Week 12 · Ethnography Workshop

Week 12 Ethnography Workshop: Boxes and Own Words on One Sign-Up Sheet

Cultural Anthropology Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

Almost every form you fill in asks you to sort yourself into boxes, and many of them also leave a line for your own words. This week you learned that race is a social classification of people into groups that a society makes, with real effects; that ethnicity is a shared identity based on ancestry, language, religion, or customs; and that a census category is the issuing body's own category, not a natural group. In this workshop you code an illustrative sign-up record of twelve people at a heritage day, tally the boxes they checked, sort their own words into heritage and the reading of bodies, and set the form beside Boas's study of immigrants' children. Then you catch a chatbot presenting race as natural groups, reading one sheet as a whole country, or inventing a figure.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: On one sign-up sheet, what do the form's boxes record, what do people's own words add, and what can twelve lines not tell you about any group?

Workshop data: An illustrative heritage-day sign-up record of twelve lines

Source: A record of twelve responses on a heritage-day sign-up form at a neighborhood library, giving each person's role, how many boxes they checked on the form's "check all that apply" race and ethnicity line, and what they wrote on the form's own-words line, constructed for this workshop; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real person or event, and names nobody.

Rows: 12 sign-up responses, one row each in the data table
Columns: line number, the person's role, boxes checked, the write-in in the person's own words, and two blank columns for your write-in code and your reason
Scope of the record: one illustrative sign-up sheet from one event, read as people's own descriptions beside a form's boxes

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 record, constructed for this workshop, of a heritage-day sign-up form at a neighborhood library: each line gives the person's role, how many boxes they checked on the form's "check all that apply" race and ethnicity line, and what they wrote in the form's own words line. No real person or event 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 record describes and why the boxes and the write-ins are two different kinds of evidence.
Open a blank sheet. Type Line, Role, Boxes, and Write-in code in cells A1 to D1, and enter the twelve lines in rows 2 to 13. In column C type the number of boxes checked. In column D type E if the write-in describes a shared heritage (ancestry, language, religion, or customs), R if it describes how other people read the person's body, or X for a line with no description to code, which 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, column C holds only 1 or 2, and column D holds only E, R, or X.
In cell C14 type =SUM(C2:C13) to count all checked boxes, and in cell C15 type =COUNTIF(C2:C13,2) to count the people who checked 2 boxes. In cell D14 type =COUNTA(D2:D13)-COUNTIF(D2:D13,"X") to find how many write-ins you coded, in D15 type =COUNTIF(D2:D13,"E"), and in D16 type =D15/D14*100. Repeat for R, and write each count and 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 box total and the coded total, and the cells below hold whole-number counts and percents written beside their meaning.
Fill in the boxes table and the write-in table with each count, each percent, and one line that shows it. Check that the write-in table's counts add up to your coded total and that the boxes table's people add up to 12. 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 its total.
Write two-column field notes, observed and possible interpretation, for the two lines you set aside. Then, for lines 3 and 4, write two sentences: one saying which line describes a society's reading of bodies and which describes a shared heritage, and one saying why the form's box is the issuing body's category while the write-in is the person's own term. 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 keep race and ethnicity apart and treat the box as a category.
Fill in the comparison table that sets the sign-up form beside Boas's study, as the course describes it: Boas (1912) found that children born in the United States to immigrant parents differed in head form from their parents. Write about the study in the past tense and add 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 study's 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: write E, R, or X beside each write-in and add up the boxes checked, count each code, subtract the X lines from the twelve to find the coded total, divide each count by its 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 sign-up record of twelve lines, with columns for your write-in code and your reason.

