Early last week, we were talking about different skills needed for a participant observation. And as I think this will be my primary method in gathering information about academic communications, I decided to write yet another learning journal about participant observation. In class, we talked about how in order to be an insider/outsider and use a wide angle lens, it is important to learn some of the language. At first, I dismissed this idea because I am going to an English-speaking city, and I think I will be able to converse with people. But then I was involved in two similar situations where the language, though English, was completely different, and I realized the "language" is broader than I had previously realized.
A few weeks ago, I went to a statistics party. Now, before you get too envious, it was just with my fellow first-years hosted by one of our teachers. Conversation was a bit stilted, as one may imagine, especially at the beginning. Even as time wore one, the conversation never really made it out of statistics. Making nerdy jokes about distributions or asking each other about homework griefs was the extent of the conversation. Even when we started playing Trivia Pursuit, conservation never made it out of mere small talk. But I was well-versed in the language of the stats students: either keep your mouth shut or laugh politely at another corny joke.
On Friday, I went to a similar situation, but this time I was surrounded by English/humanities majors. Yes, the curry-filled Sherlock night. Conversation could not have been more different than what I have been accustom to these last few months. Not once did someone mention that of course you could use Cramer-Rao's theorem to prove number 12 on the homework. At the field study party, people actually had opinions and could back them up with reasoning. Maybe not sound reasons, but still. We talked about a range of subjects. Yes, there was the common theme of "London," but the variance on that theme was large. The interactions and mode of conversation was almost alien to a statistician. The "language," comprising of the topic of conversation and the delivery, of the stats group versus the field study group was almost mind-boggling. I had forgotten the conversations with people did not have to be boring. There could still be controversy and different points of view. However, I was not able to contribute much to the conversations because I did not remember my history; I did not know the language of the group.
When I am working with professors and other students in Southampton, I need to observe their "language" in various contexts so that I may say something and not sit there like a bump on a log, conspicuous in every degree. That is to say, understanding the dynamics, the background of the field, the mode of talking, etc. will help be know what is appropriate to say and to know what is important to observe. In addition to providing an opportunity to observe, knowing the language of a group helps build rapport and trust, enabling me to create an stronger academic relationship so I can continue to study academic communications internationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment