As I mentioned before, I always tell my students to give speeches on things they know and care about. What I failed to mention that sometimes this can be a problem because they know SO much on the topic and care SO much about it, that their ability to explain it in a simple, coherent fashion, can fail.
I think that's where I found myself at in the latter part of this project/video building, because there were so many things I wanted to say and include and talk about, trying to condense that into a video that was under ten minutes felt impossible. When the class would say "but why does that matter?" or "why do we need to talk about why debate is good?" I had a really hard time coming to terms with it, until my teacher said "You're too far in."
He was/is totally right- because when you're a part of a community, especially one that is so insulated and less well known to others, that to explain it to those who aren't in it, is next to impossible. All you can do is try to tell the best you can what you want, and walk away. What I realized was that there were so many stories and elements to what I was talking about, that as much as I want to scream "BUT DEBATE HELPS PEOPLE" I had to recognize that for the sake of the video and it's placement in the larger project we're constructing about the effect of cameras/little glass dots in society and the subsequent videos online, that wasn't as relevant to the end point.
So I have a video (some work is needed to polish it) that explains how our community is a family, that is misunderstood to outsiders, and probably always will be; that got its 15 minutes of fame form a viral video that was not representative of the community, and all we can do is move forward, and know that at least we get each other.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
long time no blog
You'll have to forgive my lack of posting as of late; I've been frantically finishing the final draft of my thesis to submit to my committee, which has sidelined many other obligations I've had for the past week.
That said, the immense relief of turning it in was short-lived at the realization that I have much more to do in regards to my project for debate in such a little amount of time.
The most recent draft focused heavily on the concept of debate as a family; and debate tournaments as family reunions. While I would like to maintain that metaphor in moving forward, I recognized the importance of discussing not only the fight between Bill and Shanara that forced NDT/CEDA into the headlines of CNN and Fox News, but to step back even further, and address the nature of the debate that caused the fight that led to it's placement on YouTube and discovery by the public.
More to come as this process is completed.
That said, the immense relief of turning it in was short-lived at the realization that I have much more to do in regards to my project for debate in such a little amount of time.
The most recent draft focused heavily on the concept of debate as a family; and debate tournaments as family reunions. While I would like to maintain that metaphor in moving forward, I recognized the importance of discussing not only the fight between Bill and Shanara that forced NDT/CEDA into the headlines of CNN and Fox News, but to step back even further, and address the nature of the debate that caused the fight that led to it's placement on YouTube and discovery by the public.
More to come as this process is completed.
Monday, April 12, 2010
flashback
I had my old debate coach send me some copies of debate rounds that I had in undegrad, besides feeling like I look incredibly young, I'm excited to have copies of these videos not only to include in the video I'm working on, but simply because its nice to have them for myself.
I'm also foraying into the world of Skype for the first time ever today for one final interview, wish me luck!
I'm also foraying into the world of Skype for the first time ever today for one final interview, wish me luck!
Saturday, April 3, 2010
End of the Season
I'm long overdue for a post, but between a hectic final tournament, travel home, and getting caught back up on teaching/classes/life in Manhattan, its been a bit hard!
While I was sad to see the season end once again (I don't care what anyone else said, I liked spending the year talking about nuclear weapons!) I was happy to return to a regular(ish) life in Kansas.
I have several hours worth of video footage from the tournaments (nearly every team I judged was nice enough to let me tape them) coupled with a handful of interviews that should keep me very preoccupied in the upcoming weeks.
It was particularly unfortunate however, that some individuals who had agreed to interviews, skirted them and chose to not be involved in the project; I can't say I'm entirely surprised, but I do feel confident that the people I did talk to will do my research justice to explain and confront the role of the cameras and their effect on the NDT/CEDA college debate community.
The level of competition and emotion that exists within the last tournament of the season is unquantifiable- at times I felt wrong having a camera capturing these intensely personal, emotional and for some teams, very sad moments as their season, their career, their life as a debater ends. I do think though, that after taping and talking to so many people about the community, watching such a wide variety of rounds over the course of time I was at the NDT and CEDA Nationals- that I'm more certain than ever that the debate community is one that should be proud of all that they do and will continue to do, regardless of some bad press/public opinion.
Back to thesis writing, I promise not to take so long before writing again.
While I was sad to see the season end once again (I don't care what anyone else said, I liked spending the year talking about nuclear weapons!) I was happy to return to a regular(ish) life in Kansas.
I have several hours worth of video footage from the tournaments (nearly every team I judged was nice enough to let me tape them) coupled with a handful of interviews that should keep me very preoccupied in the upcoming weeks.
It was particularly unfortunate however, that some individuals who had agreed to interviews, skirted them and chose to not be involved in the project; I can't say I'm entirely surprised, but I do feel confident that the people I did talk to will do my research justice to explain and confront the role of the cameras and their effect on the NDT/CEDA college debate community.
The level of competition and emotion that exists within the last tournament of the season is unquantifiable- at times I felt wrong having a camera capturing these intensely personal, emotional and for some teams, very sad moments as their season, their career, their life as a debater ends. I do think though, that after taping and talking to so many people about the community, watching such a wide variety of rounds over the course of time I was at the NDT and CEDA Nationals- that I'm more certain than ever that the debate community is one that should be proud of all that they do and will continue to do, regardless of some bad press/public opinion.
Back to thesis writing, I promise not to take so long before writing again.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Half way through the NDT, CEDA to come
I'm sneaking time in to update during prep time of the round I'm judging at the NDT. Things have been going great in California (if for no other reason than I missed the snow that apparently hit Kansas!) as I've been taping rounds and talking to people about my research about the community. I also got two more people to agree to interviews, most of which will happen on the day off between the NDT and CEDA, or at CEDA.
Why not at the NDT? Teams that are competing at the NDT generally have one thing on their mind: winning. Talking to coaches or debaters at all right now is slim, so I've mostly just been shooting rounds and the time off in between debates for the past few days. While the winning mentality can certainly be true of CEDA as well, the NDT is, in my opinion, significantly more competitive, and a totally different environment in and of itself.
I'm working on grabbing snapshots at the NDT, and a then a few at CEDA, and I will post again in a couple days to hopefully help you visual the differences in the two tournaments, while I add a little information/background on the events of the two tournaments.
Back to judging!
Why not at the NDT? Teams that are competing at the NDT generally have one thing on their mind: winning. Talking to coaches or debaters at all right now is slim, so I've mostly just been shooting rounds and the time off in between debates for the past few days. While the winning mentality can certainly be true of CEDA as well, the NDT is, in my opinion, significantly more competitive, and a totally different environment in and of itself.
I'm working on grabbing snapshots at the NDT, and a then a few at CEDA, and I will post again in a couple days to hopefully help you visual the differences in the two tournaments, while I add a little information/background on the events of the two tournaments.
Back to judging!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
very little free time
What little free time I've been given at the NDT and CEDA nationals, will now be devoted to a slew of interviews that I've managed to acquire.
I now have 8 confirmed interviews (two of which are debaters from the CEDA/Wichita debate, a third of which was a judge in the debate) that are set to happen over the 10 days that I will be in California.
I'd like to take the focus largely off the debate itself/post-round discussion, and turn it instead to what it represents, that is to say, the resulting lack of cameras, behavioral/communicative changes in the debate community.
It isn't my intention to take on the entire debate community and question our habits, or to place blame or fault on anyone involved in the video, but rather, that I'd like to be able to move past that- to show that we as a community have learned, have grown, and are actively engaging technology and what it stands for to question and understand the role it plays in debate.
