-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I fully support Bob's views, and also his belief (in another message) that
box-ticking would destroy the ethos and endanger the survival of the
project.
By the way, any interest in a new directive asking for people's recent
dreams, using a well-established (non-tick-box) format? Please consider.
Yours, Dave Stevens.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandra Koa Wing" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MASSOBS] M-O
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
> Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Has anyone else read this article? Bibliographical details:
>
> Kaeren Harrison & Derek McGhee
> 'Reading and writing family secrets: reflections on mass-observation'
> AUTO/BIOGRAPHY
> Vol. XI Nos 1&2, pp. 25-36, 2003.
>
> Any responses to Bob Rust's views?
> Sandra
>
>
> --On 08 July 2004 12:15 +0100 Bob Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
> > Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Dorothy drew my attention to a piece by Harrison and McGhee, which dealt
> > with M-O.
> >
> >
> >
> > I read it through three times, the last time very carefully on a boring
> > train journey. I sensed the same veiled criticism and negativism then as
> > I did at the first speed-read. The first thing that 'got up my nose' was
> > the "50+, white, middle class, heterosexual." Unless they got into those
> > carefully guarded personal files the responses would only tell age and
> > sex, with possibly the job indicating class. I certainly don't remember
> > being asked for my colour, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Having read
> > some of the comments I wondered if it was the same M-O that I write for.
> > I certainly don' t remember being initiated, did I miss out? No
> > instructions, no head down the lavatory!
> >
> >
> >
> > I certainly never knew it was run by a manipulative schemer. In fact in
> > my world some of those inferences could provoke violence. I can't
believe
> > that the archivist played mind games by shuffling commissioned
directives
> > in the running order. Again it may be me with my cynic's head on, but I
> > sensed sour grapes or disappointment. To me there were many thousands of
> > words defining a subjective opinion, inferred from another's subjective
> > opinion. Again this may be my critical impression, the paper gave the
> > impression that when their [H/G] directives were commissioned they were
> > looking for an "opinion poll" result on "the pose the right question and
> > get the answer to suit your case" model. What we in the TGWU called a
> > "Jack Dash" after the old docker's leader who always framed the motion
so
> > that a yes vote was the only answer.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a quote : - " The different ways M-Os position themselves in
> > their responses is often dependent on whom they think has constructed
the
> > directive: is it the imagined friend they trust and respect (the
> > archivist), or is it someone else (a 'guest researcher)?" When I read
> > that my mental response was "How the hell do they know, who did they
> > ask?" Surely Tom Harrison started this thing because the press thought
it
> > knew what the public thought about the abdication? My second thought was
> > that I had never thought of the directive being "constructed" by anyone.
> > In my innocence, I thought someone at M-O or a researcher thought,
"Let's
> > see what the contributors have to say about that."
> >
> >
> >
> > It goes on : -
> >
> > "One would think that a commissioned directive from a guest researcher
> > is, in essence, a more directly intertextual (a word my OED doesn't
> > recognise) process as the purpose of the 'encounter' between researcher
> > and respondents is the production of qualitative data in the form of
> > hand-written or word-processed responses; and this 'data' will in turn
be
> > subjected to, or be the subject of further writing in the form of the
> > researcher writing about, writing down (quoting from responses),
> > writing-up and writing through this data in their dissemination of 'the
> > research'."
> >
> >
> >
> > When I see a 'commissioned' topic (yes this is me being subjective) I
> > wonder, "What are they researching, can I contribute any useful views or
> > opinions on the subject. If as is implied we are all 50+ then I think
few
> > in that age group would ever think of "contributing data" probably like
> > me just "putting in their twopenn'orth."
> >
> >
> >
> > I would certainly say that I have never seen a directive as a
> > questionnaire; in fact if it became that I would pack up. I see it as
> > pointing me in the direction of something on which M-O wanted my
> > views/opinions/experiences in my words in my way. Probably what M-O gets
> > is a response to what that particular topic stirs in me. I could see a
> > question and answer it very directly or I could follow that tangential
> > labyrinth that a provoking conversation takes. Being a "barber or a cab
> > driver" doing my bit to set the record straight.
> >
> >
> >
> > I can remember saying a long time ago that I can't write to an
> > organisation or into a void. In the beginning I wrote to David. After
the
> > first open day when Dorothy, Joy and Judy became "real" people I tend to
> > write to them as a group. There were many mentions of letters i.e. "Some
> > of the most compelling letters"; to me submissions in response to
> > directives and letters are two entirely different things. Perhaps others
> > think of things differently, but again how do the authors know?
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a quote that partly touches on this point: -
> >
> > "? ? process of guest researchers commissioning and collaboratively
> > writing a directive is very carefully managed and contextualized within
a
> > rather more 'special relationship' between the M-O correspondents and
the
> > M-O archivist. This 'special relationship' is cultivated right from the
> > start of a correspondent's initiation into the programme, and, as will
be
> > demonstrated below, it is the archivist who is a crucial component in
the
> > creation of the correspondents as the narrators of the everyday, as
> > writers of their own lives."
