Comments on "Ding" in Communities of Practice: Examining Learning as Legitimate Peripheral Participation in an Everyday Setting

It's nice to be introduced to a problem that I have faced as I began to read the essay: How do we define learning. The author quoted ancient Greek philosophers (Heraclitus and Parmenides) both of who had very different views on the world they were teaching about. One believed the world an ever changing thing, the other saw it as never really changing. The author introduces the problem this creates for researchers who study learning.
 One anecdotal story is told in which researchers interviewed and then observed math classes. In the interviews the teachers and students claimed to be following traditional styles of math but in practice they were not. Not only is this an excellent example of why observation is necessary along with interviews to get the complete picture, but also is an example of why there is so much confusion over learning (inadequate/ unclear definitions of what is the researcher is considering to be the style of learning or of learning in itself).
Next the author begins to talk about the reasoning, or lack there of, between the organization and purpose of learning materials and future activities in the business world.
  Lagache points to a need for quantifiable tests in regards to learning styles, materials, etc. One way to do this he says is to recognize that each place of learning (schools in this case) is it's own micro-world, with a micro-culture that the researcher must take into account.
To do this Lagache suggests researchers gain access to the social climate through befriending the participants on the edge of the learning environment and progress with them through the journey. This sounds remarkably like what Dr. Griffith has described when she talks about her research techniques which is really no surprise as we have talked about Lave and Wagner and Peripheral participation.
Further in the author elaborates on the intricacies of peripheral learning through the example of scuba diving and becoming a master scuba diver. While it was an interesting topic the most research related thing to report about this section is the elaborate use of diagrams to describe what the author is talking about. I'll have to look back over the paper and be sure to include more diagrams in the finished product, they are incredibly helpful in communicating ideas. Does that make me a visual learner?
The author concludes by pointing out how diving is an excellent hobby because it's learning sphere is so removed from the typical life that a person  might have allowing them the break they need in a hobby, however it is not without it's influences by deep cultural effects (such as effects of race, class, gender, etc).
It was a very well written article that related greatly to the learning type of community I will be studying, I think I may try to find more articles written by Lagache.

Review of Participant Observation, by STEPHEN P. BOGDEWIC

This was a chapter taken from Doing Qualitative Research (1992) by Benjamin F. Crabtree, Wi l l iam L. Miller (eds). It highlighted the many definitions that could be used for participant observation among which were " research characterized by a prolonged period of intense social interaction between the researcher and the subjects, in  the  milieu of the  latter, during which time data, in the form of field notes, are  unobtrusively and systematically collected" (Bogdan, 1972). The chapter then went on to name a few of the benefits/disadvantages that could come from participant observation such as the difference in view created by being inside a institution or culture versus outside of the culture, or the organic nature of questioning (the ability to adapt to the language of the culture).
In the next section the author describes the steps of participant observation (having an overview of the project, entry, initial contact,"establishing report", and knowing what exactly it is you are "observing", essentially the who, what, where, and when's of the project). According to Spradley (1980) researchers must take into account five things when recording their observations:
1. Space: the physical place or places
2.  Actor:the people involved
3.  Activity: a set of related acts people do
4.  Object: the physical things that are present
5.  Act:single actions that people do 

6.  Event: a set of related activities that people carry out
7.  Time :  the sequencing that  takes place over time
8.  Goal: the things people are trying to accomplish
9.  Feeling: the emotions felt and expressed (p. 78)


Threaded into each of these overviews are case studies. It is suggested that the researcher have both a field log (for recording how they generally pass their time during the research) and field notes (that should be as detailed as possible as they will be what is referred to later in the research analysis stages of the project). The author stresses that each page of notes should have proper documentation so you know the time, place, and date of each note, as well as page number in case the pages should get mixed up.
The author recommends you record your field notes as soon as possible and do not discuss your observation with anyone before recording and interestingly that you do not edit as you write rather accept the natural framework of the paper (likely influence by your surroundings, but can be changed later).

The author describes the ideal subject as "someone who has been in the culture long enough so that they no longer think about  it." This is to observe the most natural reactions. To avoid too biased of a view of the culture the author recommends researchers avoid subject too active in one manner of the culture (the example given is social work). For my study I believe that this may be difficult to do because I am looking at such a specific group of community members.
Overall this chapter was informative and brief (only about 25 pages) and I have a feeling I may be referring back to it in the months to come.



https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/cu/items/d2a95e0f-7ac7-674f-f2fd-1f97224e7bcd/1/Bogdewic_03_0803944047.pdf

Letter to Subjects

Hello, my name is Nicole Schram and I am a graduate student at Central Michigan University. I

am conducting research on the transfer of knowledge between generations. This

research will fulfill my undergraduate degree requirements.  You were selected to participate in this

study because you fall into the category of possibly having agricultural knowledge.  Please verify if you meet this criterion.

I anticipate that this interview will take around 2 hours to complete.  There is no compensation for responding nor is there any known risk. In order to insure that all information will remain confidential, I will not record your name.  I will only record you as a subject #1.  Copies of the project will be provided to my Central Michigan University faculty monitor.  Participation is strictly voluntary and you may refuse to participate at any time.

I appreciate your willingness to help with my project. The data collected will provide useful

information regarding transfer of knowledge. If you would like a summary copy of this

study please let me know at the end of the interview and I will add your name to a list

that I will maintain separately from my interview notes.   If you have questions later,

please contact me at schra1nr@cmich.edu.  My faculty monitor is Lauren Griffith and she

can be reached at griff2lm@cmich.edu.

If you are not satisfied with the manner in which this study is being conducted, you

may report (anonymously if you so choose) any complaints to the Anthropology department of Central Michigan University at the Office of Humanities through 989-774-3681.  

Review of "From 'old school' to 'Farm-to-school': Neoliberalization from the ground up"

This article, by Patricia Allen and Julie Guthman from the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems at the University of California and Geology from the University of California at Berkeley respectively, talked about an option a lot of smaller farms may be taking in the future. They claim that local communities will grow their citizenship and local economies as well as improve the health of their children through FTS programs (Food-to-school). While they recognize that the programs are closely based on Neoliberal values thus encouraging such values in the participants (students, local community, and food workers) they see no problem with this.
 Actually the authors claim that "not only have FTS programs garnered wide-ranging support, it would be difficult to argue against them on principle." While I can agree the programs sound good in principle, (increasing local commerce interaction between the education systems, local farmers, local businesses, and restaurants as well as providing a better opportunity for children to get good nutrition, etc.) I don't really like this slightly cocky tone that shows itself throughout the article. It's not very professional. Later in the article they quote what I believe is probably an opponent of the system who essentially says that it's a great idea but the political climate and structure of local areas makes it an inefficient way to do business. The quote ends with the person saying the devil is in the details and they have a rather sassy remark that that is certainly not the case with this program and that the person leaving the remark was mistaken. Perhaps this article is taking it's place in a larger political conversation in California that I am unaware of, where this tone is not only necessarily but wanted, but it did not carry the neutrality I had hoped for from a scholarly article.

I would be interested to find out if anything like this is going on in any nearby local communities, mostly to see how they are handling the details. I know that an elementary school nearby has started a small garden, but that's not the same program the authors are talking about in this article.