Week 6 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 6 Ethnography Workshop: Gifts, Swaps, and Sales at a Block Party

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every gathering is a small map of how people exchange. This week you learned that reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange are a model of how goods move, that reciprocity comes in generalized, balanced, and negative kinds depending on how closely the giver keeps count, and that a gift carries three obligations: to give, to receive, and to give back. In this workshop you code an illustrative one-hour field log of twelve exchanges at a neighborhood block party, sorting each into one exchange type or setting it aside as borderline. You count and compare, then set the party beside a documented case, the kula of the 1910s or the potlatch. Then you catch a chatbot calling a gift free, ranking giving below buying, or describing a real people in a timeless present.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which forms of exchange meet at one block party in one hour, how much of the coded exchange was buying at a posted price, and what can one hour's log not tell you yet?

Workshop data: An illustrative one-hour field log of exchanges at a neighborhood block party

Source: A one-hour log of twelve exchanges at a neighborhood block party, written by an illustrative observer and constructed for this workshop; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real party or person, and names nobody.

Rows: 12 exchanges, one row each in the data table
Columns: line number, time and place, what was observed, and two blank columns for your code and your reason
Length of the log: one afternoon hour at one block party

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 twelve lines in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative log, constructed for this workshop, of one afternoon hour at a neighborhood block party; no real party or person is described, and people appear only by role. 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 the log describes and how long it covers.
Open a blank sheet. Type Line, Observed, and Code in cells A1 to C1, enter the twelve lines in rows 2 to 13, and type one code in column C: M for market exchange, G for generalized reciprocity, B for balanced reciprocity, N for negative reciprocity, R for redistribution, or X for a borderline line you set aside to discuss rather than count. 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 13 hold twelve lines, and column C holds only M, G, B, N, R, or X.
In cell C14 type =COUNTA(A2:A13)-COUNTIF(C2:C13,"X") to find how many lines you coded. In cell D14 type =COUNTIF(C2:C13,"M") and in cell D15 type =D14/C14*100; repeat in columns E, F, G, and H for G, B, N, and R. Then subtract the generalized percent from the market percent to find the gap between them, and add the three reciprocity percents. 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: Row 14 holds the coded total and five whole-number counts, row 15 holds five percents that add to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
Fill in the exchange-type table, writing each type's count and percent from your sheet and one line from the log that shows it. 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 exchange-type table has five filled rows, and the five counts add up to your coded total.
Write two-column field notes, observed and possible interpretation, for the two lines you set aside as borderline and for the block association tent, keeping every reading out of the observed column. 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: Three notes, each with an observed column that holds no interpretation.
Fill in the comparison table that sets the block party beside one documented case, the kula of the 1910s or the potlatch, writing about the case only in the past tense and adding no detail the course does not give. 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 cell of the comparison table is filled, and the case row is written in the past tense, with the decade for the kula.
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 three of the chatbot's or the printed analysis's claims and corrects each with evidence.

Fallback route

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

Code the lines by hand from the data table: mark M, G, B, N, R, or X beside each line, count each mark, subtract the X lines from the twelve to find the coded total, divide each count by the coded total, 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 one-hour field log of exchanges at a neighborhood block party, with columns for your code and your reason.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Time and place	What was observed
1	2:05 p.m., lemonade stand	A child sells a cup of lemonade to a passerby for the price on a hand-lettered sign.
2	2:08 p.m., shared food table	A neighbor sets out a tray of sandwiches; others take some, and nobody keeps track of who brought what.
3	2:12 p.m., yard-sale table	A seller tells a stranger that a wobbly chair is solid and talks the price up before the stranger notices the loose leg.
4	2:15 p.m., block association tent	The association's treasurer collects each household's party dues and uses them to buy ice and grill fuel, which are handed out to everyone.
5	2:20 p.m., grill	Two neighbors agree to trade a bag of charcoal now for a bag of ice at next month's party.
6	2:24 p.m., yard-sale table	A buyer pays the marked price for a set of plates and walks away.
7	2:30 p.m., dessert table	A grandparent hands a cookie to every child who walks by; nobody pays or is asked to.
8	2:33 p.m., lemonade stand	A parent buys three cups of lemonade at the price on the sign.
9	2:40 p.m., porch	An older neighbor lends a folding table to the family next door, and no one mentions paying it back.
10	2:44 p.m., bike-repair table	A volunteer fixes a stranger's bike chain for free; the stranger then drops some cash into a jar labelled Tips.
11	2:50 p.m., plant table	A gardener sells a potted herb for the price on its tag.
12	2:55 p.m., shared food table	A guest who brought nothing is handed a full plate and told, with a laugh, to bring a dish next year.