> >
> >
> >
> > Still further: -
> >
> > "For example, when new M-Os join the project, the archivist encourages
> > them to be as open and candid as they can be. 'There is no emphasis on
> > correct grammar or spelling, but rather on self-expression and a
> > willingness to 'tell a good story'. In their introductory welcome letter
> > from the Archivist, prospective M-Os are told that they should be 'a
> > vivid and conscientious social commentator as well as an open and
> > thoughtful biographer'
> >
> >
> >
> > When a directive topic is being described, there is acknowledgement in
> > the introductory preamble that some subjects may be uncomfortable to
> > write about. In these cases, advice is usually given along the lines of
> > the following: - 'It is always up to you how much you wish to say. You
> > can if you wish confine your reply to your opinions rather than your
> > experiences, but as we have often said before, it is personal experience
> > and insight, which have a way of bringing your directives to life. The
> > franker you can be, the more valuable your contribution. This is what
> > makes our project so unique. (Summer, 1990, Directive No. 32)' "
> >
> >
> >
> > After thirty years as a Union Secretary and contributor to club
> > newsletters I would say that the hardest thing in the world is to get a
> > Britain to put pen to paper. This same preamble appears almost word for
> > word in an editorial in my lorry club's Newsletter in July 1983, back in
> > David's day. Viz.
> >
> >
> >
> > " Why not try your hand at writing for YOUR magazine - you'll be
> > surprised how easy it can be! Don't worry too much about grammar or
> > spelling if that is not your particular bent - we can knock it into
> > readable shape."
> >
> >
> >
> > Even people moved to write are unwilling. To quote one recently retired
> > driver.
> >
> >
> >
> > "I would love to write for the Newsletter, I've got lots of stories to
> > tell, BUT I don't spell very well and the punctuation would be all
wrong"
> >
> >
> >
> > Such comments made us try to get people to put their stories on tape so
> > that we could write them, but that seemed to need a 'prompter'.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus I never saw an ulterior motive in Dorothy saying the same thing, or
> > in the caveat about "touchy" subjects.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet again, this next quote implies a carefully conceived con worthy of
> > "Diamond Jim."
> >
> > "This is slightly disingenuous as a lot of care is taken to ensure that
> > every correspondent does indeed receive a hand-written acknowledgement
> > note of some description from the archivist once every three or four
> > directives. [Was this a surmise on their part?] (Of course, the
> > impression that a standard letter system normally operates might then
> > make receiving a hand-written note all the more significant, helping to
> > foster a two way 'personal link' Dorothy alludes to). Nevertheless, the
> > point can be made that revealing snippets about her life, background,
> > likes and dislikes encourages writers in turn to similarly disclose in
> > their responses."
> >
> >
> >
> > This is continued with : -
> >
> > "A sentence or two is usually devoted to establishing credibility (for
> > example, 'Derek McGhee is from Southampton University and is researching
> > the experience of gay men and lesbians in family life') While this tacit
> > 'seal of approval' from Dorothy legitimates the subject matter, we would
> > reiterate the point made earlier that describing it as a sub-theme
> > emphasises its secondary nature, and implicitly suggests that what
> > precedes it should be the primary focus of the MO's attention."
> >
> >
> >
> > There's me, a silly old lorry driver thinking Dorothy et al is
> > pre-empting the question "Who's he and what's he doing." I totally
missed
> > the insinuation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the M-O staff really lurk round the reading room waiting to see if
> > some researcher goes "Yippee!"?
> >
> >
> >
> > I noticed there was no expansion on the point that a negative answer was
> > often as valuable as a long positive one.
> >
> >
> >
> > I was not surprised about the enjoyment of reading the submissions. But
> > of course even when I was small everyone secretly enjoyed page 3 of the
> > News of the World. If the British were not obsessed with the "goings on"
> > of other people, especially in the bedroom the Sun would have gone broke
> > years ago.
> >
> >
> >
> > The big surprise to me was the last paragraph. After spending several
> > pages telling how the whole thing was carefully orchestrated and
directed
> > by an archivist better employed by M. I. 6's psychological warfare
> > department there is then talk of championing the use of M-O!!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > I certainly hope Dorothy and the M-O crew are not as crafty and
> > manipulative as this piece paints them, otherwise it will have totally
> > destroyed my belief in my ability to judge people. I didn't know if the
> > authors were mates of Dorothy; but just in case they were I forsook the
> > initial urge to email my criticism direct to the authors. I ran this
past
> > her first and was advised to contribute it to the list. Maybe the whole
> > thing was written by and for academics who don't have my inside track as
> > a contributor.
> >
> >
> >
> > A further unrelated point.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just got round to the piece on the list re seminar. Tick boxes, forget
> > it! First tick box and I, and I think many of my generation would be
off.
> > Surely the mini-biog shows everything needed for stats except social
> > status.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob Rust
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------- To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
> > Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > leave massobs
> > --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
> Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
>
> leave massobs
> --
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
leave massobs
--
|
