Week 10 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 10 Ethnography Workshop: Where Did Each Couple Live After the Wedding?

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every marriage raises a practical question: where will the new couple live, and what passes between the two families? This week you learned that marriage is a socially recognized union that creates rights and obligations between the partners and between their families, that bridewealth, bride service, and dowry move goods or work in different directions, and that five residence rules (patrilocal, matrilocal, avunculocal, neolocal, and bilocal) describe where a couple lives. You also learned that descent is who you are related to and residence is where you live. In this workshop you code an illustrative family-history record of twelve married couples one consenting interviewee described, tally the residence rules, read three wedding transfers as marriage exchanges, and set those exchanges beside the potlatch from Week 6. Then you catch a chatbot calling bridewealth buying a wife, reading one family as a whole country, or ranking marriage customs.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Where did each couple in one family live after the wedding, how often did each residence rule appear, and what can one interview not tell you about the family's rule?

Workshop data: An illustrative family-history record of twelve married couples

Source: A record of twelve married couples across three generations of one family, as one consenting interviewee described where each couple lived after the wedding and three gifts or services given at weddings, 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 married couples, one row each in the data table, plus a separate table of 3 wedding transfers
Columns: line number, the couple by kin-type string, what the interview recorded about where they lived, and two blank columns for your code and your reason
Scope of the record: one interview with one consenting adult about the couples in one family, across three generations

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 and the three wedding transfers below it. They are an illustrative family-history record, constructed for this workshop, of one consenting interviewee's account; 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, Couple, and Code in cells A1 to C1, enter the twelve lines in rows 2 to 13, and type one code in column C: P for patrilocal (near the husband's father's kin), M for matrilocal (near the wife's mother's kin), A for avunculocal (near the husband's mother's brother), N for neolocal (a new home apart from both), B for bilocal (near either side), 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 P, M, A, N, B, 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,"P") and in cell D15 type =D14/C14*100. Repeat in columns E to H for M, A, N, and B, 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 five whole-number counts, and row 15 holds five percents written beside their meaning.
Fill in the residence table with each rule's count, percent, and one line that shows it. Then fill in the exchange table for the three wedding transfers, naming who gave, who received, which marriage exchange it was, and what it obliged the families to do afterward. Check: The residence table has five filled rows whose counts add up to your coded total, and every exchange row is filled.
Write two-column field notes, observed and possible interpretation, for the two lines you set aside as borderline. Then, for line 5, write two sentences that keep descent apart from residence: where FZ lived after her wedding, and to whose patrilineage she would belong if the family were patrilineal. 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: Two notes whose observed column holds no interpretation, and two sentences that name a place and a descent group separately.
Fill in the comparison table that sets the three wedding transfers beside the potlatch in the documented record, writing about the potlatch only in the past tense, using the people's own name, and adding no detail the course does not give. Check: Every cell of the comparison table is filled, and the potlatch 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 P, M, A, N, B, 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 field notes, 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 family-history record of twelve married couples, with columns for your code and your reason.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Couple	What the interview recorded about where they lived
1	the interviewee's father's parents (FF and FM)	After their wedding they moved into a house next door to FF's father and brothers.
2	the interviewee's mother's parents (MF and MM)	For their first years they rented the flat downstairs from MM's mother and sisters.
3	the interviewee's parents (F and M)	They rented an apartment across the city from both families.
4	the father's brother and his wife (FB and FBW)	They built a house on a lot beside FF's.
5	the father's sister and her husband (FZ and FZH)	They moved to the town where FZH's father and brothers lived.
6	the mother's brother and his wife (MB and MBW)	They settled two doors from MBW's mother and sisters.
7	the mother's sister and her husband (MZ and MZH)	They split their first years between the two sets of parents, a few months at a time.
8	the interviewee's brother and his wife (B and BW)	They took a flat of their own near their jobs.
9	the interviewee's sister and her husband (Z and ZH)	They lived on the farm of ZH's mother's brother for their first years.
10	the father's brother's son and his wife (FBS and his wife)	They moved across the country for work and rent a place of their own.
11	the mother's sister's daughter and her husband (MZD and her husband)	They bought a new house of their own, on the same street as MZD's mother and aunts.
12	the mother's brother's son and his wife (MBS and his wife)	They stayed with MBS's mother's relatives for a year while saving, then moved out.

