Reading Shange’s chapter was especially fascinating not only for the focus of her research but for the way in which she wrote. She incorporates words that would be classified as informal (or not approved by high school English teachers in any formal papers) like “gotta” and even curses in one of her footnotes (page 46). I think her use of “shit” in the footnote serves to express her anger and overwhelming sadness in a way that perhaps not other blatant and “to the point” speech could. As I learn more about ethnographic research and as we continue to read ethnographies, I am amazed at how much of the personal experience and opinions of the ethnographer are included in the research, and this ethnography is especially striking; it almost feels like an academic diary of sorts as Shange catalogs both her experience teaching at Robeson and how the school is today (as again especially evidenced in her choice of language in her footnotes).
Reading further along, I was surprised by one comment that Shange made in particular. On page 62, Shange shares what Sofia told her outside of her classroom door in what seemed to be an informal “catch-up” where she uses the word “vent.” This made me think back to our discussions on Tuesday regarding the situation of the friend in the coffee shop. While these two phrases she quoted were not particularly revealing, Shange states a few sentences later that they later had a formal interview together. So, was Sofia aware that these comments she made in passing after class were going to be included in the research just as what she said in class and in the interview? It seemed to be the perfect example of this ‘coffee shop’ dilemma, but I suppose the only true way to know if it was a “breach” of Sofia’s trust would be to ask her. I think this is another one of those situations where ethnography ethics are unclear.
Additionally, something that surprised me was Shange’s dismissal of the students’ selection of pseudonyms. She explains why she ultimately did not use these names by saying: “Chosen pseudonyms were either too obvious (John wanted Johnnie), too fan- tastic (Keenan wanted Escobar), or playfully racially recoded in ways that exceeded my ability to reconcile them (Chauniqua wanted Becky)…they were all too real for my sense of ethnographic fiction” (49). I was honestly disappointed that she did not allocate more space in her chapter to discuss these ideas and explore the importance/meaning of the students’ chosen pseudonyms. In truth, I think this could be an entire project in of itself, but I felt that while she disapproved of the names chosen by the students for good reasons, I think there was more that could have been observed and looked into here that she decided to overlook.
(Additionally, there is so much more to discuss in this chapter in terms of the experience in the classroom, and I look forward to our in-person discussion on Tuesday!)