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!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
