-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been sent through the MASSOBS discussion list.
Remember, clicking 'reply' sends your message to the list.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To all for info,
We're always looking for new directive topics and collaborations - so if
you or your colleagues are interested, do get in touch with the
Mass-Observation Archive. It's also something worth bearing in mind during
the early stages of research projects when putting in applications to
funding bodies - please remember the M-OA is a charitable trust.
Proposals for directive collaborations should be addressed to the director
of the M-OA, Dorothy Sheridan ([log in to unmask]) in the first
instance.
Best, Sandra
(Dave - do get in touch with Dorothy!)
--On 09 July 2004 09:21 +0100 d stevens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> --
Sandra Koa Wing
Development Officer for the Mass-Observation Project
The Library
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QL, UK.
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: ++44 (0)1273 87 2716
Website: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/massobs
Join the Mass-Observation email list
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/massobs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list email [log in to unmask]
Alternatively, send the following command to [log in to unmask]
leave massobs
--
|