Five exchange types appear in the model, so record each count, its percent of the coded exchanges, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 2
Exchange type	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded exchanges	One line that shows it
Market exchange (M)
Generalized reciprocity (G)
Balanced reciprocity (B)
Negative reciprocity (N)
Redistribution (R)

A one-hour log and a documented case show exchange at very different depths, so set the block party beside one pinned case.

Student scaffold table 3
Exchange	Who gives, who receives, and who gives back	What the exchange secures	What one hour cannot show yet
The block association tent and the shared food table at this block party
The kula of the 1910s, or the potlatch of the Kwakwaka'wakw and other Northwest Coast peoples

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many lines did you code after setting the borderline lines aside, what percent of the coded exchanges was market exchange and what percent was generalized reciprocity, and what is the gap between those two, in percentage points? Then find what percent of the coded exchanges was reciprocity of any kind. Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
Compare line 4 with line 5, or line 3 with line 6. What changes between the two lines in the path the goods take, how closely anyone keeps count, how close the people are, and what tie is left afterward?
In 3–4 sentences, explain why this one party mixes forms of exchange, naming reciprocity, redistribution, and market exchange with a line for each, and link at least one kind of reciprocity to how close the people involved are.
Using your comparison table, set the block party beside one documented case, the kula of the 1910s or the potlatch of the Kwakwaka'wakw and other Northwest Coast peoples. Use the three obligations of the gift to say who gives, who receives, and who gives back in each, and what each exchange secures. Write about the case only in the past tense, use the people's own name, and add no detail the course does not give.
Reflexive memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) Imagine you had kept this log at a gathering in your own neighborhood: what about your own position (where you grew up, whether your family lends and borrows with neighbors, how you shop) would shape which exchanges seemed ordinary and which seemed worth noting? (b) Someone reading this log says it proves that buying has replaced giving. Using the idea that the forms of exchange are a model, explain what this one-hour log can and cannot show about that claim.

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 one-hour field log above. It was constructed for a class activity and lists twelve exchanges at a neighborhood block party. In about 200 words, please do four things. First, rewrite the log as tidy notes and give each person a name so the notes are easier to follow. Second, rank the exchanges from the most "primitive" kind of giving to the most advanced kind of buying, and tell me how all neighbors in this country share and trade. Third, compare the party with how Trobriand Islanders trade in the kula and how the Kwakiutl run a potlatch, and give me one quotation from Malinowski and one figure for how many guests a potlatch had. Fourth, tell me whether the free cookies were a gift with no strings attached, and whether, since every way of exchanging is equally valid, anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked to compare the party with the kula, chatbots often write what Trobriand Islanders "do" or "trade" in a timeless present tense, with no decade of fieldwork, as if the people never changed.
Asked to rank the exchanges, chatbots often line them up from "primitive" gift-giving to "advanced" market buying, as if every society climbs from sharing to shopping.
Chatbots often say how "all Americans" or "all neighbors" share and trade, as if one party showed a single shared way.
Asked for a quotation and a figure, chatbots often supply a famous-sounding line credited to Malinowski or Mauss, or a number of kula valuables or potlatch guests, that appears in no primary text.
Chatbots sometimes explain who shares and who haggles by sorting guests into "races" as if these were natural biological groups.
Chatbots often say that because every way of exchanging is equally valid, the seller who hid the chair's loose leg cannot be questioned, so anything goes.
When chatbots explain the potlatch, they often use the older outsiders' label "Kwakiutl" for the Kwakwaka'wakw.
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 weddings, chatbots sometimes say that in some societies a groom "buys a wife" with goods.
Chatbots often call the grandparent's cookies or the sandwiches on the shared table a "free gift" with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one hour at one party into a confident account of "how neighborhoods share now" or "why gift economies disappeared".
Asked to explain the potlatch, chatbots sometimes offer to describe songs, dances, or ceremonial details a community keeps for its own members.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling market exchange the efficient choice and gift-giving sentimental, or calling the potlatch ban a reasonable policy of its time.

