Week 3 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 3 Ethnography Workshop: Two Columns at a Community Garden

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A field note is only as useful as its honesty about what was seen and what was guessed. This week you learned participant observation, field notes in two columns, emic and etic terms, and the ethics that protect the people you study. In this workshop you read an illustrative one-column record of a community-garden workday written by a beginner, count how many entries mix a reading into the observation and how many break a course rule, rewrite the record in two columns with roles instead of names, set the garden's own words beside an observer's terms, and compare a 20-minute record with Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s. Then you catch a chatbot keeping names, passing off a judgment as an observation, or claiming that every gardener thinks alike.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What does a one-column record of a garden workday get wrong, and how do you rewrite it so that what was observed, what it might mean, and the people in it are all treated fairly?

Workshop data: An illustrative one-column record of a community-garden workday

Source: A 20-minute record of a weekend workday at a community garden, written in one column by an illustrative beginner and constructed for this workshop; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real place or person, and names nobody.

Rows: 10 entries, one row each in the data table
Columns: entry number, time and setting, the entry as first written, and two blank columns for your marks
Length of the record: one 20-minute visit, from 9:00 to 9:20 a.m.

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 record, constructed for this workshop, of a weekend workday at a community garden, written in one column by a beginner; 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 visit lasted.
Open a blank sheet. Type Entry, As written, Reading mixed in, and Rule broken in cells A1 to D1, enter the ten entries in rows 2 to 11, and type Y or N in column C for whether the entry slips a reading (a motive, a feeling, or a verdict) into what was observed, and Y or N in column D for whether it breaks a course rule (a name recorded, or a photograph or recording of 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: Rows 2 to 11 hold ten entries, and columns C and D hold only Y or N.
In cell C12 type =COUNTIF(C2:C11,"Y") and in cell C13 type =C12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100; in cell D12 type =COUNTIF(D2:D11,"Y") and in cell D13 type =D12/COUNTA(A2:A11)*100, to find how many entries need each fix 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: C12 and D12 each show a whole number no larger than 10, and each percent in row 13 is that number multiplied by 10.
In your notebook, rewrite every entry that needs a fix in two columns, observed and possible interpretation, using "may" for every reading and a role instead of any name, and note which entries need no change. 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 flagged entry has a two-column rewrite with roles only, and every clean entry is marked as needing no change.
Fill in the emic-and-etic table for the garden's two insider terms, then fill in the comparison table that sets this 20-minute record beside Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s. 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 emic-and-etic table has two 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 in both columns beside each entry, count the Y marks in each column, divide each count by the number of entries, and multiply by 100. Show the counts and the divisions 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 record of a community-garden workday, written in one column, with two columns for your marks.

Student scaffold table 1
Entry	Time and setting	The entry as first written
1	9:00 a.m., front gate	A volunteer in a green apron unlocks the tool shed and hands out trowels.
2	9:04 a.m., tool shed	An older gardener ticks items off "the shed list" as each tool goes out.
3	9:06 a.m., plot 4	A gardener, whose full name the note copies from her name tag, waters a neighbor's tomatoes because she is the friendliest person in the garden.
4	9:08 a.m., compost bins	Two teenagers turn the compost with pitchforks and laugh.
5	9:10 a.m., plot 9	A man raises his voice at a teenager who steps on a row of seedlings, because he is angry and controlling.
6	9:11 a.m., plot 9	The teenager steps back onto the path, and the man shows how to walk between the rows.
7	9:13 a.m., picnic table	Gardeners call the table by the gate "the share shelf"; a woman sets down three zucchini and takes nothing.
8	9:15 a.m., front gate	A visitor asks about getting a plot; the coordinator says the waiting list is long, probably to keep newcomers out.
9	9:17 a.m., tool shed	I took a photo of the people lined up at the shed so I could check these notes later.
10	9:20 a.m., front gate	The volunteer in the green apron locks the shed; the workday is over, and everyone had a great time.

The gardeners use two words of their own, so set each one beside a term an outside observer might use to compare gardens.

Student scaffold table 2
The gardeners' own term (emic)	What it seems to mean, from the record	A term an observer might use (etic)	What each term would catch or miss
"the shed list"
"the share shelf"

A short record and a long stay can learn different things, so set this record beside the course's pinned case.

Student scaffold table 3
Way of studying	How long and how close	What it can show	What it cannot show yet
This 20-minute record of the garden
Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many of the ten entries slip a reading into the observation, how many break a course rule, and what percent of all entries is each? Show each count and each division.
Which entries needed no change at all? Pick one of them and say what makes it a clean observation that a camera could have recorded.
Choose entry 5 or entry 8. In 3–4 sentences, rewrite it in two columns with "may" in the interpretation column, and explain why the original sentence could not be checked by anyone who was not there.
Using your comparison table, set this 20-minute record beside Malinowski's long stay in the Trobriand Islands in the 1910s. What could a long stay with taking part tell you about "the share shelf" that one morning cannot? Write about the Trobriand case only in the past tense and add no detail the course does not give.
Reflexive memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) Imagine you had written this record yourself: what about your own position (age, background, languages, how much you know about gardening) would have made some readings feel like observations to you? (b) Entry 3 and entry 9 break the course's rules. Pick one and explain what harm the rule protects against, using the first of the American Anthropological Association's principles, "Do No Harm".

