It is interesting that attention to detail in ethnographies begins with the very literature used. When describing her nomenclature system, Shange carefully explains the purpose and reasoning behind her choice. It especially stood out that she asked the students what they would like to be called but was unsatisfied, which lead to the use of the “fake” Spanish names being used. It brings up a thought I had that ethnography gives the individual researcher much power in dictating the methodology as long as it is within the argument that (or framed to look like) it is closest to the real thing.
I also think it is interesting that Shange chose a setting where she was already closely related to the students. She details her relationships with their families and points out that this was a large reason why she chose to shadow this class. Shange also defines her intention with these students as one that is “eager to build a closer research relationship” with. I find this interesting because to include the word “research” implies a terminology that is more professional. I wonder if she decided to describe the relationship in this way in order to draw the line in terms of credibility but also am curious on if this is possible. As she is already connected and familiar with these students, is it truly possible to have a research relationship with them?