Week 9 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 9 Ethnography Workshop: Who Counts as Kin at a Family Reunion?

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every family decides who counts. This week you learned that kinship is cultural as well as biological, that consanguineal kin are related by birth and affinal kin by marriage, and that fictive and chosen kin carry real duties with neither tie. You also learned that a descent rule decides which parent's line a person belongs to, and that languages sort cousins differently. In this workshop you code an illustrative genealogical record of twelve people one consenting interviewee described at a family reunion, the kind of record the genealogical method collects person by person. You sort each person as kin by birth, kin by marriage, or fictive kin, count and compare, read the four cousins through descent and terminology, and draw the family in words with roles, never names. Then you set the record beside one documented case, Haudenosaunee clans, and catch a chatbot reading matrilineal as matriarchal, ranking family systems, or describing a real people in a timeless present.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Who counted as kin at one family reunion, how much of the record rested on birth, on marriage, and on neither, and what can one interview not tell you about the family's descent rule?

Workshop data: An illustrative genealogical record of twelve people at one family reunion

Source: A record of twelve people one consenting interviewee described at a family reunion, written by an illustrative student fieldworker and constructed for this workshop; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real family or person, and names nobody.

Rows: 12 people, one row each in the data table
Columns: line number, kin-type string or role, what the interview recorded, and two blank columns for your code and your reason
Scope of the record: one interview with one consenting adult about one afternoon family reunion

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 genealogical record, constructed for this workshop, of one consenting interviewee's account of one family reunion; no real family or person is described, and people appear only by kin-type string or 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 record describes and whose account it is.
Open a blank sheet. Type Line, Kin type or role, and Code in cells A1 to C1, enter the twelve lines in rows 2 to 13, and type one code in column C: C for consanguineal kin (related by birth), A for affinal kin (related by marriage), K for fictive or chosen kin (neither birth nor marriage), 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 C, A, K, 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,"C") and in cell D15 type =D14/C14*100. Repeat in column E for A and in column F for K, then write each percent in words. 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 three whole-number counts, and row 15 holds three percents written beside their meaning.
Fill in the kin-tie table with each kind's count, percent, and one line that shows it. Then fill in the cousin table for lines 3 to 6, marking each cousin parallel or cross, saying whether that cousin would be in the interviewee's patrilineage if the family were patrilineal and in the matrilineage if it were matrilineal, and naming what bifurcate merging terminology would call that cousin. Check: The kin-tie table has three filled rows whose counts add up to your coded total, and every cousin row is filled.
Draw the reunion family on paper as a kinship diagram centred on the interviewee as ego, with triangles, circles, equals signs, and lines, using kin-type strings and roles only. Then describe it in words, generation by generation, and write two-column field notes, observed and possible interpretation, for the two lines you set aside as borderline. 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: A diagram with a written description by generation, and two notes whose observed column holds no interpretation.
Fill in the comparison table that sets the reunion record beside Haudenosaunee clans in the documented record, writing about the clans only in the past tense and adding no detail the course does not give. Check: Every cell of the comparison table is filled, and the Haudenosaunee row is written in the past tense with no added detail.
Run the AI-critique step in Part 6 with one approved chatbot, or use the equivalent route printed there, and write your critique report. 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 C, A, K, 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, the diagram, every 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 genealogical record of twelve people at one family reunion, with columns for your code and your reason.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Kin type or role	What the interview recorded
1	the interviewee's father (F)	He hosted the reunion and greeted each car at the gate.
2	the interviewee's mother (M)	She kept the guest list and set out the name tags.
3	the father's brother's daughter (FBD)	She drove in from out of state and sat with the interviewee's sister.
4	the father's sister's son (FZS)	He ran the grill for most of the afternoon.
5	the mother's sister's son (MZS)	He organized the softball game and picked teams.
6	the mother's brother's daughter (MBD)	She brought her newborn and passed the baby around.
7	the father's sister's husband (FZH)	He set up the folding tables with the interviewee's father.
8	the brother's wife (BW)	She led a toast to the oldest guest.
9	the interviewee's godmother	She stood with the parents at the interviewee's naming and still sends a card every birthday; she shares no birth or marriage tie with the family.
10	a family friend everyone calls Uncle	He coached the interviewee's youth soccer team for six seasons and now joins every family holiday; he shares no birth or marriage tie with the family.
11	the father's second wife's son from her earlier marriage	He came with his mother and calls the interviewee's sister his sister.
12	the mother's sister's former husband	He and the mother's sister divorced years ago, but he still comes to every reunion and brings the dessert.

Three kinds of kin tie appear in this week's concepts, so record each kind's count, its percent of the coded lines, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 2
Kind of kin tie	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded lines	One line that shows it
Consanguineal kin, related by birth (C)
Affinal kin, related by marriage (A)
Fictive or chosen kin, neither birth nor marriage (K)

The four cousins sort differently under each descent rule and each terminology type, so read each one both ways.

Student scaffold table 3
Cousin (line)	Parallel or cross	In the patrilineage if patrilineal?	In the matrilineage if matrilineal?	What bifurcate merging terminology calls this cousin
FBD (line 3)
FZS (line 4)
MZS (line 5)
MBD (line 6)

One interview and a documented case show descent at very different depths, so set them side by side.

