Concepciones sobre azar

From the onset of this project, I knew that I wanted to pursue a collaborative project. I also knew that I wanted to conduct interviews and compile a collection of audio recordings of the guided walking tours. This decision required me to negotiate a set of methodological and ethical questions concerning collaboration, consent, transparency, and transcription choices. This appendix outlines my experience as an ethnographer attempting to make these methodological decisions, so that you are aware of the process and steps throughout which spoken words have become incorporated in this thesis.

Historic sites are educational spaces that invite the presence of visitors, distinguishing them from more “traditional” sites of ethnographic study. These sites invite the innate

contradiction of present interaction with the past, demarcating “the old” so that it may be

acknowledged as distinct from “the modern.” Such spaces are populated by employees, staff, and volunteers, as well as by tourists who gather to learn, to see, and to “experience” life in a way it is no longer lived. While the staff and volunteer community is more-or-less defined, the total population of the site is constantly in flux. Additionally, the educational intention of Duke Homestead, and potentially of other sites as well, makes it more receptive to research than groups or spaces that exist outside of educational and academic realms. This function assists ethnographic immersion, but it simultaneously obscures the place and role of any researcher or ethnographer.94 _{Staff at such sites are, ideally, accustomed to and encouraging of audiences; their} existence depends upon the rotating attendance of public audiences, potentially making the presence of an ethnographer far less noticeable than could be the case in isolated spaces and

94 _{Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the} archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea, 1922. (Prospect Heights, III: Waveland Press, reprinted 1984).

64

communities. At the same time, though, the ethnographer is not simply a visitor. Unlike the tourists and visitors, in the eyes of the ethnographer, the history of the site and the narrative presented becomes secondary knowledge to their study of the people, the interactions, and the meanings transferred in the space. Without intentional transparency, however, the purpose of their presence could easily be overlooked, as they could easily appear to be another face in the crowd.

The same revolving door of people and faces that may assist an ethnographer when initially engaging with a site also complicates the communication required for transparency. How does one collaborate with each visitor they engage? The honest answer is that such collaboration is nearly impossible. Many visitors at sites are one time guests, engaging with the museum or historic site for a few hours, never to return again. And the National Park phrase that I grew up hearing “leave only footprints and take only pictures,” encourages visitors to leave as little trace as possible. It would be more than possible for ethnographers to attend guided tours and public programs, observing all others in attendance completely unbeknownst to those around them. This tactic, no matter how much it may be seen as helpful to the study of any illusive “authenticity,” would contradict the methods outlined in collaborative ethnography. In my work, I found it necessary to reintroduce myself and the purpose of my presence to every tour group I followed.

In an effort to maintain transparency with my intentions at the site, I introduced myself at the start of each tour I attended. My practice involved me turning on my audio-recorder before the tour guide began speaking. Most of the guides introduce themselves at the very start, before the jump into an introduction to the Duke family. After they introduced themselves, they generally would turn to me and allow me to introduce myself. I stated my name and said that I

65

was a graduate student at UNC conducting my thesis research with Duke Homestead. I then asked if anyone objected to me taking notes and recording the tour. This habit did not make the site visitors collaborators; unfortunately the majority of the people I encountered through my work remained simply dots on my radar, or “middle-aged woman from Alabama,” in my field notes. But at least the middle-aged woman from Alabama knew that I was taking notes.

I only ever received objections when school groups were involved, at which time I would turn off the recorder and note that I was to delete the files. At times, the tour guide would forget to allow me to introduce myself, and in these situations I would do so upon the completion of the introduction of the Duke family as we transitioned to walk outside. If individuals joined the tour mid-way through, I attempted to introduce myself and explain what I was doing, but this was not always practical and was not something I was able to do consistently. With this in mind, and acknowledging the brevity of my introduction and the fact that I did not specifically ask for individual consent or explain in detail how I would use the recordings, I have taken efforts to anonymize the visitors, with the exception of situations where specific consent was obtained, which will be noted accordingly.

When conducting interviews and recorded conversations, I took two steps for securing permission: written consent forms, and recorded verbal consent. For interviews, primarily conducted with site employees, volunteers, and interns, I had forms that included the

participants’ name, contact information, and signature. The forms also had space for restrictions, allowing the participants to note if they wanted a pseudonym, of they wanted to see files or transcripts, or any other requests they had. Then, once the recorder was on, I verbally asked again for permission to record the conversation. This method of double-consent helps eliminate the possibility of forms and recordings becoming separated. I also had tour guides sign consent

66

forms even if not conducting formal interviews, since their voices and words are the primary focus of the recorded tours.

By the conclusion of my primary fieldwork efforts, I had roughly seventy audio files. These files are from tours, interviews, and various special events, and are far more expansive than that which is represented in this thesis. For this project, I was unable to transcribe all of the files, nor were they all incorporated in the analysis. I prioritized the tours, attempting to review at least one tour for each various guide, and those that I had noted included particularly interesting conversations around Caroline Barnes. My attention to interviews included a similar focus. I transcribed and reviewed interviews that I knew were directly related to site interpretation, the tours, and Caroline Barnes. Consequently, conversations and interviews about the summer events, specifically a Soldier’s Walk Home, an event that marked the 150th _{anniversary of the} Civil War, and conversations about the Junior Interpreter program, which is connected to special events rather than guided tours, are absent from the thesis and from these appendices.

