more deeply into those answers other than asking “what makes you say that?” or “what about my question wording made you answer in the way you did?” I think the second question might not really be an appropriate question in most circumstances anyway.
My third question, are answers to misunderstood questions still data, is more difficult for me to answer. If the response to the question does not answer the question that was so perfectly tailored to our research question, can we still include it for analysis? The logical part of my brain says no, and I can’t really explain why, though I wish I could. However, the part of my brain that is super vague and unclear (i.e. the part of my brain that I use to communicate and write with) says, “Why can’t we just change the way we ask research questions?” Can I write an academically and ethically sound proposal to research masculinity ideology and rugby by saying that I will ask certain questions, but if my informants decide to answer something else, I will just go where their answers take me? I guess that doesn’t get my point across very well, as that sounds like what an unstructured interview is. Let me try again. Can I conduct a research project in which I will go out with a certain question (that I have spent a long time working on, what with literature reviews and such), but if I find that I am learning from answers to questions not asked, just throw my research question out the window? Maybe that is a little clearer. One more question: am I raising these questions to justify my own vagueness and inability to write a clear research question? I don’t think so, but I guess I can never really be sure of what goes on in (what psychologists would call (not that I’m saying I believe what psychologists tell me)) my subconscious.

As a complete side note, a couple is taking engagement pictures in the JFSB courtyard. It’s kind of adorable, but also makes my hipster/anti-mormonculture sensibilities cry.

1/21/2011

In continuation from the previous discussion, I want to discuss why we even write research questions now (pre-field experience) if they are just going to change once we get to the field.
On the one hand, I am very OCD, worry wart, control freak (pick your favorite term and go with it), and I want to have as much information as possible before I go in the field. This might be due to my tenure with the Boy Scouts of America (I was a counselor at a cub scout day cam) and my belief in the motto: Be Prepared. However, on the other hand, I can’t pretend that I know anything about my field of study. I know I’ve been to East London before, I have had some experience with the area, the people, some culture things, but I don’t have the foggiest idea about young rugby players in South Africa. I guess that’s why I’m studying what I’m studying. How can I go in with a question that makes all kinds of assumptions about the area, people and culture? Wouldn’t it be better if I let them define what it is I’m going to study?
I think I am at a part in my project where I am trying to balance the two as best I can. Right now my question is “What are the values that rugby coaches teach their players, and how do those values affect the masculinity ideology of said rugby players?” The wording of this question is subject to change, especially when I can define what I mean by masculinity ideology, if that is even the correct term to use, etc. Another word that I think is significant is ‘values.’ On one hand I want to define it, so that I know exactly what it is I am looking for when I get there, however, what would I be missing out on if I went into the field with my definition of values. I think it would bias my results, for sure, but it would also limit my understanding of the people. Of course, that’s just another type of bias, I guess. Anyway, I recently decided that I am going to let ‘values’ go undefined in my research question. I will still address the issue, but in my methodology section.
Instead of going into the field with a set definition of what values are, I will instead spend the first few weeks of my study having my participants define what values are being taught in rugby. I talked with Ashley briefly about a few options, like free listing, and now I need to find out more about them before I decide what I am going to do exactly. There are a few other things I need to think about since talking to Ashley:
• How do I define masculinity ideology? Is that the right term?
• Learn more about free-listing and similar methods to define values.
• Think about how many schools I’d like to work with (probably 3 at max), and how my project would be affected by how many schools I work with.
• How might I offer reciprocity to the participants in my project
o Perhaps practice some photography
o Perhaps offer that as a skill
o Perhaps buy a new camera
• Who do I want to interview? Who do I want to do free listing with (assuming I choose to do free listing)?
o Coaches?
o Players?
• Would I rather do focus groups with players?
o Parents?
o Spectators?

The Project So Far

1/10/2011
Today in class we spoke about asking the right questions both in the field as well in our field journals. I like the idea of starting each journal entry (or journal thought) with a question. Today’s question is: where is my project now? So far in my project I’ve made the switch from doing an all encompassing “how do young rugby players construct masculinity” to a slightly more specific, “what do rugby coaches purport to teach their players, and what lessons are the players learning, and how do these relate to gender?” I think this might be a better approach because it seems like it lends itself to being grounded in theory (though the previous question also did that), which will help me in my analysis, but it will also give me something to judge by. I can interview the coach and have specific things to look for in the players. So far in my preparation I have read some excerpts from books on historical rugby and colonization and masculinity, sports and masculinity, children and gender play, and an article on misogyny and rugby. I have also checked out a book from the library about masculinities by R.W. Connell, who is said to be one of the leading scholars on masculinity. I hope by reading this book I can get a more thorough grounding in theory so I can set a framework for the kind of questions to ask as well as things to look for on my study. After reading this book (or portions thereof) I then want to start into some of the recent articles (if there are any) in sports and rugby or sports that are comparable in physicality. From this I can start my lit review and funnel appropriately. Sorry, this is probably too much information, but I like to have a plan.

