Usually, after reviewing class readings, I start an assignment with the expectation of knowing (at least the guidelines of) what to write about. With readings, the argument is logically outlined and easy to follow. However, due to the open structure of my interview questions, I had to entrust my Subject, the blind visionary, to guide me through his story, convoluted stories that involved complex factors which made it harder to follow and produce a thesis. Furthermore, never having been an interviewer, I didn’t know what to aspect from the situation - what he want me to take away from his experiences, his needs and his story. I took this as a blessing because, having read up on Mr. Fuller, I did not want to taint my data with my assumptions and bias. I wanted my data to be raw and genuine.
In any case, working with a blind man for this paper reminded me of our readings in body language and visual language, in which I was researching not only to build a greater understanding but utilize it towards the interview process. The paper wasn’t just about collecting what they were saying but trying to piece together what to do with this understanding, to create a message that would give these encounters meaning. Sometimes, I take for granted conversations and encounters with different people but having to develop a deeper meaning for this encounter helped me to remember the potential in interaction and in turn, active learning beyond the self. I also felt that this paper was difficult--approaching writing from an entirely new perspective than the one that I use when I write based on class texts. This was a much more individual experience, because I needed to come up with all the steps on my own--I made the questions, gathered interview data, and tried to piece it together, as you said, without the guidance of a full class discussion about what it was I would be writing about.
I found it especially difficult because of what I had to leave...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document