Five residence rules appear in this week's concepts, so record each rule's count, its percent of the coded lines, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 2
Residence rule	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded lines	One line that shows it
Patrilocal, near the husband's father's kin (P)
Matrilocal, near the wife's mother's kin (M)
Avunculocal, near the husband's mother's brother (A)
Neolocal, a new home apart from both (N)
Bilocal, near either side (B)

The interviewee also recalled three wedding transfers, and each one moved goods or work in a direction you can name.

Student scaffold table 3
Transfer the interview recorded	Who gave	Who received	Which marriage exchange	What it obliged afterward
At line 3's wedding, M's parents gave the couple furniture and a set of dishes.
At line 5's wedding, FZH's relatives gave household goods and cash to FF and FM's household.
Before line 9's wedding, ZH spent a summer rebuilding the porch at the interviewee's parents' home.

A family's wedding transfers and a documented feast both move goods before witnesses, so set them side by side.

Student scaffold table 4
Record	What passed, and before whom	What it recognized or validated	What the record cannot show yet
The three wedding transfers in the family record
The potlatch 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 patrilocal, matrilocal, avunculocal, neolocal, and bilocal? Show each count, each division, and each multiplication by 100.
Compare line 4 with line 5, or line 8 with line 9. In each pair, whose kin did the couple live near, and why does the same rule, or a different rule, apply even though one partner in each line is the interviewee's own relative?
In 3–4 sentences, explain why FZ, who lived near FZH's father's kin after her wedding, would still belong to FF's patrilineage if the family were patrilineal, and explain why the goods FZH's relatives gave at that wedding were bridewealth and not the purchase of a wife.
Using your comparison table, set the three wedding transfers beside the potlatch in the documented record, at which Kwakwaka'wakw hosts (the older outsiders' label "Kwakiutl" is given once here) and other Northwest Coast hosts gave away goods to validate names, rank, and rights before invited witnesses. Say what passed and before whom in each, and what each gift recognized or bound. Write about the potlatch 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 family as one of its members: what about your own position (which side you grew up closest to, which weddings you attended, what you already expect newlyweds to do) would shape which moves looked normal and which looked unusual? (b) Someone reading this record says it proves the family follows a patrilocal rule because three couples lived near the husband's father's kin. Using this week's concepts, explain what one interview about one family 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 family-history record above. It was constructed for a class activity and lists twelve married couples one consenting interviewee described, by kin-type string, with where each couple lived after the wedding and three gifts or services given at weddings. In about 200 words, please do five things. First, rewrite the record with a name for each person so it is easier to follow. Second, tell me which residence rule this family follows and how all families in this country decide where newlyweds live. Third, tell me which marriage customs are "primitive" and which are modern, explain the goods FZH's relatives gave as the price paid for the bride, and tell me whether the furniture M's parents gave was a free gift with no strings. Fourth, compare the record with how the Kwakiutl potlatch works, and give me one quotation from an anthropologist and a full description of a potlatch's ceremonies. Fifth, since every family arrangement is equally valid, tell me whether anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked about the potlatch, chatbots often write what Northwest Coast peoples "do" in a timeless present tense, as if the practice never changed and the people never spoke for themselves.
Asked which marriage customs are primitive, chatbots often rank bridewealth, bride service, or living with in-laws as an earlier stage and the neolocal couple with a registry as the modern end point.
Chatbots often say how "all families in this country" decide where newlyweds live, as if one country's families spoke with one voice.
Asked for a quotation and a full description of a potlatch's ceremonies, chatbots often supply a famous-sounding line credited to an anthropologist and ceremonial details or guest counts that appear in no checked source.
Chatbots sometimes explain who marries whom by "race" or "bloodline", as if these were natural biological groups.
Chatbots often say that because every family arrangement is equally valid, anything goes and nothing about a marriage can be questioned.
Asked about the potlatch, chatbots often use the older outsiders' label "Kwakiutl" throughout for the people.
Chatbots sometimes say that a couple living near the wife's mother's kin, as on line 2 or line 6, lives in a matriarchal household where women rule.
Chatbots very often call the goods FZH's relatives gave a "bride price" paid to buy the bride, as if she were sold.
Chatbots often call the furniture M's parents gave a "free gift" with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one family record into a confident verdict that the family is patrilocal, or into a claim about where every couple in a country lives.
Asked to describe a potlatch's ceremonies in full, chatbots sometimes describe songs, dances, or ceremonial details that a community has not chosen to share with outsiders.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as calling the neolocal couples the healthy norm or the couples who lived with in-laws old-fashioned.

