Week 1 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 1 Ethnography Workshop: A First Look at a Campus Dining Hall

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every place has rules that the people inside it stopped noticing long ago, and a newcomer trips over them on day one. This week you learned the anthropological perspective: holism, comparison, and fieldwork. In this workshop you read an illustrative first look at a campus dining hall, count how many entries name something a newcomer would not know, sort the entries by the subfield whose question they raise, link the parts with holism, and set a 20-minute look beside long-term fieldwork. Then you catch a chatbot claiming far more than one lunch can show.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What can a 20-minute first look at a campus dining hall show about how the place works, and what would it take long-term fieldwork to learn?

Workshop data: An illustrative first look at a campus dining hall

Source: A 20-minute first-look record of a campus dining hall at lunch, constructed for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it is illustrative, describes people by role only, and describes no real place or person.

Rows: 10 entries, one row each in the data table
Columns: entry number, what was noticed, what a first-time visitor would not know, and two blank columns for your marks and tags
Length of the look: one 20-minute visit at lunch

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them

Ways of working

observe-and-record
interview-and-interpret
compare-and-reflect

Procedure

Read the ten entries in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative first look, constructed for this workshop, at a campus dining hall at lunch; people appear by role only, and no real place or person is described. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: You can say in one sentence what kind of place the record describes and how long the look lasted.
Open a blank sheet. Type Entry, Noticed, Newcomer gap, and Gap named in cells A1 to D1, enter the ten entries in rows 2 to 11, and type Y in column D for every entry whose third column names something a first-time visitor would not know and N for every entry where it is blank. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Rows 2 to 11 hold ten entries, and column D holds only Y or N.
In cell D12 type =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"Y") and in cell D13 type =D12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100 to find how many entries name a newcomer gap and what percent of all entries that is. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: D12 shows a whole number no larger than 10, and D13 shows that number multiplied by 10.
In your notebook, tag each of the ten entries with the subfield whose question it raises (cultural, linguistic, archaeological, or biological) and copy the tags into the last column of the data table, with a few words on why. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Every entry carries one subfield tag and a short reason.
Fill in the holism table by linking three entries, then fill in the comparison table for the three ways of learning about people. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: The holism table has three filled rows, and every cell of the comparison table is filled.
Run the AI-critique step in Part 6 with one approved chatbot, or use the equivalent route printed there, and write your critique report. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Your report quotes at least two of the chatbot's or the printed analysis's claims and corrects each one.
Answer the five analysis questions in Part 5, choosing one option for question 5, which is your reflexive memo. Tool: A notebook or any free note-taking app for field notes kept in two columns (observed; possible interpretation); a free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for coding and tallying observations; pen and paper or any free diagramming tool for kinship diagrams; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real peoples the student checks against a primary or issuing-body source before trusting them. Check: Five answers, with question 5 answered from the option you chose.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the formulas will not run.

Count the entries by hand from the data table: mark Y or N beside each entry, count the Y marks, divide by the number of entries, and multiply by 100. Show the count and the division in your notebook, then complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: an illustrative 20-minute first look at a campus dining hall at lunch, with a column for you to mark whether each entry names something a first-time visitor would not know and a column for the subfield whose question it raises.

Student scaffold table 1
Entry	What was noticed	What a first-time visitor would not know
1	A line forms at the hot-food counter; people near the back pick up trays before they reach the front.	Where the trays are kept, and that you take one before joining the line.
2	Most diners tap a card at the entrance; one visitor pays cash at a side window.	How someone without a card pays.
3	Most window tables are filled by groups who greet each other as they sit.	Whether some tables are informally claimed by the same groups.
4	A worker calls out "Fresh batch!" when a new tray of pizza comes out, and several diners get up at once.	What the call-out signals and why people move when they hear it.
5	Two diners talk in one language at the drink station, then switch to English to ask a worker for ice.
6	Used trays go on a cart by the exit; cups, napkins, and food scraps go into three separate bins.	Which bin takes what.
7	A printed card beside each dish lists its ingredients.
8	One diner eats alone with headphones at a long shared table.
9	Partway through the visit, the line at the hot-food counter suddenly doubles.	That a common class period may end at that time.
10	A worker wiping tables greets several diners by sight and asks one how an exam went.	Whether regulars are greeted differently from first-time diners.

Holism asks how the parts fit together, so link three entries and say how a change in one would touch the others.

Student scaffold table 2
Entries you link	How they fit together	What would change if one of them changed

Comparison sets your first look beside two other ways of learning about people, so fill in what each one could and could not show.

Student scaffold table 3
Way of learning	How long it lasts	What it could show	What it could miss
This 20-minute first look
Malinowski's long-term fieldwork in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s
The nineteenth-century "armchair" approach