In the meantime, its back to reading about nuclear weapons, RevCon, and cutting politics updates about health care and job reform.
I now have 8 confirmed interviews (two of which are debaters from the CEDA/Wichita debate, a third of which was a judge in the debate) that are set to happen over the 10 days that I will be in California.
I'd like to take the focus largely off the debate itself/post-round discussion, and turn it instead to what it represents, that is to say, the resulting lack of cameras, behavioral/communicative changes in the debate community.
It isn't my intention to take on the entire debate community and question our habits, or to place blame or fault on anyone involved in the video, but rather, that I'd like to be able to move past that- to show that we as a community have learned, have grown, and are actively engaging technology and what it stands for to question and understand the role it plays in debate.
In the meantime, its back to reading about nuclear weapons, RevCon, and cutting politics updates about health care and job reform.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Well Worded
I've been struggling to perfectly phrase where I stand/how I feel about this whole situation, and no matter how many times I've watched this debate, I never really felt like I was getting across what I think. However, I find this to be a close fit:
"Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for. Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence in the community. We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family."
So, thank you to Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein for saying what I couldn't figure out to say.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075509.html
Edit:
I also think this is a good defense of what they said:
"First, good people do bad things sometimes. I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people. As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices. What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones. I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves. And that good people do bad things. Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw."
So, thank you Josh Hoe.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075489.html
"Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for. Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence in the community. We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family."
So, thank you to Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein for saying what I couldn't figure out to say.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075509.html
Edit:
I also think this is a good defense of what they said:
"First, good people do bad things sometimes. I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people. As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices. What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones. I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves. And that good people do bad things. Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw."
So, thank you Josh Hoe.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075489.html
Video Thoughts/More Updates
I realized the other day that as a researcher, I think very much on the page, and that this is project is very much NOT on the page. It's been a relief, to be honest, how could I ever use just words without images to describe the activity of debate? I know that may sound corny or weird to some, but the thing is, there is so much learning, controversy, friendship, family, fights, excitement, devastation and life rolled into this one community that many people just don't get.
I wasn't the greatest debater, I may not be a top ten judge for a lot of teams, and I'll be the first to admit that I go policy > kritik's in most debates that probably tends to alienate my chance to watch more critically oriented teams. But at the same time, I recognize and appreciate the space that exists for those teams, and am glad that they find a way to make what they want to talk about work in a college debate setting. I like these arguments. I enjoy these teams, I think they can find a way to make their arguments effective in a debate context. There's a team I judged from Emporia at the first tournament of the year who after the round more or less told me that in my decision making process (I didn't vote for them) that I had become representative of the ills of debate, that I was the closed-minded person who thought we could only talk about actions by the USFG instead of actions by you and me, and that was messed up. I tried defending where I was coming from, but I don't know that there was a large effect on the team. I judged them again, twice, at the District tournament this past weekend, and was really impressed by how far they've come in just one season to take their arguments (that we must speak from our personal social location), their standpoint (that nuclear weapons is not really a localized issue), their beliefs, and infuse it into a debate round in an effective manner. This to me is just one example of the range of people who can participate and be effected by debate in a positive way (or at least I hope they see it as positive!)
I've gotten off subject, though. I've been thinking about how to structure the section of the video that becomes an introductory explanation of the activity. I want to talk to people not only who know what debate IS but people who have only peripherally or zero knowledge at all. This means grabbing up my camera and hitting the union this week to see if I can't get some people to tell me what THEY think college debate is, and connecting that to the footage of actual rounds I've taped, and the thoughts of other debaters in the community who have agreed to speak to me.
I'm currently in the process of contacting the directors in charge of the NDT and CEDA National tournaments to ensure/get confirmation that I"ll be able to tape rounds/talk to people at the tournament that agree to be taped, and hope that they'll see the positive approach to a great activity that I intend to take.
Something I haven't really talked as much about as far as what happened with Bill goes, is the dual impact it had not only on the competitors in that debate, but Shanara Reid, the other individual engaged in the discussion post-round. Not only did Bill Shanahan lose his job at Fort Hays University, but the school suspended their policy debate team indefinitely. The team that had been competing in that outround at CEDA Nationals, one a senior, the other a junior, were fortunate enough to be given the chance to debate together still at another school in the district, while the team from Towson went on to be the CEDA National Champion at that tournament, and are both now graduate assistants for other universities, working with debate. For Shanara, I feel just as bad as Bill, in that when you take an argument from its original context, clip it, post it on YouTube, and let people unfamiliar with debate view it, that it inherently looks bad for both parties involved (worse for Bill in some ways, for Shanara in others) that leaves them in a precarious professional position. I'm glad that Shanara is still involved with debate, and while we've never personally met, I hope to get the chance to speak to her about my project at nationals, regardless of whether she chooses to speak on camera with me or not, if for no other reason then to explain what I'm trying to do with my ethnography.
And what AM I trying to do with my ethnography, what's my big "this is the point", "this is what I'm saying" message am I trying to get across?
I see it as two things, sort of:
1. That there’s increased impression management as a result of YouTube exposure for groups that were previously insular- college debate as effectively cut ties with communication technology as a way to show people debate's for a variety of reasons, from which a few debaters I spoke with who asked I not put their names of videos I taped included the idea that people just "wouldn't get it."
2. That impression management stifles technology as a communication resource as a result- maybe people won't get it, but the loss to the community as a whole I feel is much greater. Taping debates, tournaments, who we are, provides a chance for sharing, for allowing the people that care about debate to use those for educational purposes, for entertainment, for whatever reason they want, and I don't think that should be taken away from the community.
Finally, I'm really interested in trying to include some idea of simply what the culture is—I characterized this as a “counter narrative” in one of my latest blog posts, in reference to the negative attention debate received from the media and Fort Hays. I'm not trying to make a value claim that what anyone in that video did was right or wrong (would I moon a room full of people, probably not) but rather that it wasn't enough of a trigger to end a program and a career of a coach who did so much for the activity.
I wasn't the greatest debater, I may not be a top ten judge for a lot of teams, and I'll be the first to admit that I go policy > kritik's in most debates that probably tends to alienate my chance to watch more critically oriented teams. But at the same time, I recognize and appreciate the space that exists for those teams, and am glad that they find a way to make what they want to talk about work in a college debate setting. I like these arguments. I enjoy these teams, I think they can find a way to make their arguments effective in a debate context. There's a team I judged from Emporia at the first tournament of the year who after the round more or less told me that in my decision making process (I didn't vote for them) that I had become representative of the ills of debate, that I was the closed-minded person who thought we could only talk about actions by the USFG instead of actions by you and me, and that was messed up. I tried defending where I was coming from, but I don't know that there was a large effect on the team. I judged them again, twice, at the District tournament this past weekend, and was really impressed by how far they've come in just one season to take their arguments (that we must speak from our personal social location), their standpoint (that nuclear weapons is not really a localized issue), their beliefs, and infuse it into a debate round in an effective manner. This to me is just one example of the range of people who can participate and be effected by debate in a positive way (or at least I hope they see it as positive!)
I've gotten off subject, though. I've been thinking about how to structure the section of the video that becomes an introductory explanation of the activity. I want to talk to people not only who know what debate IS but people who have only peripherally or zero knowledge at all. This means grabbing up my camera and hitting the union this week to see if I can't get some people to tell me what THEY think college debate is, and connecting that to the footage of actual rounds I've taped, and the thoughts of other debaters in the community who have agreed to speak to me.
I'm currently in the process of contacting the directors in charge of the NDT and CEDA National tournaments to ensure/get confirmation that I"ll be able to tape rounds/talk to people at the tournament that agree to be taped, and hope that they'll see the positive approach to a great activity that I intend to take.
