Richard Fidler's Australian Broadcasting Company interview with Ira Glass

Richard Fidler's interview with Ira Glass has a somewhat unique set up as it is one radio interviewer interviewing another radio interviewer - this provided an ease to the entire conversation and helped establish the 'flow' from the start.  A sense of shared experience, expectation and background information meant there was a natural connection between Fidler and Glass, interviewer and interviewee.

In order to link in the audience - those listening to this interview, Fidler provided chronological context to many of the questions he asks.  He uses phrases such as 'cast your mind back if you can', 'if you remember' - this sets up the radio audience to know Glass is about to recollect something and prompts Fidler to actively remember.  Fidler often provided a summary of specific events that he wanted Glass to talk about.  This was a helpful technique and aided the flow of the interview as Fidler was not relying on Glass to remember details about when, where, who, what but instead set the questions up so Glass focused more on analysisng and evaluating experiences - providing for a richer conversation with more depth.

There were times when there were moments of silence, which seemed perhaps too long for the radio.  But I think Fidler purposely held back at these times as in general Glass kept speaking and adding more to his answers.  This again provided depth and richness as Glass was able to answer the questions in a meandering sort of way rather than a clipped way.  In contrast to this, when Fidler provided the summaries - which seemed to be pre-planned questions - this put Fidler back in control of the interview and he steered it in a certain direction.

The 'flow' felt very natural throughout this interview - but I think the secret of the 'flow' was an expert interviewer making it seem like you were listening to two friends chat rather than carefully constructed and thought-out interview. A daunting task as we start out on our interview / research journey!!

Dr. Tathali Ureta

Three things that stuck out for us from Dr. Tathali Ureta
1. We really appreciated the discussion around exceptions, with the class and the examples Dr. Tathali Ureta provided. We're wondering if there is value in understanding the exceptions (asking why they deviate from the majority of findings). But with the examples provided helped us understand that there needs to be an acceptance of uncertainty, and be confident in the data that we gather! 
2. We also are still grappling with the role of guiding the interview versus letting the interview flow. How do we shift from thinking as a teacher to a researcher?  
3. Really appreciated that point raised - "The (research) methodology employed is the extension of one's world view. We really appreciated the encouragement that our experiences will influence our approach, and that's a natural process, and that's OK!

Draft research question

I am studying indigenous oral narratives, traditions and histories because I want a more in depth understanding of indigenous historical consciousness. This is in order to better understand how indigenous historical consciousness differs to western notions of historical consciousness and what complications this presents in Canadian history classrooms.

At the moment I'm toying with this as a title for my literature review assignment (but I'm not sure about it!)

Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole: what are the complexities of teaching oral histories in a Canadian history classroom that stems from the western, Eurocentric history discipline?

My rationale for studying this is that (from my (novice) perspective) the inclusion of indigenous historical consciousness into an established, standard Canadian history classroom is a complex undertaking and something many teachers are now being asked to do.  In order to teach both ways of knowing with integrity and without one dominating the other, the more challenging contradictions between the epistemologies need to be explored. 

Teaching History from an Indigenous Perspective: Four Winding Paths up the Mountain

I read this chapter by Michael Marker in October for another class - EDCP 562 Curriculum Issues.  It is a chapter in a book published by Dr Penney Clarke (who is my supervisor) - New Possibilities for the Past: Shaping History Education in Canada.

This chapter was a 'stop' for me in terms of my understanding of history education, historical thinking, the long-reaching effects of colonisation and, most importantly, the construction of knowledge.  The word 'epistemology' is not something I really used (or understood) prior to arriving in Canada.  The realisation and exploration of the idea that knowledge is not fixed, that all knowledge is local, that knowledge is constructed, that different knowledge systems can have different epistemic roots has left me a little bamboozled!  This has had a direct effect on my sense of self and identity as, of course, I have been 'saturated' (to use a phrase of Marie Battiste's) in Eurocentrism and the western construct of knowledge.

Marker's article is highlighting the problem of the history classroom in terms of indigenous historical consciousness or ways of understanding the past.  This is a far more profound issue than a lack of inclusion of Native content or narrative including First Nation communities.  There are specific epistemic contradictions and areas of contention regarding the past.  Marker points out four themes:

1. Circular and linear time. 
The western perception of time is that it is linear or chronological, from the indigenous point of view history is not a linear progression of people and ideas in time.  Instead there is a spiralling of events where themes reappear within circles of seasons.  Time is of a more circular or cyclical nature.

2. Relationships with landscape and non-humans
From a western perspective, human agency is at the centre of history - human's use the past to conceive the future and they are the centre of all narratives that historians construct of the past.  If history were a play, then humans would be the protagonist.  Indigenous ways of knowing does not place human at the centre of the story in the same way. Animals and the environment are of equal importance and have agency.  In oral narratives there are stories of how animals sacrifice and help humans.

