Blog 4

Blog #4:  Set up an analysis of some of the oral history data posted for Blog 3.  You can analyze data from one blog or several.  The point of this exercise is for you to practice the analytic process we went through in class.  Name and classify what you see in the interview; look for and describe patterns; put forward a hypothesis and test it = and see if you can come up with a theory (explanation) that accounts for the patterns and relationships you see in the data.

I am going to analyze my blog on 9/11 as well as Josh's blog since he was partner in the activity. I want to see where we listed similar data and where our data was different. Mainly I want to see what we each interpreted from the interviews. We both had the same data but due to the fact that I was the interviewer I had the information set up different than him being that he was the subject. This meant that I was more in depth with my data than Josh since he was the one being asked questions.

Josh's Blog:
-While being interviewed by Shana we both learned that when the attack actually happened we handled the situation in similar ways. We both were focused on going home, not that we were over looking the events that just took place, but we didnt understand what was going on at the time and how severe it really was. We also both knew stories of people close to us who worked at the World Trade Center and ended up not going in the day of September 11th. Lastly we discussed how any kid younger then the age of 11 has no recollection of what happened that day, therefore the only way they will find out about what happened is through the internet, and oral re-telling of the story. Overall the interview was very free flowing and was more of a conversation then a formal interview.  

1) Coding: 

• I put my data into a question answer format and Josh summed up this data with a paragraph. 
• We shared similar emotions such as fear, but we were more confused of what was happening.

2) Classifying: 

• As I stated before, our emotions were similar. We both spoke about being confused which is pretty much one of the only emotions that we shared with one another. 
• Josh gave a lot of information regarding everything we spoke about, where I told the specifics. 
• Both Josh and I spoke about 9/11 and how we handled the situation. 
• We both mentioned wanting to go home that day, not realizing the severity  of the crash. 
• We both agreed that the interview was more of a conversation than a formal interview itself.
• I did not have my questions following any sort of pattern, such as least important to most important, etc.
• Josh's starts by interpreting the data, meaning how we handed the situation in similar ways.
• I started by explaining the focus of the interview, asking where was he on 9/11? 
• Josh mentions 9/11 towards the end and I mentioned 9/11 in the beginning of my post.
• Josh's evaluation of the data is at the end and he explains his opinion of how the interview went in terms of what kind of interview it was.
• I mentioned my opinion as well as my thoughts at the end of my post as well, but in a paragraph of its own.
• Both information from codings and categories are pretty close to being similar. A lot of data fits between both.

3) Identifying patterns:

• Josh and I are only a couple years apart so we recalled a lot of the same information and feelings.
• We were not really emotionally with any of the questions so we spoke a lot about where we were on 9/11, what we remembered and how other people reacted during the time of the crash.
• We both agreed that we had no order in our interview, we pretty much just had a conversation recalling the facts.
• We both spoke about being confused not being upset or scared.

4) Developing hypotheses:

• We both were involved in the same interview, with the same data but how we represented it was different. This doesn't mean that anyone was wrong but how we decided to explain it was different.
• Most people described where they were on 9/11, how they felt about the situation, and how they were influenced by other's reactions on that day. 
• People tell stories that are factual based on how they felt about a particular event and what they can recall from that particular event. Based on our emotions is how we tell a story. If we are really passionate from the topic our story may be very descriptive in sharing it with others. If we were involved in a particular event, but it did not have much of an impact on us we may well it differently, leaving out certain emotions.

5) Testing the hypotheses:

• I believe my hypothesis was on track because Josh and I had the same feelings of 9/11 and we told similar stories since we weren't affected by the tragedy of 9/11. We were upset about what happened but due to our age and not personally being affected we only remembered where we were on the day and what class we were in more than how we actually felt about 9/11 overall as a young child.

6. Creating a "theoretical story":

• We both agreed that our age played an important role about what we could recall and remember from that day. If we were older we would have had different reactions to the situation. Being in elementary school, effects how a person interprets 9/11. Each anniversary of 9/11 we learn more and more and we are able to really understand the severity of the situation better than when we were in elementary school.

I am hoping that I can get a lot of feedback from my classmates on this blog, because doing the analyzing as a class was A LOT easier than doing it on our own. I felt this was a little bit 
confusing, comments please!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After looking over my blog, I realized that there was more that I could add to it and revise. 

-I could go further into my theory to come up with more specific features.
-My theory and my hypothesis are somewhat opposite of one another. I would focus more on how emotions tell a story rather than age plays an issue in what we remember when telling an important story. 
-For codes, I tried to count how many times emotion appeared such as confusion or fear. It wasn't stated much in Josh's data as in mine. In my data confusion or fear appeared in I almost ever answer within the interview.
-I would probably go more into depth with my hypothesis. "How does this fit?" I stated:  
"People tell stories that are factual based on how they felt about a particular event and what they can recall from that particular event. Based on our emotions is how we tell a story. If we are really passionate from the topic our story may be very descriptive in sharing it with others. If we were involved in a particular event, but it did not have much of an impact on us we may well it differently, leaving out certain emotions."
-I think that this hypothesis is strong, although I am not 100% sure if it connects well.
-The "proof" for my hypothesis is that each set of data written by each person varies on their experience. People who had a family member involved in 9/11 told a story using more emotion and more person references. Where as people like myself, told a story with less 
emotion and less connections, but just general facts.
-I could probably change and add more to my blog, but these are just a few things that came to mind at this time.