Something I haven't really talked as much about as far as what happened with Bill goes, is the dual impact it had not only on the competitors in that debate, but Shanara Reid, the other individual engaged in the discussion post-round. Not only did Bill Shanahan lose his job at Fort Hays University, but the school suspended their policy debate team indefinitely. The team that had been competing in that outround at CEDA Nationals, one a senior, the other a junior, were fortunate enough to be given the chance to debate together still at another school in the district, while the team from Towson went on to be the CEDA National Champion at that tournament, and are both now graduate assistants for other universities, working with debate. For Shanara, I feel just as bad as Bill, in that when you take an argument from its original context, clip it, post it on YouTube, and let people unfamiliar with debate view it, that it inherently looks bad for both parties involved (worse for Bill in some ways, for Shanara in others) that leaves them in a precarious professional position. I'm glad that Shanara is still involved with debate, and while we've never personally met, I hope to get the chance to speak to her about my project at nationals, regardless of whether she chooses to speak on camera with me or not, if for no other reason then to explain what I'm trying to do with my ethnography.
And what AM I trying to do with my ethnography, what's my big "this is the point", "this is what I'm saying" message am I trying to get across?
I see it as two things, sort of:
1. That there’s increased impression management as a result of YouTube exposure for groups that were previously insular- college debate as effectively cut ties with communication technology as a way to show people debate's for a variety of reasons, from which a few debaters I spoke with who asked I not put their names of videos I taped included the idea that people just "wouldn't get it."
2. That impression management stifles technology as a communication resource as a result- maybe people won't get it, but the loss to the community as a whole I feel is much greater. Taping debates, tournaments, who we are, provides a chance for sharing, for allowing the people that care about debate to use those for educational purposes, for entertainment, for whatever reason they want, and I don't think that should be taken away from the community.
Finally, I'm really interested in trying to include some idea of simply what the culture is—I characterized this as a “counter narrative” in one of my latest blog posts, in reference to the negative attention debate received from the media and Fort Hays. I'm not trying to make a value claim that what anyone in that video did was right or wrong (would I moon a room full of people, probably not) but rather that it wasn't enough of a trigger to end a program and a career of a coach who did so much for the activity.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Update
It's been a busy week, unfortunately, not as busy in the world of my research as I would like, but I wanted to provide a few updates on what's going on with my ethnography, where I'm headed in the next few weeks, and clarify my direction more.
I have two interviews scheduled for next week, one with a debate coach from the same district that Fort Hays was a part of (District 3), has known Bill Shanahan for many years, and I think will be a great addition to the people I hope talk to over the next few weeks. The second interview is with a debater from the district less about the specific incident/story that I'm developing and more an interview that works on the larger picture of "what is debate?" I feel that both of these interviews serve to further the big/small picture to the research question/belief about the culture of debate/impact of the use of YouTube on an isolated community like debate.
My biggest concern at the moment is getting people to talk to me without the stigma/fear/concern that I'm just "dredging up" the past. I'll be the first to admit that the immediate aftermath/feeling in debate that first semester after the YouTube explosion that tournaments felt different, debaters behaved different, and schools were critical of their programs. I even heard that the Fort Hays President made a video about why debate was "terrible" now and sent it to other universities? I wish I knew if this were true and if I could get my hands on one. Right now, I'm trying to tread carefully and explain myself/my research goal as well as possible in hopes that the community recognizes two things: first, that I mean no disrespect at all to Bill Shanahan, I see what happened to him to be a really unfortunate and unfair series of events set off by changes in our digital culture that debate hadn't yet dealt with and second, that as a result of that, I feel like the negative coverage/view of debate that has been exacerbated in society since this is a misrepresentation of who we are, what we do, and what debate is like. I don't claim that in this digital ethnography that I will be able to say "this is debate" but instead supply a counter narrative to what exists about debate now that will hopefully allow those outside (and even inside) of the community to see a little of what we're like, and the role that digital communication can/should play from here as we move forward.
I hope to have more interviews set up with a few people who will be attending JV Nationals in Kansas City this upcoming weekend, but expect that the majority of my participant observation and interviews will occur over NDT and CEDA Nationals for the latter two weeks of March.
Here's hoping that the community is receptive!
I have two interviews scheduled for next week, one with a debate coach from the same district that Fort Hays was a part of (District 3), has known Bill Shanahan for many years, and I think will be a great addition to the people I hope talk to over the next few weeks. The second interview is with a debater from the district less about the specific incident/story that I'm developing and more an interview that works on the larger picture of "what is debate?" I feel that both of these interviews serve to further the big/small picture to the research question/belief about the culture of debate/impact of the use of YouTube on an isolated community like debate.
My biggest concern at the moment is getting people to talk to me without the stigma/fear/concern that I'm just "dredging up" the past. I'll be the first to admit that the immediate aftermath/feeling in debate that first semester after the YouTube explosion that tournaments felt different, debaters behaved different, and schools were critical of their programs. I even heard that the Fort Hays President made a video about why debate was "terrible" now and sent it to other universities? I wish I knew if this were true and if I could get my hands on one. Right now, I'm trying to tread carefully and explain myself/my research goal as well as possible in hopes that the community recognizes two things: first, that I mean no disrespect at all to Bill Shanahan, I see what happened to him to be a really unfortunate and unfair series of events set off by changes in our digital culture that debate hadn't yet dealt with and second, that as a result of that, I feel like the negative coverage/view of debate that has been exacerbated in society since this is a misrepresentation of who we are, what we do, and what debate is like. I don't claim that in this digital ethnography that I will be able to say "this is debate" but instead supply a counter narrative to what exists about debate now that will hopefully allow those outside (and even inside) of the community to see a little of what we're like, and the role that digital communication can/should play from here as we move forward.
I hope to have more interviews set up with a few people who will be attending JV Nationals in Kansas City this upcoming weekend, but expect that the majority of my participant observation and interviews will occur over NDT and CEDA Nationals for the latter two weeks of March.
Here's hoping that the community is receptive!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Upcoming Events
Besides fighting off a sinus infection that flared up at districts, I can happily report that Kansas State will be sending a team to the NDT who qualified as the 5th team of 9 from the district tournament. I was definitely right that it was anyone's game- our final round paired KSU (ranked 3rd going into the tournament) against Texas (ranked 1st going into the tournament) against each other, with one qualifying for the NDT, and the other left hoping for a second round bid to the big dance. Anything goes at districts, I'm definitely glad that we got through!
That doesn't mean I've forgotten my obligations to my research, and I actually enjoyed numerous conversations with both debaters and coaches over the weekend in regards to directions to take my ethnography, and people I should talk with.
The nature of debate provides me with the opportunity to talk face to face with people from all over the country on a fairly regular basis, but its all a matter of timing- you don't want to pressure a debater into an interview in the middle of the district tournament as they fight for survival, so instead of begun to set up interviews with a small handful of debaters/coaches from debate who have agreed to speak with me on the break day between the NDT and CEDA, which, fortunately, are being held back to back in Berkley, California March 18-29, 2010. During that time I'll have my camera rolling for every round I judge, in addition to the major outrounds of the tournament, and, for a more inclusive understanding, what goes on at tournaments OUTSIDE of the debate rounds.
There are a few people locally involved with debate that I'll have the opportunity to interview prior to CEDA/NDT (JV Nationals will be taken place in a week and a half in Kansas City) but the bulk of my participant observation will occur at the NDT and CEDA national tournaments. In the mean time, I will continue to scour the internet, and work my connections, in hopes of convincing debaters to step back in front of the camera for just long enough to prove that we aren't who we were characterized to be as a result of the YouTube incident two years ago.
