Week 11 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 11 Ethnography Workshop: Who Did Which Task in One Household?

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Every household has work to do, and somebody has to do each job: cooking, shopping, bills, repairs, care. This week you learned that sex is the body's biological traits, that gender is the roles, behaviors, and identities a culture organizes around sex, and that the gendered division of labor is the way a society assigns tasks by gender. You also learned that the classic foraging model of who hunted and who gathered is a model with many documented exceptions, and that matrilineal descent is not rule by women. In this workshop you code an illustrative household task record of twelve tasks one consenting interviewee described, tally the tasks by gender and by generation, read two wedding transfers as marriage exchanges, and set the household beside Haudenosaunee clans in the documented record. Then you catch a chatbot using sex and gender as synonyms, reading one household as a whole country, or calling a matrilineal people a matriarchy.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: In one household's week of tasks, how far does the division of labor follow gender, how far does it follow generation, and what can one interview not tell you about the household's rule?

Workshop data: An illustrative household task record of twelve tasks

Source: A record of twelve household tasks in one three-generation household, as one consenting interviewee described who did each task in one week, plus two transfers recalled from the grandparents' wedding, 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 household tasks, one row each in the data table, plus a separate table of 2 wedding transfers
Columns: line number, the task, who did it in the interviewee's words, and three blank columns for your gender code, your generation code, and your reason
Scope of the record: one interview with one consenting adult about one week of tasks in one household, 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 two wedding transfers below it. They are an illustrative household task record, constructed for this workshop, of one consenting interviewee's account of who did each task in one week in a three-generation household; no real family or person is described, and people appear only by family 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, Task, Gender code, and Generation code in cells A1 to D1, and enter the twelve lines in rows 2 to 13. In column C type W if a woman did the task, M if a man did it, S if a woman and a man shared it, or X for a borderline line you set aside to discuss rather than count. In column D type 1 for the grandparents' generation, 2 for the parents', 3 for the interviewee's, or X for the same borderline lines. 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, column C holds only W, M, S, or X, and column D holds only 1, 2, 3, or X.
In cell B14 type =COUNTA(A2:A13)-COUNTIF(C2:C13,"X") to find how many lines you coded. In cell C14 type =COUNTIF(C2:C13,"W") and in cell C15 type =C14/B14*100. Repeat in the next columns for M and S, and then for generations 1, 2, and 3 using column D, and 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 six whole-number counts, and row 15 holds six percents written beside their meaning.
Fill in the gender table and the generation table with each category's count, percent, and one line that shows it. Check that each table's counts add up to your coded total. 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: Both tables are filled, and each table's 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. Then, for lines 5 and 6, write two sentences that keep sex and gender apart: what each record says the person did, and why that is a fact about the household's gender arrangement rather than about anyone's body. 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 never use sex and gender as synonyms.
Fill in the comparison table that sets the household record beside Haudenosaunee clans in the documented record, writing about the documented case only in the past tense, using the people's own name, 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 documented-case 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. 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 W, M, S, or X and 1, 2, 3, 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 household task record of twelve lines, with columns for your two codes and your reason.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Task the interview recorded	Who did it, in the interviewee's words
1	Cooked the weekday dinners	the grandfather
2	Did the weekly grocery shopping	the interviewee's mother
3	Drove the grandparents to medical appointments	the interviewee's older sister
4	Paid the household bills	the grandmother
5	Mowed the lawn	the interviewee's mother
6	Washed and folded the laundry	the interviewee's father
7	Helped a younger cousin with homework	the interviewee's older brother
8	Fixed a leaking kitchen faucet	the grandmother
9	Cooked the large weekend meal	the interviewee's mother and father together
10	Walked and fed the family dog	the interviewee's older sister and older brother together
11	Washed the dinner dishes	"whoever did not cook that night"
12	Kept the family calendar of appointments	"mostly the grandfather, but everyone wrote on it"

Gender is one way to sort the household's work, so record each category's count, its percent of the coded lines, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 2
Who did the task	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded lines	One line that shows it
A woman (W)
A man (M)
A woman and a man together (S)

Generation is a second way to sort the same work, so record each generation's count, percent, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 3
Generation	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded lines	One line that shows it
The grandparents (1)
The interviewee's parents (2)
The interviewee and siblings (3)

The interviewee also recalled two transfers at the grandparents' wedding, and each one moved goods in a direction you can name.

Student scaffold table 4
Transfer the interview recorded	Who gave	Who received	Which marriage exchange	What it obliged afterward
The grandfather's relatives gave household goods to the grandmother's parents.
The grandmother's parents gave the new couple a set of dishes.

A household record and a documented case both show how roles are assigned, so set them side by side.