For the recordings that I did transcribe, I attempted to capture the spoken words as closely as possible. At times this became difficult, especially on the guided tours. For some of the tours, the tour guide used a lapel mic with the goal of most clearly capturing the actual tour. Not all of the guides were comfortable with this recording technique, and I discovered that the recordings captured by my handheld (or belt clipped) recorder had equal quality and more successfully captured the comments and questions from the quests. Nonetheless, at times the wind, the street, or distance between myself and the person speaking made it difficult to decipher the spoken words. In these moments, I did my best to transcribe the recordings, but at times I have marked “inaudible,” or “question about this topic,” attempting to capture meaning even when unable to state the words.

67

I also took some liberties cleaning up dialogue to increase readability. In various places, I edited out false starts, repetitive words, stutters, and “likes,” all with the intentions of

maximizing the reception of the words, while aiming to maintain the voice, intentions, and character of the individual who was speaking. I also deleted some moments of distraction, deciding that including a cellphone ring, or a greeting from someone walking by would be more confusing than beneficial. Some of my consultants requested that they see transcriptions, and I have upheld these requests. At times, they have requested various sentences or statements be clarified, cleaned up, or removed. I have taken full efforts to heed to these requests, at times discussing options for alteration when I believe omission would take away from the meaning. Additionally, at times in an interview, a consultant stated that they may need to review and/or redact various aspects of the interview. In these instances, I have provided them with a transcript, and discussed how to best move forward. Ultimately, I know that these words are not my own, and I have worked to respect the integrity, voice, and desires of my consultants.

In addition to sections that my consultants requested be left out of the transcripts, I made some choices over what would and would not be included in these appendices. Some of these choices were made for the sake of time and relevance. I have attempted to include as much as possible, but when push came to shove, I chose to include excerpts from multiple interviews, rather than sacrificing important moments because I could not include the interviews in their entirety. Whatever the reasoning, missing sections are marked by time stamps, ellipses, or notes in brackets stating that conversation has been removed. At the end, I have taken great effort to present these transcripts in a way that increases their accessibility, as I believe they can be a resource that serves far beyond my own project.

68

My efforts at collaboration and transparency continued beyond the research phase and into my writing process. I knew from the start that this project would result in my thesis – a paper, written to fulfill specific requirements set forth by my department, my university, and my committee. The thesis needed to be original work conceptualized and written by me, with my name sitting alone as the author. This reality undermined some options for collaboration. My consultants could not write this for me, nor could they suggest a different medium for this project. Despite these limitations on collaboration, I took various steps to include my consultants throughout the process. I sat down with them to go over transcripts, allowing them to remove sections whenever they desired. I had many conversations with the full-time staff at Duke Homestead about what this project would look like, what questions they found important, and directions they thought would be valuable to pursue. I shared drafts of class assignments, grant applications, and proposals with them, and ultimately sent them a draft of the thesis in its entirety. While this required their time, my goal was to allow for open conversation throughout the research and writing process. They offered me feedback, both on what they liked and on what they found concerning, which I incorporated as I continued editing and writing. Ultimately, I hope that I have presented the people, dialogue, and ideas of Duke Homestead in a manner with which my consultants can be comfortable and confident, as this thesis would have been

69

APPENDIX C: OBSERVATIONS and TAKEAWAYS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION

Analyzing Duke Homestead’s guided tours on the arc of scripted, spoken, and received offers lessons that form and contribute to the larger discussion of how historic sites move forward around questions of interpretation.

 There is variability in interpretation; the many iterations and reiterations of a singular narrative are accompanied by an innate existence of silences, both intentional and unintentional.

 History is in tension with the fraught and contested nature of inclusion.

o The historical landscape includes a limited number of spaces, curated by few to represent many.

o Historical narratives are limited, including specific people, events, and stories that create an incomplete and only partially inclusive sense of the past.

o Negotiating the inclusion of problematic history can be unsettling, resulting in public performances of narrative discomfort, characterized by depreciation, elision, and hesitation.

o Visitor demographics are not representative of surrounding communities, at times making historic sites spaces of historic sense-making that are not demographically inclusive.

 Current events and historical memory impact public consciousness and the reception of history.

o Explicitly or not, historic narratives exist in conversation with issues being negotiated in mainstream society.

o Common perceptions of history, formed by both public education and popular cultures’ imagined past, impact public expectations of and interactions with historic narratives.

 Historic narratives are dynamic; when performed on historic sites, their fluidity is made evident. Tour guides’ public presentation of narratives allows for public contemplation, open dialogue, and an interaction with history that is simultaneously verbal and physical. These observations serve as tools for understanding the cultural production, performance, and reception of narratives as it occurs at Duke Homestead, and at other places and spaces of historical significance and interpretation.

70