That doesn't mean I've forgotten my obligations to my research, and I actually enjoyed numerous conversations with both debaters and coaches over the weekend in regards to directions to take my ethnography, and people I should talk with.
The nature of debate provides me with the opportunity to talk face to face with people from all over the country on a fairly regular basis, but its all a matter of timing- you don't want to pressure a debater into an interview in the middle of the district tournament as they fight for survival, so instead of begun to set up interviews with a small handful of debaters/coaches from debate who have agreed to speak with me on the break day between the NDT and CEDA, which, fortunately, are being held back to back in Berkley, California March 18-29, 2010. During that time I'll have my camera rolling for every round I judge, in addition to the major outrounds of the tournament, and, for a more inclusive understanding, what goes on at tournaments OUTSIDE of the debate rounds.
There are a few people locally involved with debate that I'll have the opportunity to interview prior to CEDA/NDT (JV Nationals will be taken place in a week and a half in Kansas City) but the bulk of my participant observation will occur at the NDT and CEDA national tournaments. In the mean time, I will continue to scour the internet, and work my connections, in hopes of convincing debaters to step back in front of the camera for just long enough to prove that we aren't who we were characterized to be as a result of the YouTube incident two years ago.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Final Push
Tomorrow I leave for districts, easily one of the most grueling tournament weekends of the the debate season, the chance for a school to rise up from the bottom and prove they're worthy of debating at the NDT, or a school who was a "sure thing" flopping; no one is safe at districts, anything can happen, and its certainly anyone's game to be won (and hopefully ours!)
This time of year always has a push to work harder, prodding and shoving debaters and coaches alike to give it their all, which means setting school aside for a few days, focusing your entire time for 5 straight days on debate, on what you need to say in each round and make it work for the judges you could/know you have. It's that exact push that is felt to an even HIGHER degree when it comes to the NDT and CEDA Nationals at the end of the season, when teams make it to the outrounds (double octofinals, octos, etc) where the pressure to perform, to win, to be the best that you can possibly be in the activity, can break you.
By now you're fully aware of my interest/intent to discuss the debate community and their identity management given technological developments and the incident on YouTube almost two years ago involving a CEDA outround in Wichita, KS that led to the firing of a debate coach, and a general attack against the community for what one university official believed was "eroding standards" of behavior by debaters and coaches alike. In this post I intend to clarify the direction of my research, by setting forth the trends that exist within the literature on the topics, and suggest the type of gaps in impression management research that this study would serve to fill. Using debate then as a model of a normally isolated activity/culture, we can see how the existence and proliferation of new technology such as YouTube has increased the impression management in these types of groups, in effect censoring the behavior/thoughts/ideas of the community for fear of the ramifications of thought by the larger society as a whole.
Defining Impression Management
The term "impression management" was coined by Erving Goffman (1959) to explain the process by which individuals manage how other people view their identity; that is it say, the ability for an individual to purposefully control the image projected of who they are in given situations- effectively laying forth a "claim" that "this is who I am." Goffman believed strongly in the words of William Shakespeare that all the world is a stage- his dramaturgical perspective established individuals as characters in their own lives. This view suggests that as characters, we have a variety of roles we play based on the context of the situation we find ourselves in: for example, we can have many roles we play in our lives at once: teacher, student, sister, daughter, coach. Those roles can conflict- who you are as a teacher can certainly defer from your position in a classroom as a student. This is where impression management comes into play; wherein we control who we are, step into those roles, play that character part in each situation, careful to keep them separated from each other and consistent with the view of "who we are" in those given moments.
Development of Online Media
The development and accessibility of both the Internet and a variety of digital video sharing sites (as well as cameras) has made the ability to tape and post footage of almost any event possible. Vlogs about dating and fashion advice to more socially oriented topics like the War in Afghanistan and misrepresentations of Irish culture sprinkle throughout YouTube, each vying for their own spot within this evolving cultural phenomenon. There is no question that online media has changed/effected the culture of our society; the impact is hotly debated as both positive and negative (Jenkins, 2008; Creeber & Royston, 2008; Trend, 2001) with a wider conclusion drawn that if nothing else, as de Zengotita (2005) puts it "we've been turned into method actors." Online media not only serves to monitor our every move in an almost 24/7 surveillance mentality (Redden, 2000) but it establishes a precedent of awareness of the camera that alters out behavior regardless of whether the camera is recording, will result in a video, or ever be seen by anyone but you. It's the moment the red blinking light comes out that a change occurs in the behavior of the individual the little glass dot is being directed at: a realization that that action occurs exists not only in the established reality of the moment, but could forever be replayed for not only that person to see, but anyone who came into possession of that video. This becomes the point of contention: the lasting nature of the digital material created within society changes a person's behavior to an extent, raising the question of the effects of new media on culture and society when the camera is turned on to a group that is typically not under surveillance.
Technologies Impact on Impression Management
While Goffman could not have predicted that this management could occur in an online environment; it has been a hot topic of research in the most recent years. In a digitally evolved world, impression management has become a constant site of struggle and uncertainty with Internet users navigating a vastly unknown territory. Increased transparency (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Solove, 2004; Solove, 2007) has taken its toll on impression management. Users are constantly questioning and altering their online persona; while research has been conducted in regards to impression management for social network sites such as Facebook (Zywica & Danowski, 2009; Martinez-Aleman & Wartman, 2008) there isn't a lot of research in regards to impression management in video sharing sites where a high number of the videos posted are personally created videos from a handheld camera or computer. The research on Facebook suggests that impression management hasn't changed all that much from the days of Goffman; participants still indicated that they changed/altered their character role on these sites as a way to meet the social standards set by society of what was considered acceptable and/or attractive.
The NDT/CEDA Debate Community and YouTube
NDT/CEDA debate co-existed with the growth of YouTube and proliferation of videos from tournaments peacefully until the Summer of 2007, when a video taken by coach who watched a debate round caught a post-round fight/discussion on tape that was posted to YouTube. The intensity of the fight gained national attention, leading to an investigation by the both universities in question, and ultimately the firing of the head coach for Fort Hays University, Bill Shanahan. Prior to this event, debate rounds were frequently posted to YouTube by schools as tools for preparation for future tournaments, education for new generations of debaters, and for entertainment sake when the round held particularly meaning/interest based on the content. The result of this video led to a removal of those videos, and rules at tournaments in addition to guidelines for specifics teams where debaters and debates could no longer to taped, and if they could, they couldn't be posted to any online forum. What remains on YouTube as far as NDT/CEDA debate concerns is slim. Footage from debate documentaries (Debate Team; CSTV NDT Championships 2004-2006; Resolved) in clips remain, in addition to less then a handful of videos from actual tournaments, and at least a third of those videos come from one university, Towson, a squad involved in the debate that led to the firing of Shanahan.
Debate Culture
Literature on the impact of debate on the competitor is expansive. This is due, no doubt, in large part to the increasing number of debaters who go on to work towards their Masters or PhD and use these opportunities within Communication Studies departments to study the activity and the production that occurs as a result. There are two camps functionally when it comes to the question of the quality of debate: one side is pro-policy making, suggesting that having an activity wherein the competitors role play as policy makers has a positive influence on the participants (Coverstone, 1995; Speice & Lyle, 2003; Dybvig & Iverson, 2002) and a camp that suggests the activity could stand to grow and change, that it supports a pro-government system that only serves to alienate and allude the larger discussion on the needs/wants of citizens (Spanos, 2004; Hicks & Green, 2001). Beyond this two broad sides of the activity however, discussion on the culture of the community and what debate constitutes is a separate question that is not frequently addressed. McDonald (2001) discussed the sacrifices and role of being a coach of NDT/CEDA debate reaching the conclusion that there is a fine line to be walked between maintaining a competitive and productive squad. In addition, there have a been few (less publicized) glances into the culture of the activity (Gilbert, 2008; Nugent, 2007) wherein past participants attempt to shed light on the changes/driving demand for success the activity produces in an individual, but neither speaks to the overwhelming nature/effect of debate as an entity.