1/14/2011
I sometimes (or perhaps all the time) find it difficult to wrap my head around theory and/or the philosophy of science. Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t like it. In fact, I think theory is my favorite part of sociology, and I like thinking of different topics and analyzing them under different theoretical perspectives, as a kind-of recreational theorizing activity. However, what I have always found difficult is finding “my” theory. What ideology do I subscribe to? This difficulty not only pertains to our discussion on positivism, naturalism, and relativism, but also to my research.
When we talk about positivism in class I can definitely feel like it is “wrong.” It is not the way to see the world. I don’t think the world is one way that can by systematically understood. The world isn’t rational like that. It’s confusing. It’s chaotic. It’s beautiful. It’s ugly. And it doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Everything is continuously changing, affecting things, being affected by things, and recreating meaning. However, there is that seductive lie we discussed in class. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a way to make sense of the world that was always right, and always discovered truth? Is that what statistics is? Are statistics just damned lies (I ask this question in this way simply because I love to say “damn.” Don’t judge me.)? I guess they don’t have to be, so long as we consider what theory they are operating under. For example, if we recognize that someone is collecting data from a Weberian perspective, then we can assume that the data are Truth, in that perspective. I guess. I suppose I don’t really know. Then the move from positivism happened. I liked the idea of naturalism as regionalized positivism. In fact, that is the only way that I can understand this school of thought clearly, so I guess I’ll leave it at that. Now for relativism. I’m not sure that I completely understand this perspective. I guess the best way for me to deal with this is to equate it with phenomenology (a theory that I am not sure I completely understand either). From what I learned of phenomenology, it states that whatever one person thinks is true makes it true for that person. For example: If I think that gender is one hundred percent socialized, that makes it true for how I see the world and live my life. This may be the dummied down version of phenomenology, but it is all I have to go on. So, relativism is saying that there are multiple truths? Or only some relativists would say this? I guess I’m reiterating the question that Christin had in class today. How do we find one hundred percent Truth in today’s world, or is the most we can say, “This is the viewpoint that I am coming from, and based on this viewpoint, this is the truth that I have found.”? I guess that this last statement is where I am. I can’t tell you with certainty how the social world works. I can tell you what I believe and what makes sense for me. I can collect reliable data that supports my beliefs, but I don’t know that I can say with certainty what the Truth is.
Now, let’s deal with how this whole discussion relates to my project. Currently I am trying to find a theory in which to situate my project. My mentor has directed me to a scholar that she thinks will be most beneficial, and I do plan on reading some of her work, but first I am writing this, and then I will read some, and then maybe I will come back to what I have learned in this entry, or possibly the next. Anyway, I want to find my theory before I start any other search for literature so that I can have something to go off of and rate the literature I find against it. However, I guess I am concerned that my personal beliefs about gender won’t match up with whatever theory I find. If that makes sense. I guess right here, right now I will list some of my ontological assumptions about gender, so that when I am reading theory, I will have something to judge by. I believe that gender is:
• both inherent and socialized.
• I believe that the male and female sexes are not opposites, but compliments, but that we are socialized to think they are opposites, which is how many gender ideologies are formed.
• I do not believe that sameness and equality are the same thing (this thought is easier to explain mathematically, rather than in words, so I’m sorry if that is confusing). Rather, I think that two things can be equal, while still not being the same. This holds true for gender.
The last assertion, I think, is why I am passionate about studying gender. I want to live in a world where people live peacefully, happily, and equally. However, how can we achieve this world along gender lines? How can we treat both sexes equally if they are not the same? I want to study gender in order to figure this out somewhat. I am studying how rugby influences the creation of masculinity in order to gain a better understanding masculinity in our society, so that maybe one day I will be able to understand how to treat both sexes equally, if not the same.

Thoughts from a 404 discussion

Today in class we talked about the continuum in ethnographic research about whether we are trying to save science from humans or whether we are trying to save humans from science. We talked about the extremes of pure objectivity in the social sciences as well as the danger of saying that whatever someone thinks is true makes it true. While I find the topic of the validity of science very interesting, this discussion also helped me to think about my own research this summer. Where does my project fit on the continuum? From my experience last summer, I hope that I won’t be so objective that I won’t let myself make connections with my subjects/informants/coresearchers (whatever it is that I want to call them (I haven’t decided yet)), as I really do want to get to know them, learn from them (not just about them), and gain more than just academic experience from the time I spend with them. On the other hand, I also hope that I learn something that really will help me understand how the social world really is. I hope that what I learn will help me to one day be a better social worker (if I get into an MSW program that is).

I also enjoyed the reading. Or rather, I enjoyed the perspective that the ethnographer’s experience is just as valid to write about as the people that the ethnographer is describing. I guess what I mean is that the characteristics about the ethnographer, such as race, gender, age, etc. are recognized and can be used for the benefit of the research. I guess that is confusing too, let me try again with an example. I am studying masculinity and rugby in South Africa, and the population I want to study is probably a team of rugby players aged 10-11. Now, being that I am female, American, white, and I have never played rugby, I am a definite outsider to this population (except for maybe the white skin thing. A lot of rugby players in South Africa are white). However, I appreciate that ethnography recognizes that I will bring a unique perspective to my project, and while someone else might learn different things doing my same project, my data will still be counted as valuable.

Goals for next week:
Umm, I think that that is all I have for this entry, but I hope to push myself to 1½ to 2 single spaced pages at the least in the future. I need to take better notes on the readings and in class in order to do this, as well as get into the literature on my topic to start my annotated bibliography and literature review.