The Chancellor's office at The University of Mississippi released part of the public report addressing incidents on the Ole Miss campus that occurred on election night (and made the national news). I found this a fascinating read, in part because the data collection was what I would describe as qualitative since it was based on document analysis (social media, photographs) and interviews. There are lots of discussion points in this report - including the role of spontaneous social media ("Twitter") to create a situation. I hope journalism or communication classes take advantage of this report to initiate class discussions. I highlighted one quote I found particularly interesting: "For example, some tweets held that a police car had been overturned on campus, students had been sprayed with tear gas and pepper spray, people had been shot, and students had been tased. None of this took place, but through interviews with students, some of whom reported these events while never leaving their rooms or observing anything firsthand, it became clear that the veracity of a statement had little bearing when deciding to report it through Twitter" (emphasis added). You can read the news release and download the report at: http://news.olemiss.edu/university-committee-releases-report-on-election-night-incident/#.UQPtEuiRo0U Near the end of the report, I began to see the influence of phenomenology. Different groups of students had differing experiences (some felt 'threatened,' others did not); some noted that it changed the way they felt about the university - one noted that the Hotty Toddy chant - used at sporting events - now had different meaning (it was used in the context of what some perceived as a threat). I included the picture of the burning sign because, interestingly to me, the two students who were photographed with the burning campaign signs both denied responsibility. In their view, picking up or holding the burning sign did not carry the same level of responsibility as setting the sign on fire. So, that makes me wonder - which is 'worse,' if there is such a thing - setting the sign on fire and leaving, or picking it up and being photographed with it? (One student admitted his purpose in picking up the sign was to be photographed.) Or does it matter? Either behavior was meant to create controversey, I believe. Lots of issues of perception going on here, but also undoubtably issues of self-monitoring and self-editing during the interviews occured, so any reality reported is a result of some interpretation. On the other hand, in this instance, perception (during and after) seems to be as or more important as objectivity. And your 'facts' depend on where you were standing. I think it would be very interesting to hear the interview tapes. I see the presence of phenomenology in the fact that the 'lived experiences' of this night reflected differing perceptions of reality. However, each individuals' response/perception had an impact on how they view not only that night, but the environment they are in. For some students, they woke up the next morning and went to a 'different' university than the one they attended the day before. This was actually my experience to some extent. I believe that I am 'insulated' from a lot of the day to day goings on. The only residential areas I spend any time in are the Residential Colleges and the students there are for the most part serious, creative, upper class (or on academic scholarship) and seemingly less engaged in the heavy drinking atmosphere that tends to be associated with other groups of residential students. I teach in the recreation building and mostly teach exercise science, recreation, or health students, who, for the most part tend to have a healthy lifestyle. While I attend some campus events, they are usually technology instruction, academic lectures, or musical performances. I also avoid "The Square" (downtown Oxford) during most weekend evenings during the academic semester - so I am really out of touch with the daily lives of undergrads who live on or near campus. Interestingly, right around the time of the election, this university was recognizing the 50th anniversary of the end of segregation when James Meridith became the first Black student to attend in fall of 1962. My thoughts around this time were that we were so far away from that world that it was incomprehensible to imagine what attitudes were like in 1962. Needless to say, I was stunned by what I heard about election night. I remember thinking (and still think): I wonder what is going on in the minds of some of these students (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, etc.) when they see people of other races as they walk around campus. I see the influence of Interpretive phenonemenological analysis (IPA) in how the report of election night was written - the writers interpreted how the students interpreted the events of the night to come up with a description of the actual events. I also especially like the note the writers made about the crowd of student observers: "The Incident Review Committee holds that although the majority of students were present to satisfy their curiosity, couching them as 'observers' belies the fact that their presence, in ever-increasing numbers, was a significant factor in the escalation of the events of election night. We think it more appropriate to refer to these students as 'passive participants' because by their mere presence they played a role that contributed to the difficulties with crowd control and negative media coverage.'
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|