Concluding Thoughts
As the literature and research stands at the moment, impression management in the digital realm has been studied only in the context of the change in behavior specifically to portray an online persona for YouTube (Chen, 2008), rather then changing every day behavior as a result of a fear that those moments could be taped/placed online (such as what has presumably happened with the debate community.) Meyrowitz (1985) explains this gap in understanding situationism as a result of new media, that this research seeks to fill. Meyrowitz explains the difficulty in dealing with new media in relation to individual development/management, summarizing the commonalities of media literature and situationism (a focus on the larger effect of the structure on an environment) and differences (medium theorists don’t address face-to-face interaction, situationalists ignore the existence of media) with a final call to action of a need for a framework that has a static definition and connection between these two areas of study as they converge in the digital age.
Research Goal
My intention with this research then is to follow the community through the remaining tournaments of the season (Districts, CEDA, and the NDT) in addition to the remainder of the footprints on YouTube in hopes to understand the role that impression management has played on the culture and character of the community as a direct result of the existence of digital video sharing sites. By doing so, there should be a sense of clarity in the role/effect of these sites on individual communities/cultures.
This time of year always has a push to work harder, prodding and shoving debaters and coaches alike to give it their all, which means setting school aside for a few days, focusing your entire time for 5 straight days on debate, on what you need to say in each round and make it work for the judges you could/know you have. It's that exact push that is felt to an even HIGHER degree when it comes to the NDT and CEDA Nationals at the end of the season, when teams make it to the outrounds (double octofinals, octos, etc) where the pressure to perform, to win, to be the best that you can possibly be in the activity, can break you.
By now you're fully aware of my interest/intent to discuss the debate community and their identity management given technological developments and the incident on YouTube almost two years ago involving a CEDA outround in Wichita, KS that led to the firing of a debate coach, and a general attack against the community for what one university official believed was "eroding standards" of behavior by debaters and coaches alike. In this post I intend to clarify the direction of my research, by setting forth the trends that exist within the literature on the topics, and suggest the type of gaps in impression management research that this study would serve to fill. Using debate then as a model of a normally isolated activity/culture, we can see how the existence and proliferation of new technology such as YouTube has increased the impression management in these types of groups, in effect censoring the behavior/thoughts/ideas of the community for fear of the ramifications of thought by the larger society as a whole.
Defining Impression Management
The term "impression management" was coined by Erving Goffman (1959) to explain the process by which individuals manage how other people view their identity; that is it say, the ability for an individual to purposefully control the image projected of who they are in given situations- effectively laying forth a "claim" that "this is who I am." Goffman believed strongly in the words of William Shakespeare that all the world is a stage- his dramaturgical perspective established individuals as characters in their own lives. This view suggests that as characters, we have a variety of roles we play based on the context of the situation we find ourselves in: for example, we can have many roles we play in our lives at once: teacher, student, sister, daughter, coach. Those roles can conflict- who you are as a teacher can certainly defer from your position in a classroom as a student. This is where impression management comes into play; wherein we control who we are, step into those roles, play that character part in each situation, careful to keep them separated from each other and consistent with the view of "who we are" in those given moments.
Development of Online Media
The development and accessibility of both the Internet and a variety of digital video sharing sites (as well as cameras) has made the ability to tape and post footage of almost any event possible. Vlogs about dating and fashion advice to more socially oriented topics like the War in Afghanistan and misrepresentations of Irish culture sprinkle throughout YouTube, each vying for their own spot within this evolving cultural phenomenon. There is no question that online media has changed/effected the culture of our society; the impact is hotly debated as both positive and negative (Jenkins, 2008; Creeber & Royston, 2008; Trend, 2001) with a wider conclusion drawn that if nothing else, as de Zengotita (2005) puts it "we've been turned into method actors." Online media not only serves to monitor our every move in an almost 24/7 surveillance mentality (Redden, 2000) but it establishes a precedent of awareness of the camera that alters out behavior regardless of whether the camera is recording, will result in a video, or ever be seen by anyone but you. It's the moment the red blinking light comes out that a change occurs in the behavior of the individual the little glass dot is being directed at: a realization that that action occurs exists not only in the established reality of the moment, but could forever be replayed for not only that person to see, but anyone who came into possession of that video. This becomes the point of contention: the lasting nature of the digital material created within society changes a person's behavior to an extent, raising the question of the effects of new media on culture and society when the camera is turned on to a group that is typically not under surveillance.
Technologies Impact on Impression Management
While Goffman could not have predicted that this management could occur in an online environment; it has been a hot topic of research in the most recent years. In a digitally evolved world, impression management has become a constant site of struggle and uncertainty with Internet users navigating a vastly unknown territory. Increased transparency (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Solove, 2004; Solove, 2007) has taken its toll on impression management. Users are constantly questioning and altering their online persona; while research has been conducted in regards to impression management for social network sites such as Facebook (Zywica & Danowski, 2009; Martinez-Aleman & Wartman, 2008) there isn't a lot of research in regards to impression management in video sharing sites where a high number of the videos posted are personally created videos from a handheld camera or computer. The research on Facebook suggests that impression management hasn't changed all that much from the days of Goffman; participants still indicated that they changed/altered their character role on these sites as a way to meet the social standards set by society of what was considered acceptable and/or attractive.
The NDT/CEDA Debate Community and YouTube
NDT/CEDA debate co-existed with the growth of YouTube and proliferation of videos from tournaments peacefully until the Summer of 2007, when a video taken by coach who watched a debate round caught a post-round fight/discussion on tape that was posted to YouTube. The intensity of the fight gained national attention, leading to an investigation by the both universities in question, and ultimately the firing of the head coach for Fort Hays University, Bill Shanahan. Prior to this event, debate rounds were frequently posted to YouTube by schools as tools for preparation for future tournaments, education for new generations of debaters, and for entertainment sake when the round held particularly meaning/interest based on the content. The result of this video led to a removal of those videos, and rules at tournaments in addition to guidelines for specifics teams where debaters and debates could no longer to taped, and if they could, they couldn't be posted to any online forum. What remains on YouTube as far as NDT/CEDA debate concerns is slim. Footage from debate documentaries (Debate Team; CSTV NDT Championships 2004-2006; Resolved) in clips remain, in addition to less then a handful of videos from actual tournaments, and at least a third of those videos come from one university, Towson, a squad involved in the debate that led to the firing of Shanahan.