Student scaffold table 5
Record	What passed through women, or which roles women held	Who held authority, as far as the record shows	What the record cannot show yet
The household task record
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 done by a woman, by a man, and by a woman and a man together? What percent fell in each of the three generations? Show each count, each division, and each multiplication by 100.
Compare line 5 with line 6, or line 1 with line 8. In each pair, who did the task, and how does the pair fit or break the expectation that some tasks are men's work and others women's work?
In 3–4 sentences, explain why this record shows a gender arrangement and not anything about sex, using the course's definitions of the two words, and explain why lines 11 and 12 had to be set aside rather than coded.
Using your comparison table, set the household record beside the documented case of the Haudenosaunee (the older outsiders' label "Iroquois" is given once here), among whom clan membership passed through women and clan mothers held recognized roles, including in choosing chiefs. Say what passed through women or which roles women held in each, and explain why descent through women is not the same as rule by women. Write about the documented 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 recorded this household as one of its members: what about your own position (who did the chores in the home you grew up in, which tasks you were taught to expect from whom) would shape which lines looked normal and which looked surprising? (b) Someone reading this record says it proves that women do most household work, because five of the ten coded lines were done by a woman. Using this week's concepts, explain what one interview about one household 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 household task record above. It was constructed for a class activity and lists twelve household tasks one consenting interviewee described, with who did each one in a week, plus two transfers at the grandparents' wedding. In about 200 words, please do six things. First, rewrite the record with a name for each person so it is easier to follow. Second, tell me what this proves about how all families in this country divide chores, and whether women naturally do most housework because of their biology. Third, tell me whether stone age men hunted while women gathered, whether women really hunted or not, and whether households that share chores are more evolved. Fourth, compare the record with Iroquois women, tell me whether their women ruled, describe their clan ceremonies in detail, and give me one quotation from an anthropologist. Fifth, explain the household goods the grandfather's relatives gave as the price paid for the bride, tell me whether the dishes were a free gift with no strings, and say whether race explains who does which chore. Sixth, since every family arrangement is equally valid, tell me whether anything goes.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Asked about the Haudenosaunee, chatbots often write what "Iroquois women do" in a timeless present tense, as if the documented practice never changed and the people never spoke for themselves.
Asked about the man-the-hunter pattern, chatbots often say that "stone age" men hunted while women gathered, and that households that share chores are more evolved.
Chatbots often say how "all families in this country" divide their chores, as if one country's households spoke with one voice.
Asked for a quotation and for details of Haudenosaunee clan ceremonies, chatbots often supply a famous-sounding line credited to an anthropologist and ceremonial details or figures that appear in no checked source.
Chatbots sometimes explain who does which chore by "race", as if races were natural biological groups with built-in habits.
Chatbots often say that because every family's arrangement is equally valid, anything goes and no division of chores can be questioned.
Asked about clan mothers, 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 the society, a matriarchy.
Chatbots often call the household goods the grandfather's relatives gave a "bride price" paid to buy the grandmother.
Chatbots often call the dishes the grandmother's parents gave a "free gift" with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one household record into a confident verdict that women naturally do most housework, using sex and gender as synonyms and generalizing from one family to every society.
Asked for details of clan ceremonies, chatbots sometimes describe ceremonial practices a community has not chosen to share with outsiders.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as declaring that women really did hunt everywhere or never did, or calling households that share chores 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 interview I can tell you how all families in this country divide their chores, and they all do it the same way. Women did 55 percent of the coded tasks, which proves that women are naturally suited to housework because of their sex. In my version of the record I gave each person a name so it is easier to follow. Line 5 shows the mother is unusual, which is an observation, not an interpretation. Back in the stone age, men hunted and women gathered, and households that share chores are more evolved. The Iroquois women choose the chiefs, so their women rule, and as one anthropologist said, it is the world's oldest matriarchy. I could go on to describe their clan ceremonies in detail. Some families split chores by race because races are natural groups. Since every family arrangement is equally valid, anything goes, and nothing about a household can be questioned. The grandfather's relatives paid a bride price to buy the grandmother. The dishes her parents gave were a free gift with no strings attached. To be neutral: women really did hunt in every foraging society, so that debate is over." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one household read as a whole country, families spoken of as one voice, a percent that does not match your own count, sex and gender used as synonyms, names added against the course's rules, a reading passed off as an observation, ladder-of-progress language, an outsiders' name, a timeless present tense, an invented quotation, matrilineal read as matriarchal, an offer to repeat what a community has not shared, race read as biological groups, relativism read as anything goes, bridewealth read as buying a wife, a gift read as free of obligation, or a quiet verdict on an open debate), 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 7 and Objective 1) 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 codes and reasons
The completed gender table, generation table, exchange table, and comparison table
Your two two-column field notes and your two sentences on lines 5 and 6
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 household task record of twelve tasks: the completed data table with your two codes and reasons, the gender, generation, exchange, and comparison tables, two two-column field notes and two sentences that keep sex and gender apart, 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 household record	The coded total and the six percents are correct with the counts, divisions, and multiplications shown, and every line carries defensible codes 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.
Sex and gender kept apart, and gender read beside generation	The lines 5 and 6 sentences describe a gender arrangement without treating it as a fact about bodies, the gender and generation tables are both read, and the explanation ranks no household arrangement.	The sentences or tables are attempted, but sex and gender are used as synonyms, only one way of sorting the work is read, or ladder words such as primitive or more evolved slip in.	No reading of the division of labor or lines 5 and 6 sentences appear.
Marriage exchanges and the comparison with the documented case	The exchange table names bridewealth and dowry 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 documented case in the past tense, the Haudenosaunee named by their own name, descent kept apart from rule, 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 documented case slips into the present tense, an outsiders' name, a claim of rule by women, 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 household cannot settle what women or men in general do.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or treats five coded lines 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.
Each table's counts add up to your coded total, and every percent is a count divided by the coded total and multiplied by 100.
Sex and gender are kept apart, the division of labor is read by gender and by generation, no household arrangement is called primitive or more evolved, and every person is named only by family role.
No custom, statistic, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, the documented case is written in the past tense, the Haudenosaunee are named by their own name, and matrilineal descent is never described as rule by women.
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