Student scaffold table 4
Record	How membership passed	Who held recognized roles	What the record cannot show yet
The reunion record, read as if the family were matrilineal
Haudenosaunee clans in the documented record

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many lines did you code after setting the borderline lines aside, and what percent of the coded lines was consanguineal kin, what percent was affinal kin, and what percent was fictive or chosen kin? Show each count, each division, and each multiplication by 100.
Compare line 7 with line 10, or line 4 with line 5. What changes between the two lines in how the person is tied to the interviewee, and in what the family expects of that person?
In 3–4 sentences, explain which two of the four cousins would belong to the interviewee's patrilineage or matrilineage under each rule and why, using who passes membership on, and explain why one cousin's mother being in a line does not put that cousin in it.
Using your comparison table, set the reunion record, read as if the family were matrilineal, beside Haudenosaunee clans in the documented record, in which clan membership passed through women and clan mothers held recognized roles, including in choosing chiefs. Say how membership passed in each and what the documented case shows that one interview cannot. Write about the clans 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 recorded this reunion as a member of the family: what about your own position (your place in the family, which side you grew up closest to, whom you already call cousin) would shape which ties looked like kin and which looked like guests? (b) Someone reading this record says it proves the family is patrilineal because the father hosted. Using this week's concepts, explain what one interview about one reunion 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 genealogical record above. It was constructed for a class activity and lists twelve people one consenting interviewee described at a family reunion, by kin-type string or role. In about 200 words, please do five things. First, rewrite the record as a family tree and give each person a name so it is easier to follow. Second, tell me whether this family is matrilineal or patrilineal, and how all American families trace descent. Third, tell me which family systems are "primitive" and which are more advanced. Fourth, compare the record with how the Iroquois clans work, tell me whether their women rule, and give me one quotation from an anthropologist and the names of their clans and ceremonies. Fifth, since every family system is equally valid, tell me whether anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked about Haudenosaunee clans, chatbots often write what the people "do" in a timeless present tense, as if the clan system never changed and the people never spoke for themselves.
Asked which family systems are primitive, chatbots often rank matrilineal or clan-based kinship as an earlier stage and the small bilateral family as the advanced end point.
Chatbots often say how "all American families" trace descent, as if one country's families spoke with one voice.
Asked for a quotation and for clan and ceremony names, chatbots often supply a famous-sounding line credited to an anthropologist and lists of names that appear in no checked source.
Chatbots sometimes explain who counts as family by blood type or ancestry "races", as if these were natural biological groups.
Chatbots often say that because every family system is equally valid, anything goes and nothing in a family can be questioned.
Asked about clans, chatbots often use the older outsiders' label "Iroquois" throughout for the people.
Chatbots very often say that because Haudenosaunee clan membership passed through women, women ruled, turning matrilineal descent into matriarchy.
If the record drifts to weddings, chatbots sometimes say that in some societies a groom "buys a wife" with goods.
Chatbots often call the godmother's yearly birthday card a "free gift" with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one reunion record into a confident verdict that the family is patrilineal, or into a claim about how a whole society traces descent.
Asked for clan ceremonies, chatbots sometimes describe ceremonial details or names that a community has not chosen to share with outsiders.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling the godmother and the coach "not real family" or calling the bilateral family the healthy norm.

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 reunion I can tell you how all American families trace descent, and they all do it the same way. Kin by birth made up 70 percent of the coded lines, which proves blood matters more than marriage everywhere. In my family tree I gave each relative a name so the record is easier to follow. The father hosted, so the family is patrilineal, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Clans are the primitive, stone-age way to organize a family, and the small bilateral family is the advanced form every society grows into. The Iroquois trace clans through women. Wherever descent passes through women, the women rule, and as one anthropologist said, "descent and rule are the same thing." The relatives could be sorted into natural biological races that explain who belongs. Since every family system is equally valid, anything goes, and nothing a family does can be questioned. In some societies a groom buys his wife with goods. The godmother's birthday card was a free gift with no strings attached. I could go on to describe the clans' ceremonies in detail. To be neutral: the godmother and the coach are nice, but they are not really family." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one reunion read as a whole country, families 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 families, an outsiders' name and a timeless present tense for a real people, matrilineal read as matriarchal, an invented quotation, race read as biological groups, relativism read as anything goes, bridewealth read as buying a wife, a gift read as free of obligation, an offer to repeat what a community has not shared, 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 6 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 kin-tie table, cousin table, and comparison table
Your kinship diagram of the reunion family with its description in words, and your two 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 genealogical record of one family reunion: the completed data table with your codes and reasons, the kin-tie, cousin, and comparison tables, a kinship diagram described in words, two 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 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
Coding the reunion record	The coded total and the three percents are correct with the counts, divisions, and multiplications 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, or several codes or reasons are missing.	No counts, percents, or codes appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Descent and terminology read on the cousins	All four cousin rows are complete and accurate, and the explanation names who passes membership on under each rule, keeps a mother's membership apart from her child's, and ranks no family system.	The table or explanation is attempted, but a cousin is misread, membership is said to pass through the wrong parent, or ladder words such as primitive or advanced slip in.	No cousin table or explanation appears.
Diagram, field notes, and the comparison with Haudenosaunee clans	The diagram uses the course's symbols with kin types or roles only and is described generation by generation, two two-column notes keep observation apart from interpretation, and the comparison table is complete, with the clans in the past tense, the Haudenosaunee named by their own name, and nothing invented.	The diagram, notes, or tables are attempted, but a name appears, the description in words is missing, an interpretation sits in an observed column, or the clans slip into the present tense, an outsiders' name, or added detail.	No diagram, 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 interview about one reunion cannot settle the family's descent rule.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or treats one remark or one host as proof of a rule.	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 three counts add up to your coded total, and every percent is a count divided by the coded total and multiplied by 100.
Consanguineal, affinal, and fictive kin are kept distinct, kin-type strings are read outward from ego, no family system is called primitive, earlier, or more advanced, and every person in your diagram and notes is named only by kin type or role.
No custom, kin term, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, Haudenosaunee clans are written in the past tense, matrilineal is never read as matriarchal, and the Haudenosaunee 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