Debate Culture
Literature on the impact of debate on the competitor is expansive. This is due, no doubt, in large part to the increasing number of debaters who go on to work towards their Masters or PhD and use these opportunities within Communication Studies departments to study the activity and the production that occurs as a result. There are two camps functionally when it comes to the question of the quality of debate: one side is pro-policy making, suggesting that having an activity wherein the competitors role play as policy makers has a positive influence on the participants (Coverstone, 1995; Speice & Lyle, 2003; Dybvig & Iverson, 2002) and a camp that suggests the activity could stand to grow and change, that it supports a pro-government system that only serves to alienate and allude the larger discussion on the needs/wants of citizens (Spanos, 2004; Hicks & Green, 2001). Beyond this two broad sides of the activity however, discussion on the culture of the community and what debate constitutes is a separate question that is not frequently addressed. McDonald (2001) discussed the sacrifices and role of being a coach of NDT/CEDA debate reaching the conclusion that there is a fine line to be walked between maintaining a competitive and productive squad. In addition, there have a been few (less publicized) glances into the culture of the activity (Gilbert, 2008; Nugent, 2007) wherein past participants attempt to shed light on the changes/driving demand for success the activity produces in an individual, but neither speaks to the overwhelming nature/effect of debate as an entity.
Concluding Thoughts
As the literature and research stands at the moment, impression management in the digital realm has been studied only in the context of the change in behavior specifically to portray an online persona for YouTube (Chen, 2008), rather then changing every day behavior as a result of a fear that those moments could be taped/placed online (such as what has presumably happened with the debate community.) Meyrowitz (1985) explains this gap in understanding situationism as a result of new media, that this research seeks to fill. Meyrowitz explains the difficulty in dealing with new media in relation to individual development/management, summarizing the commonalities of media literature and situationism (a focus on the larger effect of the structure on an environment) and differences (medium theorists don’t address face-to-face interaction, situationalists ignore the existence of media) with a final call to action of a need for a framework that has a static definition and connection between these two areas of study as they converge in the digital age.
Research Goal
My intention with this research then is to follow the community through the remaining tournaments of the season (Districts, CEDA, and the NDT) in addition to the remainder of the footprints on YouTube in hopes to understand the role that impression management has played on the culture and character of the community as a direct result of the existence of digital video sharing sites. By doing so, there should be a sense of clarity in the role/effect of these sites on individual communities/cultures.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Working Towards Understanding
I'm in the middle of preparing for districts, and amidst the cutting of cards about the United States construction of China as a threat and the role of feminism in regards to nuclear weapons policy, I've been thinking and wondering about what the outside world must really think of us debaters. I went to the doctor on Friday (I have a sinus infection) and when I made a comment about how I coach debate, she said, oh you all talk really fast, and then made some jibberish sounds of quick speaking. I laughed a little, but was also surprised that someone had stopped and taken the chance to watch a video (She'd seen a documentary) about debate who had never had anything to do with it. So, as I move forward, I've comprised a list of the literature I feel is associated with/allows for understanding of the question(s) at hand in regards to the digital impact on the debate community. They are, in no particular order:
Books:
Beal, A. and Strauss, J.
2008, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, Sybex.
Burgess, J., Green,J., Jenkins,H., and Hartley,J.
2009, YouTube: Online Videos and Participatory Culture. Polity.
Creeber, G., and Royston M.
2008, Digital Culture: Understanding New Media. Berkshire: Open University Press.
de Zengotita, T.
2005, Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live in it. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goffman, E.
1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
Jenkins, H.
2008, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press.
Jenkins, H.
2009, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education For the 21st Century, MIT Press.
Mills, C.W.
1959, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Meyrowitz, J.
1985, No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nugent, B.
2007, American Nerd: The Story of My People. Simon and Schuster.
Redden, J.
2000, Snitch Culture. Feral House.
Solove, D.
2004, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. NYU Press.
Solove, D.
2007. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
Tapscott, D.
2008, Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill.
Trend, D.
2001, Reading Digital Culture. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Journal Articles:
Chen, L.
2008, Individual online impression management: self presentation on YouTube™, International Conference of Pacific Rim Management.
http://www.myacme.org/ACMEProceedings09/p26.pdf
Chu, D.
2008, Collective behavior in YouTube: a case study of "Bus Uncle' online videos, Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 337-353.
Gilbert, S.
2009, Competitive and slightly unhinged, The Washingtonian, 45(1), 66.
Lin, C.
2009, From media consumption to media production: applications of YouTube™ in
an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92-107.
McDonald, K.M.
2001, Demanding expectations: Surviving and thriving as a collegiate debate coach. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(2), 115-120.
Robinson, L. and Schulz, J.
2009, New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 45(4), 685-699.
Video:
Robbins, D.
2005, Debate Team. Green Lamp Pictures.
http://www.debateteamdocumentary.com/index.html
Whitely, G.
2008, Resolved. One Potato Productions.
http://www.debatemovie.com/
College Sports Television (CSTV)
2005, National Collegiate Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
College Sports Televisions (CSTV)
2004, National College Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
Books:
Beal, A. and Strauss, J.
2008, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, Sybex.
Burgess, J., Green,J., Jenkins,H., and Hartley,J.
2009, YouTube: Online Videos and Participatory Culture. Polity.
Creeber, G., and Royston M.
2008, Digital Culture: Understanding New Media. Berkshire: Open University Press.
de Zengotita, T.
2005, Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live in it. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goffman, E.
1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
Jenkins, H.
2008, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press.
Jenkins, H.
2009, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education For the 21st Century, MIT Press.
Mills, C.W.
1959, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Meyrowitz, J.
1985, No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nugent, B.
2007, American Nerd: The Story of My People. Simon and Schuster.
Redden, J.
2000, Snitch Culture. Feral House.
Solove, D.
2004, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. NYU Press.
Solove, D.
2007. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
Tapscott, D.
2008, Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill.
Trend, D.
2001, Reading Digital Culture. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Journal Articles:
Chen, L.
2008, Individual online impression management: self presentation on YouTube™, International Conference of Pacific Rim Management.
http://www.myacme.org/ACMEProceedings09/p26.pdf
Chu, D.
2008, Collective behavior in YouTube: a case study of "Bus Uncle' online videos, Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 337-353.
Gilbert, S.
2009, Competitive and slightly unhinged, The Washingtonian, 45(1), 66.
Lin, C.
2009, From media consumption to media production: applications of YouTube™ in
an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92-107.
McDonald, K.M.
2001, Demanding expectations: Surviving and thriving as a collegiate debate coach. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(2), 115-120.
Robinson, L. and Schulz, J.
2009, New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 45(4), 685-699.
Video:
Robbins, D.
2005, Debate Team. Green Lamp Pictures.
http://www.debateteamdocumentary.com/index.html
Whitely, G.
2008, Resolved. One Potato Productions.
http://www.debatemovie.com/
College Sports Television (CSTV)
2005, National Collegiate Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
College Sports Televisions (CSTV)
2004, National College Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What's Next?
As I've begun developing and researching the content behind my views about debate on YouTube, I reached a few conclusions.
First, that the existence of a site where videos can be universally uploaded and shared with anyone with internet access all over the world, has the ability to completely change the culture of a community. If I attend a tournament and want to tape a debate (regardless of the end goal of that video) I now have to get written permission from the participants, who can't even make that choice for themselves, but instead, are forced to follow a policy set by their coach or their school, for fear that perhaps there might be "another Shanahan incident". The videos that WERE on the internet have, for the most part, been removed. You have to dig deep if you want to find footage about the debate community shot by one of our own.
Second, this change can be best explained through an increased level of impression management by those involved in debate. Erving Goffman best explained this concept through the idea of situationism. That is to say that we all have a role we play, and there were roles that existed for those involved in debate that they comfortably played in the company of those involved in the community, that was disrupted when that footage was broadcast and viewed by those unfamiliar with the activity, not only taking then the role/character act out of context, but misrepresenting it to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, showing through video the LACK of video and disassociation of any sort of personality or sense of identity is a bit difficult. Therefore, my proposal is to study and (hopefully) show what the culture has evolved into- the variety of people and events and encounters that come together and ARE debate. Using the footage that remains for the public to see, coupled with my own work as I attend the last handful of tournaments of the season, I hope to be able to take what was a horrific instance of misrepresentation of the activity, tell the story of debate, and perhaps offer a more cohesive image of who we are as a response to the derogatory claims about the state of activity as laid out by Fort Hays University.