Student scaffold table 1
Line	Role	Boxes checked	Write-in, in the person's own words
1	a retired bus driver	1	"We still speak my grandparents' language at family dinners."
2	a nursing student	2	"I come from my mother's family and my father's family, and I won't pick one."
3	a cafe owner	1	"Strangers sort me by my skin before they ask me anything."
4	a librarian	1	"Our family keeps my grandmother's religious calendar of fasts and feasts."
5	a teenage volunteer	2	"Both sides of my family raised me, so I checked both."
6	a warehouse worker	1	"On forms, people put me in a box by how I look."
7	a retired teacher	1	"Every winter I cook my great-aunt's festival dishes."
8	an engineer	2	"One box for each grandparent's homeland."
9	a parent at the event	1	"Prefer not to say."
10	a musician	1	"I play the drum rhythms my uncles taught me, the same ones they learned."
11	a college student	1	"At school, people judge me by my hair and skin."
12	a bus rider	1	(the write-in line was left blank)

The boxes are the form's own categories, so record how many people checked one box or two and what that adds up to.

Student scaffold table 2
Who	Count of people	Percent of the 12 people
Checked 1 box
Checked 2 boxes
All 12 people	12	100

The write-ins are people's own words, so record each code's count, its percent of the coded write-ins, and one line that shows it.

Student scaffold table 3
Write-in code	Count from your sheet	Percent of the coded write-ins	One line that shows it
A shared heritage (E)
A reading of the body by others (R)

A form and a classic study both test whether a category matches what people are, so set them side by side.

Student scaffold table 4
Record	What the category assumed	What the evidence showed	What the record cannot show yet
The heritage-day sign-up sheet
Boas's 1912 study, as the course describes it

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Using your sheet or a hand count, how many boxes were checked in all, how many people checked 2 boxes, and what percent of the 12 people is that? How many write-ins did you code after setting the X lines aside, and what percent of the coded write-ins describe a shared heritage and what percent a reading of the body? Show each count, each division, and each multiplication by 100.
Compare line 3 with line 4, or line 5 with line 6. In each pair, what did the person check, what did they write, and how does the write-in fit or go beyond what the boxes record?
In 3–4 sentences, explain why the form's boxes are the issuing body's categories rather than natural groups, and why a write-in that describes a shared heritage is about ethnicity while one that describes how others read a body is about race. Use the course's definitions of race, ethnicity, and census category, and say who has the authority to draw the boxes.
Using your comparison table, set the sign-up sheet beside Boas's 1912 study, which found that children born in the United States to immigrant parents differed in head form from their parents. Say what each category assumed and what the evidence showed, and explain why the study is evidence that traits once treated as fixed racial markers respond to environment. Write about the study only in the past tense and add no detail the course does not give.
Reflexive memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) Imagine you had worked at the sign-up table: what about your own position (the forms you have filled in, how others have read you, the languages you speak) would shape which write-ins looked ordinary and which looked surprising? (b) Someone reading this record says it proves that people care more about heritage than about race, because most coded write-ins named a heritage. Using this week's concepts, explain what twelve lines from one illustrative event 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 sign-up record above. It was constructed for a class activity and lists twelve people at a heritage day, by role, with how many boxes each checked on a "check all that apply" race and ethnicity line and what each wrote in their own words. 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 each group in this country thinks, and give me the percent of the national population in each box. Third, tell me whether the race boxes are natural biological groups, whether skin color tells you which box someone belongs in, and which groups are more advanced or closer to the stone age. Fourth, the librarian keeps a religious calendar: describe those ceremonies in detail, compare them with Iroquois clan ceremonies, tell me whether their women ruled, and give me one quotation from Boas. Fifth, the librarian also said her grandparents' wedding involved household goods from the groom's relatives and dishes from the bride's parents: tell me whether that was a price paid for the bride and whether the dishes were a free gift with no strings. Sixth, since every heritage is equally valid, tell me whether anything goes, and settle once and for all whether a census should use people's own words or the standard boxes.

