After discussing with my group members today, Megan Norris and Dawn Roy, we narrowed down our research topic/main question to something like the questions that follow:
    With the growing trend to eat healthy and "all natural", how much of the food labeling is actually accurate? What kind of tricks do they use? How do advertisers manipulate words to trick the average consumer? How often do consumers fall for these schemes? Has that affected obesity rates?

Hopefully, with these questions, we can narrower our focus over the next week or so, but I think we have  pretty decent start. In addition the article by Wendell Berry, The Pleasures of Eating, he also questioned just how much the food industry hides from consumers--
        "How fresh is it? How pure or clean is it, how free of dangerous chemicals? How far was it              transported, and what did transportation add to the cost? How much did manufacturing or packaging or advertising add to the cost? When the food product has been manufactured or "processed" or "precooked," how has that affected its quality or price or nutritional value?"

These are all great questions, and they are similar to ones found in the documentary, Food Inc. Often people think they are eating well, grabbing fruit, veggies, and lean chicken at the grocery store. Little do they know that they are serving themselves and their families chemicals and pesticides that could wind up hurting the body down the road. Unfortunately as Wendell and the makers of Food Inc. pointed out, "Food is produced by any means or any shortcuts that will increase profits." Manufacturers don't care how it will affect consumers in 10 years, they care about 10 cents more they get to keep because of lowered production costs. It truly is an upsetting epidemic, and we all fall victim to it at some point or another.

With this in mind, my partners and I are looking at the mentioned Wendell article and the the following articles to aid our research at this time (these 4 articles found by Megan Norris)

1.) supermarket_semantics_the_rhetoric_of_food_labeling_and_advertising

2.) the_relationship_between_television_viewing_and_obesity_in_young_children

3.) consumer_perceptions_of_health_claims_in_advertisements_and_food_labels

4.) big_macs_for_big_grades

The following are questions posed for a research project with 2 of my peers, Megan Norris and Dawn Roy. Some of these questions are from their pages as well.

1.) What are the main companies in charge of school lunches in Southern New Jersey?

2.) How are we socialized to eat?

3.) What impact does the way developed countries consume food have on the world hunger crisis?

4.) What exactly is seed saving and why and when was it made illegal?

5.) How many companies is Monsanto actually affiliated with? Does it go by any other pseudo-names?

6.) What is the projected national cost of health care for obese patients come 2020?

7.) How drastically has the Farm bill impacted local farmers?

8.) How has the antibiotics used in meat affected the growth and development of children?

9.) With the current trend in "all natural" foods, how much is actually false advertising? Have any companies been sued for false advertising of their product?

10.) What is the current presidential cabinet doing

    "I would be an audience before whom she could make an honest analysis of her life" (pg. 31, "Like It Was")

    I think that initial quote pretty much sums up the importance of an oral history interview. As in interviewer, I must make sure whoever I interview is comfortable and knows that I will not be judging them about what they say. The interviewee should be encouraged to be open and honest about their experience and their personal reaction to it. This also leads to another point made in the chapter about avoiding "leading questions". Interviewers should have questions prepared, but they should not be "assuming" questions that would make the interviewee afraid to disagree with the interviewee. At all times, the interviewee should feel comfortable expressing their deepest feelings about whatever topic they are speaking on.
    So far after watching a little of FoodInc., I think I want to do something with school lunches, but that will all depend on my group and such. Yet if I do get to explore this topic, I would like to interview a child, a adult (perhaps a parent), and maybe a lunch aide/server. In doing this, I have to be sure not to push my thoughts and opinions on them (frankly, I am disgusted with the food that is served to our kids now at school). I want their true, untainted opinions about the issue. I know this will be hard for me, but I will try my best.  I also think that this part could turn out more like a feature story like the chapter reading suggested. Because I will be collecting histories from different perspectives, my part may be more topic-driven, yet I will be sure to follow the same rules/suggestions and make sure my interview stays like a monologue, not a dialogue. The whole point of an oral history is to get the interviewee to talk as much as possible about the topic at hand.  The interviewer needs to be sure not to talk to much, as this will delude the perspective and thoughts of the interviewee.
    After reading this, I am actually really excited about starting my research/oral history project. I think it will be really fun and enlightening. I have never really done anything like this, and I can't wait to start.

Confession: I am obsessed with the History Channel.