First, that the existence of a site where videos can be universally uploaded and shared with anyone with internet access all over the world, has the ability to completely change the culture of a community. If I attend a tournament and want to tape a debate (regardless of the end goal of that video) I now have to get written permission from the participants, who can't even make that choice for themselves, but instead, are forced to follow a policy set by their coach or their school, for fear that perhaps there might be "another Shanahan incident". The videos that WERE on the internet have, for the most part, been removed. You have to dig deep if you want to find footage about the debate community shot by one of our own.
Second, this change can be best explained through an increased level of impression management by those involved in debate. Erving Goffman best explained this concept through the idea of situationism. That is to say that we all have a role we play, and there were roles that existed for those involved in debate that they comfortably played in the company of those involved in the community, that was disrupted when that footage was broadcast and viewed by those unfamiliar with the activity, not only taking then the role/character act out of context, but misrepresenting it to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, showing through video the LACK of video and disassociation of any sort of personality or sense of identity is a bit difficult. Therefore, my proposal is to study and (hopefully) show what the culture has evolved into- the variety of people and events and encounters that come together and ARE debate. Using the footage that remains for the public to see, coupled with my own work as I attend the last handful of tournaments of the season, I hope to be able to take what was a horrific instance of misrepresentation of the activity, tell the story of debate, and perhaps offer a more cohesive image of who we are as a response to the derogatory claims about the state of activity as laid out by Fort Hays University.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
KSU Proud: Ariel Nixon
I had a great time getting to know Ariel, a sophomore at KSU who received a grant from KSU PROUD the summer before her freshman year, in order to ensure she could attend Kansas State. I think it's inspiring to consider that a school is willing to offer and help a student who has never even been to Manhattan get the chance to go to school here- a true embodiment of the spirit of KState Proud. Ariel graciously agreed to allow me to post the video that contains images and statements about her experiences at Kansas State and with KSU Proud:
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
College Debate: What is it?
I've spent the last 5 days in Austin, Texas getting five hours of sleep a night, driving a suburban full of college students around the UT campus, rushing between building, eating whatever food place is open when we're done for the day- and loving every second of being at an NDT/CEDA sanctioned college debate tournament. It's hard to believe I've been involved with the debate community for ten years, but I wouldn't change my experiences with the activity for anything else I've done. Four years of high school debate, 4 years as a college level participant, and I'm now in my second year as a coach for Kansas State University.
What I love about debate can not be entirely qualified in a series of words or posts, nor could I tell you what it is that makes us who we are. What I do know, is that college debate IS it's own culture, a community of individuals who come together to discuss a variety of topics each year, more excited each new school year not for our new classes, but so that we can return to the Georgia State or Gonzaga season openers to see all of our friends- and to many, our families. Each season we spend weekend after weekend together, debating, talking, making friends, and having fun.
The year culminates each spring in two major "nationals"- the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross-Examination Debate Association National Tournament (CEDA). These two tournaments have distinct qualities that separate them from each other, much like the division that exists in the name of the activity itself. NDT/CEDA debate, prior to the 1990's merger, were two separate entities of college debate, merged together to preserve the activity at universities across the nation. The NDT is the exclusive national season ending tournament: to go to the NDT you must either receive a first-round bid (the top 16 teams in the nation) qualify out of your district tournament (another 30-40 teams) and finally, if neither of those work, a remaining 16 teams receive a second round bid to the big dance. Winning the NDT is most debaters dream- that many teams never get the chance to even fight for. This is where CEDA nationals comes in: it is no coincidence that CEDA has been dubbed in the community "The People's Tournament" CEDA is open to any team in the nation of any competitive level (there are three: novice, jv, and varsity) and there are usually upwards of 200 teams competing for the 1st place title.
An insular activity, debate wasn't introduced to the outside world until the events of a quarter finals debate and post-round discussion at the 2008 CEDA Nationals was uploaded to YouTube for all the world to see.
Almost immediately, a post popped up on the college debate website forums, www.ndtceda.com, with a forecast of what was to come from sharing the video with those unfamiliar with the activity:
Below is a remaining clip of that debate:
The original full version of both the debate and the post-round discussion was removed by the poster not long after it was posted, but the damage was already done as word spread quickly through media outlets as a result of the YouTube video, that led to Fort Hays University firing Bill Shanahan:
What began as an investigation into a singular event following one debate, exploded into a full fledged attack against college debate, with this statement issued by the President of Fort Hays to the rest of the world:
What followed was outpouring of support for both Shanahan and debate:
But what exactly IS this community that is under attack, who are these debaters, these coaches, these college students and faculty from across the country who come together in this environment that President Hammond believes is not an acceptable college level activity?
It is my hope, that by following the remaining tracks of who we are in debate that exist on the internet, supplemented with my own interviews and video as I attend the remaining tournaments of the 2009-2010 season, that I'll be able to provide an answer to that question, a more representative, and (hopefully) positive image of a community afraid to show their face to the world again for fear that they will be persecuted much like Bill Shanahan was.
As I began to search YouTube for videos about and/or related to college debate, I was saddened by the few videos that remained; worried about what their presidents might think many universities were ordered to remove any rounds they had posted to the web. Videos that had been posted for educational purposes- chances to show interested high school students, or to prepare for an upcoming tournament had to be kept private, debaters were told to say they couldn't be taped at tournaments anymore; tournaments themselves issued statements that they would not allow any videos uploaded to YouTube from their school without written approval from the director.
My search through the videos that remained then began with Bill and Shanara. Interesting is that the video exists in several forms on YouTube, each with different titles, almost all (save the one included above) with mocking titles like: "So This is Higher Education?" and "How Educated Liberals Debate!"
The video even got its own remix in the aftermath:
Two years prior to this event, Fort Hays Coach Bill Shanahan spoke on what the activity means to him, a clip deleted from a debate documentary that was meant to introduce society to college debate, but hardly got any play time compared to the post-round discussion that got a front-page CNN.com article:
But discussing the activity, and seeing post-round chats can only tell you so much. College Sport TV (CSTV) actually followed a small handful of teams at the NDT during the 2006-2008 seasons, documenting what the activity was, and what people do from a competitive sports activity approach:
Everyone has their own opinion though, on what the activity should be about, here a small handful of the remaining videos that I found where people either discussed debate, or used debate to get a point across:
It is unfortunate that much of what was there before is now gone- that as I taped rounds while I judged at Texas that debaters were worried about what their coach would say, if they wanted their names attached to this ethnography of debate. This is only the beginning, but I believe that it's necessary for us to take a closer look at college debate, to show people the dedication, hardwork, personality, and unique life style that a college debater partakes in, for if no other reason than to show universities that we are not a group of hoodlums that "lack decorum and civility." I'd like to leave you then with a blogpost I found at the global debate website, updating the world on what Shanahan is up to after leaving Kansas:
What I love about debate can not be entirely qualified in a series of words or posts, nor could I tell you what it is that makes us who we are. What I do know, is that college debate IS it's own culture, a community of individuals who come together to discuss a variety of topics each year, more excited each new school year not for our new classes, but so that we can return to the Georgia State or Gonzaga season openers to see all of our friends- and to many, our families. Each season we spend weekend after weekend together, debating, talking, making friends, and having fun.