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many of the ten entries name a newcomer gap, and what percent of all entries is that? Show the count and the division.
Which subfield did your tags use most, and which did you use least or not at all? Name one entry you found hard to tag and say why.
Using your holism table, explain in 3–4 sentences how three parts of the dining hall fit together, and say what a newcomer would miss by studying only one of them.
Using your comparison table, set this 20-minute first look beside Malinowski's long-term fieldwork in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s and beside the "armchair" approach. What can a first look show, and what does it take long-term fieldwork to learn? Describe the methods, not any customs of the people Malinowski lived among.
Reflexive memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) Imagine you had made this first look yourself: what about your own position (age, background, languages, how familiar the place is to you) would have helped you notice some things and miss others? (b) The record leaves three entries with no newcomer gap named. Pick one and explain what a second, longer visit would need to check before anyone could say what it means to the people there.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted an illustrative first-look record above. It is a 20-minute look, constructed for a class activity, at a campus dining hall at lunch, with ten entries describing people by role only. In about 200 words, please do four things. First, tell me what the culture of this dining hall is and how everyone there thinks. Second, compare it with one traditional people somewhere else in the world and how they share food. Third, give me one statistic and one quotation from a famous anthropologist that support your reading. Fourth, tell me which way of eating is better, the dining hall or the way the people you chose do it.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Chatbots often describe a people in a timeless present tense, saying what they 'do' or 'believe' with no decade of fieldwork, as if the people never changed.
Chatbots often call a people 'primitive', 'stone age', or 'traditional' as if they sat on an earlier rung of a ladder, or call one way of buying food more 'advanced'.
Chatbots often say how 'everyone' at the dining hall thinks, as if one record showed a single shared mind.
Asked for a statistic and a quotation, chatbots often supply a precise percentage with no source and a line credited to a famous anthropologist that cannot be found in any primary text.
Chatbots sometimes sort the diners into 'races' as if these were natural biological groups that explain behavior.
Chatbots sometimes say anthropologists accept every practice as fine because 'all cultures are equally valid'.
When chatbots compare with a people elsewhere, they often use an older outsiders' label, such as 'Eskimo' for Inuit or '!Kung' for Ju/'hoansi.
If a comparison mentions descent through women, chatbots often say such a society is 'ruled by women'.
If a comparison wanders to marriage, chatbots sometimes say that in some societies a groom 'buys a wife' with goods.
Chatbots often call a free item, such as a worker's free extra slice or a shared napkin, a 'pure gift with no strings attached'.
Chatbots often turn one 20-minute look into a confident account of 'the culture of this school' or 'how students today eat'.
Asked to compare with a people elsewhere, chatbots sometimes offer to describe a ceremony or private practice that a community keeps for its own members.
Chatbots often close a 'balanced' summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling the dining hall more efficient or more sensible than a family meal or a market.

Write 4–6 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least three places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from this week's chapter or the corrections above; mark anything the course takes up later as flag this.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "After one lunch at this dining hall I can describe the whole culture of the school, and everyone here thinks the same way about food. Studies show that 90 percent of students eat in groups. A fast cafeteria is the advanced form of eating, and a family meal is the primitive stage it grew out of. The diners can be sorted into natural biological races that explain where they sit. Cultural relativism means anthropologists accept any practice as fine. Like the Eskimo, who settle quarrels with song contests, the diners solve problems by shouting out. In a society that traces descent through women, women rule. In some societies a groom buys his wife with goods. The worker's free extra slice is a pure gift with no strings attached. I could go on to spell out the private ceremony that one community keeps for its own members. To be neutral: both a dining hall and a market have strengths, but the dining hall is the more sensible choice." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one visit read as a whole culture, a culture spoken of as one voice, an unsourced statistic, ladder-of-progress language, race read as biological groups, relativism read as anything goes, a timeless present tense with an outsiders' name, matrilineal read as matriarchal, bridewealth read as buying a wife, a gift read as free of obligation, an offer to repeat restricted knowledge, or a quiet verdict), cite the evidence from this week's chapter or the corrections in Part 6, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for each topic the course takes up later, write flag this and give the course's correct reading. This route assesses the same objective (Objective 1 — explain the anthropological perspective (holism, comparison, and fieldwork), the four subfields and applied anthropology, and the culture concept, distinguishing culture from society, enculturation from acculturation, and ethnocentrism from cultural relativism as a method and from moral relativism) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

The completed data table with your Y or N marks and subfield tags
The completed holism table and comparison table
Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your reflexive memo
The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Ethnography Workshop report on an illustrative first look at a campus dining hall: the completed data table with your marks and subfield tags, the holism and comparison tables, written answers to five analysis questions including a reflexive memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same record, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Reading the first-look record	The newcomer-gap count and its percent are correct with the count and division shown, and every entry carries a subfield tag with a short, defensible reason.	The count or percent is attempted but one is wrong or unshown, or some entries lack a tag or a reason.	No count, percent, or tags appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Holism applied	Three entries are linked with a clear account of how they fit together and what would change if one changed, and the answer says what studying one part alone would miss.	Entries are linked, but the connection is asserted without a reason or the effect of a change is missing.	No holism table or explanation appears.
Comparison with long-term fieldwork and the armchair	The comparison table is complete, the answer separates what a first look can show from what long-term fieldwork learns, the armchair approach is described accurately, and no custom of the Trobriand Islanders is invented or ranked.	The three ways of learning are compared, but one row is thin, a first look is treated as fieldwork, or the contrast is stated without a reason.	No comparison appears.
Critique of the chatbot or of the printed flawed analysis	On either route, at least three errors are quoted and corrected with evidence from the chapter or Part 6, topics the course takes up later are marked flag this with the course's reading, and one sound point is acknowledged; both routes earn this band equally.	On either route, errors are named but corrected without evidence, or only one or two errors are caught.	No critique appears, or pasted output is submitted without any checking.
Reflexive memo	The chosen option is answered in 4–6 sentences that tie a specific feature of position, or a specific unexplained entry, to what it would let an observer see or miss and to what a longer visit would check.	The memo is answered but stays general or names nothing a longer visit would check.	No memo is submitted.

Quality Gate

Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
The newcomer-gap count multiplied by 10 equals the percent you report.
Every entry carries one subfield tag with a reason drawn from the subfield definitions.
No custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, and the Trobriand Islanders are mentioned only as the site of Malinowski's fieldwork in the 1910s.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from the chapter or Part 6.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com