     When my husband and I first moved into our house last year, we didn't have cable for the first few months. It really didn't bother me that much because we were busy setting things up and buying stuff for the house. Yet as soon as we got cable, we realized how much we were missing. I came home from work on the day of installation to him sitting on the couch with the remote.
    "Babe, you gotta watch this show."
    It was Swamp People on the History channel. Since that show, we have both been hooked on the channel and 90% of the shows we watch are on it. I have always been a fan of history as a subject in school, but now I just love it. My husband and I religiously follow Swamp People, American Pickers, and Pawn Stars--all shows that I was reminded of while reading through "What is Oral History."
    The first quote that stuck out to me was "oral history is, at its heart, a dialogue." Al of the shows I mentioned are just that. Swamp People is more of a reality show because we never meet the "interviewer" ,yet we still get to find out relevant facts and histories because of the director and producer of the show. The characters talk about the dangers of their profession and they frequently talk about the history of it. In the other two shows, American Pickers and Pawn Stars, we kind of know the interviewers because they are characters in the show. The American Pickers stars go around the country looking for antiques and in the process meet and talk to the owners of said antiques. I must say they come across some characters. These owners then tell their personal connection to the item and the actual history of it. In Pawn Stars, the pawn shop owners ask questions to the clients who come in with items to sell or pawn. This is all dialogue, and though it is not called "oral history" per say, I don't see how it couldn't be lumped into that genre.
    The next quote that stuck out to me was "Just because someone 'was there' doesn't mean they fully understood 'what happened', and this really relates to the reliability of the narrator. An interviewer must make sure the interviewee is a credible source to the best of their ability. No one is perfect, but an effort must be made. This is also something the both of the stars in American Pickers and Pawn Stars must consider. If they are not sure about information an owner is telling them about an item, they get their trusted professional appraisers to weigh in. It is always interesting to see who is and who isn't telling the whole truth about their items.
    The last point that reminded me of my shows was that a better interview will be produced if it is given adequate time and if it be done some place comfortable. In American Pickers, the stars stress to establish a connection with the people they are buying from because then they can bargain comfortably with them. This would be the same idea if I were to do an oral history about something with a person. If the subject is touchy or overtly personal, the last thing I want to do would be to jump right into it and be too blunt. The interview must be given time to develop in order to provide a reliable, complete, and compelling oral history account.
    All in all, now I understand why I like these shows so much. I have always been a fan of history, and with personal stories intertwined in these shows, I am able to learn and obtain even more. I can place faces and places with dates and times in history and now it is much more personal experience for me.

    Clandinin and Connelly provided interesting examples in "Narrative Inquiry-Experience and Story in Qualitative Research" to persuade writers, and everyone for that matter to use narrative inquiry when they write, and really throughout the whole writing process. They explained how different our points of view can be at different times of our lives and in different situations by using characters and examples throughout their piece.
    The first quote/passage that struck and kind of explained narrative inquiry was:
        "With this sense of Dewey's foundational place in our thinking
        about narrative inquiry, our terms are personal and social (interaction);
        past, present, and future (continuity); combined with the notion
        of place (situation). This set of terms creates a metaphorical three dimensional
        narrative inquiry space, with temporality along one dimension,
        the personal and the social along a second dimension, and
        place along a third" (50).
In this thought, Clandinin and Connelly stressed the importance of writers thinking along these three lines. Any situation researched has to consider the interaction the writer has with it and the past, present, and future of that interaction. In other words, research can not really remain in one place forever. Outside variables are going to effect it and change it, and that is OK. Research should be in fact, re-researched by others to confirm its validity, and also to place its relevance in a new time period.
    Another point that I liked was found in one of quoted sections. Clandinin and Connelly talked about writing and remembering from a "place within a place". A group of educators met and Karen Whelan talked about how she struggled with always marking a kid as "failing" (57). When another researcher, Jean, in her group heard her remarks again via tape-recoder, she was instantly reminded of her childhood classroom and childhood struggles. By recounting her own past, Jean was better able to connect with the difficulties that present students were having. Both situations were situated in the same place--school, but the times and contexts were different. Even still, Jean was able to mentally go through her narrative and use it to her advantage. And that is exactly what narrative inquiry is supposed to do.
    The last quote I liked was, "Narrative inquiry is a relational inquiry as we work in the field, move from field to field text, and from field text to research text" (60). Infusing narrative into all of these steps is important. I think of narrative as a relationship, and that relationship must grow and develop through all of these stages in order to be effective.