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 interview I can tell you where all newlyweds in this country live, and they all do it the same way. Patrilocal couples made up 31 percent of the coded lines, which proves this family follows a patrilocal rule. In my version of the record I gave each person a name so it is easier to follow. FZ lived near FZH's father's kin, so she joined FZH's patrilineage, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Living with in-laws is the primitive, old-fashioned way, and a couple with a home of its own is the modern form every society grows into. The Kwakiutl give away goods at a potlatch, and as one anthropologist said, "any feast is only a party." The couples on lines 2 and 6 lived in matriarchal households where the women ruled. Some families marry within their own race because bloodlines are natural groups. Since every family arrangement is equally valid, anything goes, and nothing about a marriage can be questioned. FZH's relatives paid a bride price to buy FZ. The furniture M's parents gave was a free gift with no strings attached. I could go on to describe a potlatch's ceremonies in full, including anything the community keeps private. To be neutral: the couples who lived with their parents are fine, but they never really grew up." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one family 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, residence read as changing descent and a reading passed off as an observation, ladder-of-progress language about households, an outsiders' name, a timeless present tense, and an invented quotation for a real people, matrilocal read as matriarchal, 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 4) 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 residence table, exchange table, and comparison table
Your two two-column field notes and your two sentences on line 5
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 family-history record of twelve married couples: the completed data table with your codes and reasons, the residence, exchange, and comparison tables, two two-column field notes and two sentences on descent and residence, 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 family record	The coded total and the five 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.
Residence and descent kept apart	Every residence code follows whose kin the couple lived near, the line 5 sentences name a place and a descent group separately, and the explanation ranks no marriage custom or household.	The codes or sentences are attempted, but a rule is applied to the wrong partner's kin, residence is said to change descent, or ladder words such as primitive or modern slip in.	No residence reading or line 5 sentences appear.
Marriage exchanges and the comparison with the potlatch	The exchange table names dowry, bridewealth, and bride service with the right givers and receivers and what each obliged afterward, two two-column notes keep observation apart from interpretation, and the comparison table is complete, with the potlatch in the past tense, the Kwakwaka'wakw named by their own name, and nothing invented.	The tables or notes are attempted, but an exchange runs the wrong way, bridewealth reads as a purchase, an interpretation sits in an observed column, or the potlatch slips into the present tense, an outsiders' name, or added detail.	No exchange table, 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 family cannot settle the family's residence rule.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or treats three couples 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 five counts add up to your coded total, and every percent is a count divided by the coded total and multiplied by 100.
Residence rules are applied to whose kin a couple lived near, descent is kept apart from residence, bridewealth and dowry are kept apart by direction, no marriage custom is called primitive or modern, and every person is named only by kin type or role.
No custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, the potlatch is written in the past tense, the Kwakwaka'wakw are named by their own name, and bridewealth is never described as buying a wife.
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