Soc 260: CLASS TUESDAY FEB. 16th

www.gillegends.blogspot.com

CLASS TUESDAY FEB. 16th

Hey!

I plan to have class today. If you can't make it, try to contact me by email or phone

before class...Gil

SOC 260 Class and Assignment Feb, 2nd: John Schwartz Visit

SOC 260 Class and Assignment Feb, 2nd

I have read your submissions on the Serpent Handling case study. I see two themes in these. One is the question of where and how to approach the subject and the other is the desire to draw concrete conclusions from a case study. Both of these are to be expected. Toward the first, I will provide more direction for the next paper. Toward the second, I warn that questions more than conclusions are the result of case study exploration. And the best exploration will come from each other as we study the same cases.

For the paper on “The Palladium Murder Case” I want you to focus on a big part of the case study process. This is the framing and reframing of your question to be studied as data is collected. I want you to use my RADAR scheme as the framework for this paper.

Start with the RECOGNIZED case study at the time that two (apparently) wrongly convicted murders were incarcerated for over a decade. Follow the RADAR process that occurred at the time and then use that analysis to RECOGNIZE the new situation that arose from the previous REANALYSIS of the situation. Take this second situation through the RADAR process to arrive at a third situation. Follow this third situation through the radar process and then present you final reanalysis to point to different focuses the study could go at that point.]

Sounds complicated? This is what the Bushmen did about the Recognized situation of the introduction of the Coke bottle. First RECOGNITION (first bonk) resulted in the DECISION to throw the bottle in the air. The first REANALYSIS led to the second RECOGNITION that the throwing method did not get rid of the bottle and a new method needed to be tried. The second REANALYSIS of the DECISION to throw the bottle higher resulted in the new Recognition of the situation that throwing only had been eliminated (with an added bad side effect).

The third DECISION of burying led to the third Reanalysis that burying also failed with another bad side effect.

At this point I ask you to examine where the study could go following the same direction. Of course in the movie the Fourth RECOGNITION was that there was no local solution. But after the third Reanalysis I want you to look at several reframings. In the case of the Bushmen you may have thought to explore more types of local solutions (i.e. make the bottle an “untouchable” Shrine reminding them of the ills of possessiveness.).

My focus is on process! This involves recognizing the constraints to your study as they develop and your choice of pursuit of information. In this paper I am asking to take the detectives point of view. Steve’s article from the New York Times provides a good outline of the case, but the detectives give another view of the layers of process that are involved. Since we have Detective Schwartz to question let’s focus on that layer of the case.

With that in mind (an example for the paper) when the Detectives were removed from the case was a constraint and forced them to REANALYZE the case and RECOGNIZE a new problem in terms of pursuing it.

You should be familiar with the case through the Dateline video

(Website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20091700). And our other discussion and articles about the case along with your own investigation (which means having questions ready Tuesday!!)

Keep your assigned partner informed of what is going on and develop ideas together. Two heads are better than one….

We will discuss the case again on the 9^th and the paper will be due the 11^th via email. Further discussion of paper in class this Tuesday.

I will try to bring pizza Tuesday… Gil