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 hour at this party I can tell you how all neighbors in this country share, and they all do it the same way. Market exchange made up 45 percent of the coded exchanges, which proves buying has replaced giving. In my tidy notes I gave each guest a name so the log is easier to follow. The seller at the yard-sale table was greedy, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Handing out free cookies is the primitive, stone-age way to exchange, and buying lemonade is the advanced form every society grows into. Trobriand Islanders trade shells in the kula to get rich, and as Malinowski said, "every exchange is really a sale." The Kwakiutl potlatch was a wasteful party that threw goods away. The guests could be sorted into natural biological races that explain who shares and who haggles. Since every way of exchanging is equally valid, anything goes, and the seller who hid the loose leg cannot be questioned. In a society that traces descent through women, women rule. In some societies a groom buys his wife with goods. The grandparent's cookies were a free gift with no strings attached. I could go on to describe everything that happens at a potlatch, including anything the community keeps private. To be neutral: gift-giving has its charms, but market exchange is plainly the more efficient choice, and the potlatch ban was a reasonable policy for its time." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one hour read as a whole country, a group spoken of as one voice, a percent that does not match your own count, names added against the course's rules, a reading passed off as an observation, ladder-of-progress language about exchange, the kula read as trade for profit in a timeless present tense, an invented quotation, an outsiders' name, the potlatch read as waste, race read as biological groups, relativism read as anything goes, 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 objectives (Objective 4 and Objective 2) 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 codes and reasons
The completed exchange-type table and comparison table
Your three two-column field notes
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-hour field log of exchanges at a neighborhood block party: the completed data table with your codes and reasons, the exchange-type and comparison tables, three two-column field notes, written answers to five analysis questions including a reflexive memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same log, 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
Coding the block party log	The coded total, both percents, the percentage-point gap, and the reciprocity percent are correct with the counts, divisions, and subtraction shown, and every line carries a defensible code with a reason, including the borderline lines set aside.	The counts or percents are attempted but one is wrong or unshown, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several codes or reasons are missing.	No counts, percents, or codes appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Exchange types named and compared without ranking	All five exchange-type rows carry a count, a percent, and a fitting line, and the explanation names all three forms mixing at one party, links a kind of reciprocity to social distance, and ranks none of them.	The table or explanation is attempted, but a type is misnamed, a row is thin, or ladder words such as primitive or advanced slip in.	No exchange-type table or explanation appears.
Field notes and the comparison with the kula or the potlatch	Three two-column notes keep observation apart from interpretation, the comparison table is complete and uses the three obligations of the gift, and the case is written in the past tense, with the decade for the kula and the people's own name for the potlatch, with nothing invented.	The notes or the table are attempted, but an interpretation sits in an observed column, a row is thin, or the case slips into the present tense or an outsiders' name.	No field notes or comparison appear.
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 to what it would let an observer notice or miss, or that explain why one hour's log cannot show that buying has replaced giving.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or slips into ranking the forms of exchange.	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 five counts add up to your coded total, the percents add up to 100, and the gap between two percents is reported in percentage points.
Every exchange type is named in the course's words, no form of exchange is called primitive, earlier, or more advanced, and every person in your notes is named only by role.
No custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, the kula is written in the past tense with its fieldwork decade, and the Kwakwaka'wakw are named by their own name.
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