The year culminates each spring in two major "nationals"- the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross-Examination Debate Association National Tournament (CEDA). These two tournaments have distinct qualities that separate them from each other, much like the division that exists in the name of the activity itself. NDT/CEDA debate, prior to the 1990's merger, were two separate entities of college debate, merged together to preserve the activity at universities across the nation. The NDT is the exclusive national season ending tournament: to go to the NDT you must either receive a first-round bid (the top 16 teams in the nation) qualify out of your district tournament (another 30-40 teams) and finally, if neither of those work, a remaining 16 teams receive a second round bid to the big dance. Winning the NDT is most debaters dream- that many teams never get the chance to even fight for. This is where CEDA nationals comes in: it is no coincidence that CEDA has been dubbed in the community "The People's Tournament" CEDA is open to any team in the nation of any competitive level (there are three: novice, jv, and varsity) and there are usually upwards of 200 teams competing for the 1st place title.
An insular activity, debate wasn't introduced to the outside world until the events of a quarter finals debate and post-round discussion at the 2008 CEDA Nationals was uploaded to YouTube for all the world to see.
Almost immediately, a post popped up on the college debate website forums, www.ndtceda.com, with a forecast of what was to come from sharing the video with those unfamiliar with the activity:
Below is a remaining clip of that debate:
The original full version of both the debate and the post-round discussion was removed by the poster not long after it was posted, but the damage was already done as word spread quickly through media outlets as a result of the YouTube video, that led to Fort Hays University firing Bill Shanahan:
What began as an investigation into a singular event following one debate, exploded into a full fledged attack against college debate, with this statement issued by the President of Fort Hays to the rest of the world:
What followed was outpouring of support for both Shanahan and debate:
But what exactly IS this community that is under attack, who are these debaters, these coaches, these college students and faculty from across the country who come together in this environment that President Hammond believes is not an acceptable college level activity?
It is my hope, that by following the remaining tracks of who we are in debate that exist on the internet, supplemented with my own interviews and video as I attend the remaining tournaments of the 2009-2010 season, that I'll be able to provide an answer to that question, a more representative, and (hopefully) positive image of a community afraid to show their face to the world again for fear that they will be persecuted much like Bill Shanahan was.
As I began to search YouTube for videos about and/or related to college debate, I was saddened by the few videos that remained; worried about what their presidents might think many universities were ordered to remove any rounds they had posted to the web. Videos that had been posted for educational purposes- chances to show interested high school students, or to prepare for an upcoming tournament had to be kept private, debaters were told to say they couldn't be taped at tournaments anymore; tournaments themselves issued statements that they would not allow any videos uploaded to YouTube from their school without written approval from the director.
My search through the videos that remained then began with Bill and Shanara. Interesting is that the video exists in several forms on YouTube, each with different titles, almost all (save the one included above) with mocking titles like: "So This is Higher Education?" and "How Educated Liberals Debate!"
The video even got its own remix in the aftermath:
Two years prior to this event, Fort Hays Coach Bill Shanahan spoke on what the activity means to him, a clip deleted from a debate documentary that was meant to introduce society to college debate, but hardly got any play time compared to the post-round discussion that got a front-page CNN.com article:
But discussing the activity, and seeing post-round chats can only tell you so much. College Sport TV (CSTV) actually followed a small handful of teams at the NDT during the 2006-2008 seasons, documenting what the activity was, and what people do from a competitive sports activity approach:
Everyone has their own opinion though, on what the activity should be about, here a small handful of the remaining videos that I found where people either discussed debate, or used debate to get a point across:
It is unfortunate that much of what was there before is now gone- that as I taped rounds while I judged at Texas that debaters were worried about what their coach would say, if they wanted their names attached to this ethnography of debate. This is only the beginning, but I believe that it's necessary for us to take a closer look at college debate, to show people the dedication, hardwork, personality, and unique life style that a college debater partakes in, for if no other reason than to show universities that we are not a group of hoodlums that "lack decorum and civility." I'd like to leave you then with a blogpost I found at the global debate website, updating the world on what Shanahan is up to after leaving Kansas:
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
I always tell my students-
to talk about what they know best, because you'll find that the final product for the class is better, than if you started from scratch and didn't have the time to devote. I've been involved with policy debater for 10 years now; 4 years in high school, 6 on the college level, and the last two years as a coach. We are our own culture, of that I've always been sure, but I never felt incredibly compelled to show everyone else that culture, until we were thrust into the limelight two years ago for an after round discussion about a debate went wrong at one of our final tournaments of the year (CEDA Nationals.)
A little bit about that incident can be read about here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/14/national/main4350183.shtml
as well as here:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/14/debate
I don't know that I think either one of those articles is really "representative" of what happened, but they provide an outside look in on the community that opened my eyes to what others think of us, and forced me to defend the activity on more than one occasion to people I knew who saw the video and didn't know much about debate.
For my "big project" in Digital Ethnography then, I'm going to investigate the debate, weaving the media uproar, the voices of the community, and the images of debate that exist on the web in hopes of conveying a stronger, more cohesive (and certainly I hope, more representative) view of what it's like to be a part of the NDT/CEDA debate community.
A little bit about that incident can be read about here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/14/national/main4350183.shtml
as well as here:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/14/debate
I don't know that I think either one of those articles is really "representative" of what happened, but they provide an outside look in on the community that opened my eyes to what others think of us, and forced me to defend the activity on more than one occasion to people I knew who saw the video and didn't know much about debate.
For my "big project" in Digital Ethnography then, I'm going to investigate the debate, weaving the media uproar, the voices of the community, and the images of debate that exist on the web in hopes of conveying a stronger, more cohesive (and certainly I hope, more representative) view of what it's like to be a part of the NDT/CEDA debate community.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Digital Footprints
Hello digital world!
This will be the first of (I hope) many footprints I will begin to leave on the internet this semester as I explore the digital side of ethnographies. So, where to begin? I suppose a good first print should tell you who I am- and why I'm doing this.
My name is Natalie, and I'm working on my M.A. in Communication Studies. I study things like impression management, visual communication, and social networking. This semester I will finish my thesis that looks at Erving Goffman's concept of "saving the show" as it pertains to image management on Facebook. When I started looking for course's to take to fulfill my requirements to graduate, I stumbled upon a course from Michael Wesch in the Anthropology Department, Digital Ethnography. I find the study of people fascinating, and while I like the ability to use text to express the output of the data I've collected, there was a definite pull to study the communication of people from an entirely different (and far more visual) perspective. So that's where I'm at- school started last week, I'll finish my thesis in a month (fingers crossed!) and the only class I have is this one- I've got a lot to learn, and a lot of ideas, so hopefully they all come together, wish me luck!
This will be the first of (I hope) many footprints I will begin to leave on the internet this semester as I explore the digital side of ethnographies. So, where to begin? I suppose a good first print should tell you who I am- and why I'm doing this.
My name is Natalie, and I'm working on my M.A. in Communication Studies. I study things like impression management, visual communication, and social networking. This semester I will finish my thesis that looks at Erving Goffman's concept of "saving the show" as it pertains to image management on Facebook. When I started looking for course's to take to fulfill my requirements to graduate, I stumbled upon a course from Michael Wesch in the Anthropology Department, Digital Ethnography. I find the study of people fascinating, and while I like the ability to use text to express the output of the data I've collected, there was a definite pull to study the communication of people from an entirely different (and far more visual) perspective. So that's where I'm at- school started last week, I'll finish my thesis in a month (fingers crossed!) and the only class I have is this one- I've got a lot to learn, and a lot of ideas, so hopefully they all come together, wish me luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