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 20-minute record above. It was constructed for a class activity and describes a weekend workday at a community garden, with ten entries written in one column. In about 200 words, please do four things. First, rewrite the record as tidy field notes, and keep the full names so the notes are accurate. Second, tell me what the culture of community gardeners is and what they all value, and compare it with one traditional people somewhere else in the world and how they grow food. Third, give me one statistic and one quotation from a famous anthropologist that support your reading. Fourth, tell me whether the man in plot 9 was wrong, or whether, since every culture is equally valid, anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked to compare with a people elsewhere, chatbots often write what that people "do" or "believe" in a timeless present tense, with no decade of fieldwork, as if the people never changed.
Chatbots often call another people's way of growing food "primitive" or call the community garden the "modern" or "advanced" way.
Chatbots often say what "all" community gardeners believe, 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 Malinowski or another famous anthropologist that appears in no primary text.
Chatbots sometimes sort the gardeners into "races" as if these were natural biological groups that explain who shares and who does not.
Chatbots often say that because all cultures are equally valid, no one in the garden can be said to have done anything wrong, and anything goes.
When chatbots compare with a people elsewhere, they often use an older outsiders' label, such as "!Kung" for Ju/'hoansi or "Eskimo" for Inuit.
If a comparison drifts to families, chatbots often say that a society tracing descent through women is "ruled by women".
If a comparison drifts to marriage, chatbots sometimes say that in some societies a groom "buys a wife" with goods.
Chatbots often call the woman who left zucchini on the share shelf a "pure gift with no strings attached".
Chatbots often turn one 20-minute record into a confident account of "what community gardeners everywhere value".
Asked to compare with a people elsewhere, chatbots sometimes offer to describe a planting ceremony that a community keeps for its own members.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling the coordinator's waiting list unfair or the man in plot 9 a bully.

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 morning in this garden I can describe what community gardeners everywhere value, and all the gardeners here think the same way. Studies show that 70 percent of community gardeners share their harvest. In my tidy notes I kept every gardener's full name so the record stays accurate, and the photo of the shed line is a useful backup. The man in plot 9 is a controlling bully, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Growing food by hand is the primitive stage, and the community garden is the advanced form it grew into. The gardeners can be sorted into natural biological races that explain who shares and who does not. Since every culture is equally valid, anything goes, and no one in the garden did anything anyone could object to. The !Kung are Kalahari foragers whom researchers study for their food sharing, so they make a good comparison for the gardeners' share shelf. In a society that traces descent through women, women rule. In some societies a groom buys his wife with goods. The zucchini on the share shelf was a pure gift with no strings attached. I could go on to spell out the secret planting ceremony that one community keeps for its own members. To be neutral: the waiting list has pros and cons, but the coordinator is plainly keeping newcomers out." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one visit read as a whole society, a culture spoken of as one voice, an unsourced statistic, names and a photograph kept against the course's rules, a reading passed off as an observation, 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 2 — describe and practice ethnographic methods: participant observation, two-column field notes that keep observation apart from interpretation, interviews, the genealogical method, emic and etic perspectives, thick description, and reflexivity, following the discipline's ethics of doing no harm and obtaining informed consent) 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 two columns of Y or N marks
Your two-column rewrites of every entry that needed a fix
The completed emic-and-etic 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 one-column record of a community-garden workday: the completed data table with your marks, two-column rewrites of every entry that needed a fix, the emic-and-etic 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 garden record	Both counts and both percents are correct with the counts and divisions shown, and every entry carries a defensible Y or N in each column.	The counts or percents are attempted but one is wrong or unshown, or several marks are missing.	No counts, percents, or marks appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Two-column rewrites with roles, not names	Every flagged entry is rewritten with the observation kept apart from a "may" reading, names and the photograph are removed, and entry 5 or entry 8 is explained as uncheckable in its original form.	Rewrites are attempted, but a reading stays in the observed column, a name survives, or the explanation is missing.	No rewrites appear.
Emic and etic, and the comparison with Malinowski's fieldwork	Both emic terms are set beside a fitting etic term with neither called wrong, the comparison table is complete, and the Trobriand case is written in the past tense with its decade and nothing invented.	The tables are attempted, but an etic term is missing, one view is ranked above the other, or a row is thin.	No emic-and-etic table or 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 broken rule, to what it would let an observer see, miss, or harm.	The memo is answered but stays general or names no specific feature or harm.	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.
Each count multiplied by 10 equals the percent you report for it.
Every rewritten entry keeps what was observed apart from what it might mean, uses "may" for each reading, and names people only by role.
No custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, and the Trobriand case is written in the past tense with its fieldwork decade.
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