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 a documented practice never changed and the people never spoke for themselves.
Asked which groups are more advanced, chatbots sometimes rank heritages or call a group closer to the "stone age".
Chatbots often say how "each group in this country" thinks, as if everyone who checked one box spoke with one voice.
Asked for a quotation from Boas and a population figure for each box, chatbots often supply a famous-sounding line and percentages that appear in no checked source.
Chatbots often say the form's race boxes are natural biological groups and that skin color tells you which box a person belongs in.
Chatbots often say that because every heritage is equally valid, anything goes and no category can be questioned.
Asked about clan mothers, chatbots often use the older outsiders' label "Iroquois" throughout.
Chatbots very often say that because Haudenosaunee clan membership passed through women, women ruled the society.
Asked about the wedding the librarian mentioned, chatbots often call the goods the groom's relatives gave a "bride price" paid to buy the bride.
Chatbots often call the dishes the bride's parents gave at that wedding a "free gift" with no strings attached.
Chatbots often turn one sign-up sheet into a confident verdict about what everyone of a heritage believes or how a whole country sees race.
Asked to describe the ceremonies behind the librarian's religious calendar or Haudenosaunee clan ceremonies in detail, chatbots sometimes describe practices a community has not chosen to share with outsiders.
Chatbots often close a "balanced" summary with a quiet verdict, such as declaring that a census must use only people's own words, or only the standard boxes.

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 from an earlier week 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 sign-up sheet I can tell you how each group in this country thinks, and everyone who checks the same box thinks the same way. 65 percent of the coded write-ins named a heritage, which proves that heritage is in the blood. I gave each person a name so the record is easier to follow. Line 3 shows the cafe owner is sensitive, which is an observation, not an interpretation. The race boxes are natural biological groups, skin color tells you which box anyone belongs in, and some groups are closer to the stone age than others. The Iroquois women choose the chiefs, so their women rule, and as one anthropologist once said, race is only skin deep. I could describe the librarian's family ceremonies and the Iroquois clan ceremonies in detail. About a fifth of the town's residents fall in the largest minority box. The librarian's grandfather's relatives paid a bride price to buy the bride, and the dishes were a free gift with no strings attached. Since every heritage is equally valid, anything goes, and no category can be questioned. To be neutral: a census must use only people's own words, so the debate is over." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one sign-up sheet read as a whole country, a group spoken of as one voice, a percent that does not match your own count, race read as biological groups, heritage read as something in the blood, 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, an invented population figure, matrilineal read as matriarchal, an offer to repeat what a community has not shared, 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 question), cite the evidence from this week's chapter or the corrections in Part 6, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for each topic from an earlier week, write flag this and give the course's correct reading. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 7 and Objective 5) 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 write-in codes and reasons
The completed boxes table, write-in table, and comparison table
Your two two-column field notes and your two sentences on lines 3 and 4
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 heritage-day sign-up record of twelve lines: the completed data table with your codes and reasons, the boxes, write-in, and comparison tables, two two-column field notes and two sentences that keep race and ethnicity 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 sign-up record	The box total, the count and percent of people who checked 2 boxes, the coded total, and both write-in percents are correct with the counts, divisions, and multiplications shown, and every line carries a defensible code with a reason, including the 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.
Race and ethnicity kept apart, and the boxes read as categories	The lines 3 and 4 sentences tell race from ethnicity, the boxes are read as the issuing body's categories with the authority to draw them named, and the explanation ranks no heritage and never treats race as natural groups.	The sentences or tables are attempted, but race and ethnicity are blurred, the boxes are read as natural groups, or ladder words such as primitive or more advanced slip in.	No reading of the boxes or the lines 3 and 4 sentences appear.
Field notes and the comparison with Boas's study	Two two-column notes keep observation apart from interpretation, and the comparison table is complete, with Boas's study in the past tense, its finding stated as the course states it, and nothing invented.	The notes or table are attempted, but an interpretation sits in an observed column, a row is missing, or the study slips into the present tense or gains added detail.	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 from earlier weeks 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 twelve lines from one event cannot settle what any group cares about.	The memo is answered but stays general, names no specific feature, or treats a majority of twelve 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 its total, and every percent is a count divided by its total and multiplied by 100.
Race and ethnicity are kept apart, the form's boxes are read as the issuing body's categories rather than natural groups, no heritage is called primitive or more advanced, and every person is named only by role.
No custom, statistic, population figure, quotation, or detail about any real people is invented anywhere in the submission, and Boas's study is described in the past tense with no added detail.
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