Process Entry #3.
Week 4 Forum – Guided Analysis & “Perhaps the World Ends Here” as Autoethnography
Metacognitive Reflection
507 words
This entry consists of two process forum responses. The first one is the guided analysis of the sample student autoethnography about Lake Merritt. The second one is an analysis of the article “Perhaps the World Ends Here” by NoiseCat. Both of them were completed while I was working on my first draft of the environmental autoethnography project. I selected these two pieces because, as I got a more profound understanding of autoethnography and “thick description,” these two sample autoethnographies provided me an opportunity to consolidate my understanding and consider how I could learn from them and apply them to my own autoethnography.
In fact, one of the crucial lessons I’ve learned from this class is I can learn a lot from a sample article before writing on my own, especially when the genre is entirely new to me. Although I was familiar with the inquiry type of articles in the environmental inquiry project, I was new to the metacognitive reflection part of the project. So, I looked at the sample student feedback draft provided in the class and learned how the metacognitive reflection should be drafted. The story was repeated when I was doing the environmental autoethnography project. Although I already knew autoethnography and the critical elements of “thick descriptions” in class, I was still not very confident to write one on my own. Thus, I felt necessary to learn from others, especially some good pieces of autoethnographies.
For these two tasks of analyzing autoethnographies, I utilized my understanding of autoethnography and “thick description” to look for the shining points of the two articles. I explored how the authors implemented different aspects of details into their “thick descriptions” in their narrations. In particular, I found they tended to use others’ voices (like historians’ or experts’) to implement historical details and their own voices to implement interactional details. This observation was helpful to me because, for my own story, I would miss the part of the scenes beforeland reclamation. After all, I was born after the city started reclaiming the land. I would have to use others’ voices to implement historical details. After analyzing those two autoethnographies, I immediately came up with a story of riding my bike along the coast that could be used to implement interactional details of the water pollution after land reclamation. All those inspirations above were ultimately implemented into my draft, and, without a doubt, they made me much more confident in this new genre of autoethnography.
As a result, this process entry reflects how I learn new things throughout the writing process and revise my planning after those new findings. For me, the plan is never set in stone on Day 1 – as I learn more by reading others’ articles and receiving feedback, I have to revise my planning and add more ideas to the overall structure of my project. That’s an essential step along the writing process – properly adjusting the plan can not only improve the quality of my draft but also give me more confidence as I move forward.
The Process Piece 1
Refer back to the sample student authoethnography about Lake Merritt to respond to the following questions. If needed, refer to the slideshow on “Thick Description” from Monday’s zoom class.
1. What is the story that the narrator tells about the site, the environmental issue it represents or illustrates, and the narrator’s relationship to one or both? What kind of story is it? What is the story about? Summarize it in 3 to 5v sentences.
2. What role does the narrator play in the story related in the autoethnography? What elements of “thick description” do you see that convey this role? Find examples of 3 different types of “thick description” in the draft: biographical, historical, situational, relational, interactional?
3. What other voices does the narrator ask the reader to listen to? How does the writer gain access to these voices? What elements of “thick description do you see in the way that these voices are related to the reader? Find examples of 3 different types of “thick description” in the draft: biographical, historical, situational, relational, interactional?
4. How is the narrative structured? What is the order of sections and subpoints within those sections? List them here and then describe the internal logic of the draft as you understand it.
5. How does the writer use secondary sources to support and/or supplement “thick description”? Identify three spots in the draft where secondary sources are used, describe what the source is, what kind of source it is, and how it functions to supplement and/or support “thick description.”
6. What is the point at the center or purpose of the story? the meaning conveyed through the “thick description”? Identify two spots in the draft where that meaning is conveyed directly or indirectly and describe how those spots work to reinforce or particular or emphasize the point at the center or purpose of the story.
7. What elements of this student sample might be models for the research/writing you are doing in your autoethnography? Identify 2 or 3 elements and explain how you might do something similar in your autoethnography.