     Throughout my elementary and secondary schooling, at least through County College, I was told to keep my thoughts, my feelings, and me (as in the word I) out of my writing. My academic writing and research could have nothing to do with what I thought.
    WHAT? WHAT SENSE DOES THAT ACTUALLY MAKE? In the words of one of my professors, "Hang out with that for while."
    Been long enought yet? You'll come to see and understand that it really makes no sense. Ask a writer, or a student for that matter, to write and tell them it can't be personal.  WHAT EXACTLY IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE THEN?
    It wasn't until I started my Writing Arts classes that I was encouraged to literally infuse my thoughts, feelings, and opinions into my own papers. At first it was a foreign, difficult concept for me, but through the semesters I have become better with it.
       One teacher in particular that I have this semester, encourages us during each class period to make sure we are writing about our own stories, experiences, and opinions in our papers. He wants to read more of our reasoning and ideas. Recently, he even suggested that I start one of my papers with a personal story that was embedded later in the paper. He believed it was strong, and that it would pull any reader in. This emphasized the value he placed on narrative. He even goes so far as to argue that "All writing is narrative", and I would say that is true.
    While reading "Situating Narrative Inquiry" by Clandinin I was continually reaffirmed that narrative needs to be included in all writing, and I don't believe there is any way around it. Consider the following quote/passage from Clandinin,
        "Narrative researchers use narrative in some way in their research. Narrative
        inquiry embraces narrative as both the method and phenomena of study. Through
        the attention to methods for analyzing and understanding stories lived and told, it
        can be connected and placed under the label of qualitative research methodology.
        Narrative inquiry begins in experience as expressed in lived and told stories" (5).
To me, this quote is saying, why should researches leave out details about their journey through the research process? Why not tell about the struggles, the joys, and the opportunities. Not only would this engage the reader, but it may inspire them to take the same kind of journey for their own writing. Is that not what good writing is supposed to do? Inspire it's readers. There is so much that strict, academic writing hinders, and the professional educational society needs to be more aware of it.
    Another thought from Clandinin that stuck out to me was the following:
        "As researchers begin to embrace those
        they research as humans rather than as objects of study and as they struggle to make
        sense of the narratives that such interactions produce, they begin to embrace other
        ideas about how to make data interpretable and how to provide interpretations of
        data that are coherent, that resonate with the data, and that are true to them" (14).
To my understanding, Clandinin was trying to express the importance of treating humans like, well, humans. Humans are imperfect. Humans are unreliable. Humans are naive. Humans are selfish. Humans are ________ (etc.) Everyone has a story, and it is that story that readers will relate to. In addition, by situating any type of research in a narrative form, the information will be more understandable and also more teachable to another group of researchers or readers yet to come. Good, solid writing stands the test of time, just like certain accounts of history, which happen to be told in story form, do. Perhaps academia should read some more and take some cues from historia? (yea, that's not a word, but it sounded good).
    Another quote/passage that I liked from Clandinin was found in his conclusion. It was kind of like a disclaimer for the whole chapter. He summed up the importance of more narrative in the academic discourse community, but also acknowledged that the practiced, drilled "positivism" will never leave or allow narrative to fully take over--
        "This chapter does not argue for an academy-wide move to narrative. Nor, in contrast
        to positivist social science, does it assume that there should be unanimity
        among narrative practitioners on key points of philosophy, method, or argument.
        This is both a strength and weakness of the movement toward narrative—a
        strength because multiple views make for closer attention to a wider variety of
        human experience; a weakness because it seems unlikely that narrative will
        ever come to dominate the academy in the way that positivism has done since the
        beginning of the 20th century" (28).
Honestly, I don't think narrative needs to fully take over institutions, but I do think educators need to practice it themselves and allow their students to do the same. In a world that is moving so fast, why not slow down with a personal connection? Let the reader feel closer to the writer if only through words on a page.

How has technology impacted your writing/composing?
    Well, it has impacted my writing in negative and positive ways. Positively, I can find information fast. If I want to write a fiction piece about Alaskan fisherman, I can easily and quickly find information on my topic. In addition, I sometimes use my Twitter account as  kind of journal for story ideas. When I hear or see something, I pull the Twitter App up on my phone and tweet away. This way, I don't forget my ideas, which often happens to me.
    Negatively, technology distracts me. Friends text me and I text them back, wasting precious time. My phone also houses cool Apps where I can androidify myself and play Scrabble with my friends all day. It doesn't get much better than that. In addition, Facebook sucks the most time away from my writing. I start something, and then I space out, checking my Facebook page. Pretty soon I am on my friend's page, then I click on some random person in a photo, then I surf on their page for another 20 minutes. One of the writers in 'TwentySomething Essays by TwentySomething Writers' explained this phenomenon. It is almost unavoidable. Well it is avoidable, but I just can't help checking my page. I'm a bit of a Facebook stalker.

How has technology connected or made you more mindful of your writing and place?
    I would say that since I can easily access my classmates' writing, it makes me feel inadequate as a writer sometimes. Unfortunately, I tend to compare myself against other too much. Although at times, it can be a good thing because it forces me to write better. Other times, it completely hinders me. I stop trying and I give up--never taking risks with my own pieces. Lately, I have just been checking other people's blogs and stuff as reference. I don't spend too much time reading what they have. That way I do not get too discouraged.
    As far as helping  me with my place for my Twitterive, it played a big part. I was able to drive by my old house and take incognito photos of it without having the new owners notice me. I also set up a YouTube account through my phone so I could show the videos of my students playing the piano. I never made or posted a video before this, so I was so happy I finally did it. The videos do a much better justice than me writing about my students. Since my focus was piano and music, having videos was a great addition to concept.

How has technology impacted your identity construction?
    I am pretty much the same person in real life that I am online. I don't lead a double life--it's not in my nature. However, there are things I'd like to post and say on my Facebook and Twitter pages that I know I just can't without later being shot in the foot for it. For instance, I have to be mindful of every picture I post on Facebook as a future teacher. Though I do not hang out at bars like some of my peers, I can't really even post a picture of me in a bikini at the beach in the summertime without running the risk of being fired for it. I have heard so many horror stories of teachers holding a drink in their hand while having dinner with their husband and being fired for it. If that isn't an invasion of privacy, I don't know what is. But I guess that is the technological savvy world we live in.
    In addition, I would like to start a political blog, or at least actively contribute to an already established one. There are things I would like to say about politics, but I have to hold them in considering my future field, which is flooded with the Left Wing. Who wants to hear the rantings of an Conservative teacher after all?

Opps....I may have just ruined my chances.