3.  Place and Indigenous understanding of the past

4.  Colonizatoin and the house of murky mirrorsMichael Marker article

Permitting Creativity in Science

Janet Beavin Bavelas outlines in her article Permitting Creativity in Science how the process of thinking creatively can be a process – it does not need to be a romantic episode where a creative idea strikes you like a lightening bolt.  It is her belief that you can train yourself to take notice of hunches and feelings and develop these into more concrete ideas that could form part of your research. 

The first part of the article is about learning to take notice of your hunches and not being scared of them.  Often, we can dismiss something that is out of the ordinary as a ‘fluke’ or convince ourselves that it didn’t really happen.  Beavin Bavelas encourages us to not ignore these feelings.  This is the first stage; we then need to nurture this feeling.  Don’t kill it with words – so do not over research and try to find the answer in the existing literature.  Don’t belittle the idea, remain confident in it.  And don’t panic – don’t be scared of the new idea. 

This is probably the hardest stage as this is really an inner-experience.  In order for a ‘hunch’ to become more than a hunch you need to have confidence in yourself and in your hunch.  The answer does not lie in academia and research at this point, it comes from your and your willingness to explore something that is unexplainable (and perhaps a little scary)

If you reach this point, if you manage to hold on to your hunch, Beavin Bevelas then explains how you can flesh this idea out.  You can add weight to it, situate it within a class or phenomena, and experiment with experimenting with it.  This gives the hunch a little more substance, which in turn gives you the confidence to take it forward.  To maybe present it to present it to other people and perhaps turn it into a research project. 

There were a couple of stops for me – firstly, something I fully recognize in myself.

‘I always want to be right (first choice) but, if not, then at least wiser (second choice). ‘

I do always want to be right (it is not always my most charming feature) but I appreciate this sentiment that if you cannot be right, then at least you have learnt something.  And all research offers you that opportunity.

The second was a comment in the introduction:

‘Anyone who has been attracted to a field probably began noticing and thinking about it long before graduate or even undergraduate training.’

At first this was a stop as I rejected it.  I am very interested in Indigenous historical consciousness and how to teach it in a traditional, Eurocentric history classroom that stems from a western history disciplinary model.  The reason that I initially rejected this was because prior to arriving in Canada I had no understanding Indigenous Knowledge, or even that there were ‘other ways of knowing.’ On reflection, I have always been interested in the construction of knowledge – I think this has been an implicit rather than explicit interest.  Films, books, podcasts that have grabbed my intention, although not about this specific issue, feed into the philosophical questions that drive my influence.  I suppose it was a stop as sometimes it is surprising how little you know your own self.

Observation exercise

Coffee Shop – observation of strangers.

I sat and watched the employees of a coffee shop on Main Street on Sunday morning.  It was a busy day in the coffee shop - the queue was always at least 10 people.  The shop serves coffee and donuts and there is a kitchen to the right of me where the donuts are made.  At first, it felt as though there were too many people working – it seemed as though people were wandering aimlessly.  Everybody seemed to do all the jobs rather than at one station.  From an outside perspective I couldn’t tell how they knew what to do.  How did they know to collect the new batch of donuts from the kitchen? How did they know which coffees to make? Why could somebody move from the till to the coffee station apparently on a whim? As I knew so little about what was happening I was searching for answers – looking for questions.  I think this meant that I missed some of the detail.  Toward the end I noticed that one person was specifically was in charge of milk, one specifically in charge of filling the coffee grinders.  I also took very little notice of individuals – of facial expressions and body language.  I was observing the people as a set, performing a task (making coffee, serving coffee) rather than as individuals.

Observation of people I know

This was quite a difficult task for me.  I have only lived in Vancouver for 5 months and although I have friends, I generally am ‘doing something’ with them rather than just being.  I have housemates, but we do not spend to much time together.  I am not in a position very often where I can observe somebody I know for 15 minutes.  This would be very different at home in the UK where there would be a number of opportunities for me to complete this task.

I did observe two friends whilst they were having brunch, but I didn’t’ make any notes so I am writing from memory. I know both of the girls quite well, but they have only met once before (through me) – I noticed mostly how they were different when talking to each other.  They exhibited different body language as they navigated their relationship at a slightly different stage to ours.  In this situation I was far more conscious of myself as the observer, as I knew the subjects.

Reflection of observations

I think the most significant aspect of the observation task for me was how much it was to do with me as an observer rather than what I observed.  I orientated towards the different exercises completely differently based on the specifics of what I was observing.  The process of observation is as much about the observer as the observed.  A different observer with different connections to the two scenes would have had completely different experiences and noticed different things.