The Prompt of Guided Analysis, Posted by Kathy Patterson
Response
1. The narrator mainly tells about the water pollution in Lake Merritt in Oakland. The lake is near the narrator’s home, and it is also a place that the narrator usually visits. The narrator witnessed how the water pollution worsened in Lake Merritt, and the story is mainly about the description on the water pollution and how it got worse.
2. The narrator is basically a witness of the water pollution in this story. The narrator uses biographical details (the narrator lives near the lake), relational details (the detailed depiction of polluted water in the lake), and interactional detail (how the narrator reacted to the smell of the polluted water when she passed by) of “thick description” to convey this role.
3. The narrator cited the author of an article named “Lake Merritt: The Revival of Oakland’s Jewel”. Other citations appear in the narration as well. Also the narrator includes the voice of her friend Anny. Among those voices, they use historical details (to describe the historical water quality of Lake Merritt), situational details (how the protection project is going on), and interactional details (how her friend Anny reacted to the increased water pollution) of “thick description.”
4. The narrator first introduces Lake Merritt and its beauty, then raised the problem of water pollution through a cited article, followed by a detailed description and personal experience on the water pollution by the narrator, and it’s summed up through another cited article on the impact of the water pollution and the narrator’s appeal to save the lake.
5. The main function of the secondary sources is to implement historical details and situational details. The first source “Lake Merritt: The Revival of Oakland’s Jewel” used in the beginning illustrated the history of water quality of Lake Merritt, and it makes up the lack of historical details in the narrator’s narration. A source by Harris & DeBolt, 2018 is also used to implement the situational details about how the sinking SUV worsened the water pollution of the lake. Through the end, another source by Abedin, J., Arafin, A. K., Akter, S., Rahman, M. A., & Rahman, M. O., 2015 implements the situational and interactional details regarding the impact of the water pollution of the lake. It provides an academic voice on this impact – besides the narrator’s own feeling on it.
6. The point is to show the seriousness of the water pollution of Lake Merritt. This point is conveyed through the narrator’s disappointment and reaction when she passed by the lake (shows how serious the water pollution it is so that the smell is almost unbearable), and also through the last paragraph where she appealed to the community to save the lake (directly points out the seriousness of the issue).
7. The description of the personal experience used in this narration is really vivid and appealing to the readers. Also her use of secondary resources makes up the lack of historical details and an academic view on the impact of the water pollution in her own narration. I’ll try to do the same in my autoethnography – to ensure my narration is effective and the depiction on my personal experience is solid. I’ll also try to effectively use the secondary sources to make up the aspects of “thick description” that my own voice can not reach.
The Process Piece 2
How does NoiseCat use personal memories and experiences, the voices of the others, and secondary research to develop “thick description” in the account offered in this article? How might this piece serve as a model for the kinds of research/writing that you are doing in your Environmental Autoethnography? Point to at least two specific examples to support your response.
Freewrite for at least 10 minutes.
The Prompt of “Perhaps the World Ends Here” as Autoethnography, Posted by Kathy Patterson
Response
Noisecat uses his personal memories and experiences as a clue at the begging of the article to uncover the central part of his narration. He uses his own narrations, with historical details implemented by secondary sources and the voices of others to develop a “thick description” on the issue of Wounded Knee Massacre. The historical details comes in after he gives the personal impression on the issue at the beginning of the article. Historical events occurred at 1890, 1973, and more are mentioned to create a “thick description” of the story. Also the voices of Russell Means, the AIM leader and Oglala tribal member, are mentioned to give the situational and interactional details. As other voices are brought in, the narration is no longer monotone and it becomes more appealing and stereoscopic to the readers. In my own autoethnography, I’ll try to use those two points as model to support my narration. As some of the events that I’m going to tell happened before I was born, I need other’s voices (like my parents’) or secondary sources to implement the historical details. Also I need other’s voices and reflection on the issue to make my narration not monotone.