Week 3 — Two Columns, One Morning: Recording Fieldwork Fairly

Assignment 3 of the term — record a morning of fieldwork fairly, read it from two points of view, and explain the method to someone who has it wrong.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Ethnography Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

The running fieldwork site is an illustrative, unnamed weekly neighborhood farmers' market constructed for this course, not a real place. Chapter 3 prints its ten field-note entries from Visit 1, a market morning in October, from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m., in two columns: what was observed, and what it might mean. In entry 4, at 8:20 a.m. at the produce stall, a vendor greets a shopper with "The usual?" and bags two pounds of apples before the shopper asks. The vendors speak of their "regulars", while an observer counts repeat buyers. A friend hears you are studying fieldwork and says, "Anthropologists only watch people from a distance and write down their opinions, and names in private notes hurt no one." Your job is to answer the way an anthropologist would, starting from a few plain numbers about the visit, the "regulars", and two books.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. At the running fieldwork site, Visit 1 ran from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m., which is 2 hours. Using 60 minutes in an hour, how many minutes did the visit last?
2. Visit 1 produced 10 field-note entries over a visit that ran from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m. On average, about how many minutes passed between entries?
3. An observer counts repeat buyers as people seen buying at the same stall on at least 3 of 4 weekly visits. What percent of the visits does that rule require?
4. Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific appeared in 1922, and Geertz's The Interpretation of Cultures appeared in 1973. How many years after Malinowski's book did Geertz's book appear?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation:

• Problem 1: rewrite entry 8 or entry 10 from the chapter's table of Visit 1 notes in two columns, observed and possible interpretation, with people named only by role, and explain why the interpretation column says "may".
• Problem 2: explain why one two-hour visit, however careful its notes, is a first look rather than participant observation, and name one thing a long stay with taking part would add.
• Problem 3: label the vendors' "regulars" and the observer's repeat buyers as emic or etic, and name one thing each view catches that the other misses, without calling either one wrong.
• Problem 4: write a thin and a thick description of entry 4's "The usual?" greeting, crediting thick description as Ryle's term that Geertz took up, and add one reflexive sentence about how your own position shapes what you notice.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your friend thinks anthropologists only watch from a distance, write down opinions, and may name anyone in private notes. Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains participant observation, says why field notes keep what was observed apart from what it might mean, explains why notes name people by role instead of by name, and names one limit, including that the market is illustrative and that one visit cannot settle what a greeting means. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a cousin who says a survey and fieldwork are the same thing. Model answer: "A survey asks people the same questions once, which is useful for comparing answers. Fieldwork means staying with a group for a long time, joining in, and writing down what happens, so you learn things people would never think to put on a form. A fieldworker keeps what they saw apart from what they think it means, because first impressions are often wrong. One visit is only a start, so a careful fieldworker keeps going back before drawing conclusions."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory cultural anthropology course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about recording fieldwork fairly and reading it from insiders' and outsiders' points of view. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a quotation, or a custom of any real people, and never rank one way of life above another.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: the running fieldwork site, an illustrative, unnamed weekly neighborhood farmers' market constructed for this course, not a real place. Its ten field-note entries come from Visit 1, a market morning in October, from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m., written in two columns, observed and possible interpretation, with people named only by role. In entry 4, at 8:20 a.m. at the produce stall, a vendor greets a shopper with "The usual?" and bags two pounds of apples before the shopper asks. The vendors speak of their "regulars"; an observer counts repeat buyers. Thick description is the philosopher Gilbert Ryle's term, which Geertz took up; never credit it to Geertz as his own coinage.
PROBLEM P1: At the running fieldwork site, Visit 1 ran from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m., which is 2 hours. Using 60 minutes in an hour, how many minutes did the visit last?
PROBLEM P2: Visit 1 produced 10 field-note entries over a visit that ran from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m. On average, about how many minutes passed between entries?
PROBLEM P3: An observer counts repeat buyers as people seen buying at the same stall on at least 3 of 4 weekly visits. What percent of the visits does that rule require?
PROBLEM P4: Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific appeared in 1922, and Geertz's The Interpretation of Cultures appeared in 1973. How many years after Malinowski's book did Geertz's book appear?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, entry 8 or entry 10 rewritten in two columns with roles only, plus why the interpretation says "may"; for P2, why one two-hour visit is a first look rather than participant observation, plus one thing a long stay would add; for P3, "regulars" labeled emic and repeat buyers etic, plus one thing each view catches, with neither called wrong; for P4, a thin and a thick description of entry 4's greeting and one reflexive sentence about my own position. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend who thinks anthropologists only watch from a distance, write down opinions, and may name anyone in private notes, explaining participant observation, why notes keep observation apart from interpretation, why notes name roles instead of names, and one limit, including that the market is illustrative and that one visit cannot settle what a greeting means. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (40 points), anthropological reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my message to the friend only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct visit-length, minutes-per-entry, share-of-visits, or years-between value = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing value or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an interpretation that meets both parts named for that problem = 2; exactly one part = 1; neither = 0. For P4, BOTH a thin and a thick description of entry 4's greeting with one reflexive sentence AND a message to the friend that explains participant observation, two-column notes, and roles instead of names, with a named limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0; naming a term alone does not earn a unit, and a reading placed in the observed column, a person named in a note, or an invented detail about a real people is not accurate. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to anthropology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the message to the friend with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled two-column sketch of one Visit 1 entry with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

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.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 3 skills — writing field notes that keep what was observed apart from what it might mean, explaining participant observation, telling emic from etic, using thick description and reflexivity, and following the rule of roles instead of names — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have about the market's "regulars". Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce, and do not let it invent a detail about any real people, name a person in a field note, or credit thick description to Geertz as his own coinage. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com