Ecological Explanation for Case C Photography incident 25811

By Admin, June 22, 2012


I am reflecting on a curious incident that preceded my meeting Case C at his school, C1. I was in the lobby of C1, observing closely the curiosities of the room, when I decided to take out my iPhone to capture them — the photos could be useful data; and in fact they proved their worth in supporting this professional journal entry. I took photos of the art — perhaps created by a C1 student — hanging above the couch. I then took a photograph of the “Staircase 5 Purple” sign, the nomenclature of which is a high-value indicator of the school’s ways of doing with technology. I didn’t think any of my photo-taking was unusual. The secretary who had received me in the lobby glanced at me. She asked me what I was doing. When I told her I was photographing some artifacts in the lobby, she asked me why. I told her I was a researcher and I found these items to be curious. She told me that I perhaps should not be taking photographs of these items in the lobby. The tone of her voice suggested suspicion and displeasure at my actions. I apologized to her and suggested, indeed, for the next time, I should receive official consent before taking pictures. I told her that I likely wouldn’t use these photos if I couldn’t receive permission for their use in my research. She continued to frown at me. In contrast, Case C welcomed and even encouraged my photography. Inside his office, he showed me a curious post-it technology his assistant uses, and the Avery labels which consumed his time that day. I photographed both without any frowns or any hints of suspicion. Case C was at ease. I assume, he would also be at ease with my capturing a power strip with the name of a school room emblazoned on it in black — taking a second look, I now notice a few fancy Nespresso containers next to the strip; that data has value too. To conclude, referring to my conceptual framework, an iteration of which I have developed for this entry, I wonder what school-level abiotic and biotic species affected these two people in such a way that these two people responded so differently to my independent variable. This question is curious because these people work in the same school and I could assume that these people have equal access to the same biotic and abiotic species. This suggests that the species which environ them at school are different — quantitatively, qualitatively — and affect them in different ways. I already assume part of the difference in responses can be attributed to individual indicators (e.g. disposition; professional role; philosophy) As I continue to collect data in C1, I will observe carefully different — contradictory — responses from stakeholders and wonder what, within the school, is causing these diverging responses.


What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *