Review/ Critique of “The 7 Habits of Highly Affective Teachers"

This is a review of an article I wrote in my last semester of school. A link to the original article can be found here. I have no idea if it is relevant to any of my readers but here it is for your reading pleasure. :)

An important part of any teacher’s continued relevance in their profession of choice is ongoing professional education and knowledge development. The profession of teaching and its function in the lives of families and communities cannot be understated. Therefore, teachers find themselves regularly called upon to suggest and facilitate changes in focus, curricula, and teaching practices. On top of these changes, teachers are also called upon to create lively, ethical, and effective learning environments as well as deal with discipline and different learning styles while supporting the wellbeing of themselves and their students under their supervision. The amount of responsibility given to teachers can be overwhelming and being an effective teacher requires a great deal of physical and mental strength as well as an ability to think quickly and to remain calm and collected in highly stressful situations. It should come as no surprise that this is a tall order to require of any human being on a regular basis, yet society does expect all of these attributes of teachers.

In his article titled “The 7 Habits of Highly Affective Teachers", Rick Wormeli suggests that teachers have an additional responsibility both to their students and themselves; emotional health. Teachers who recognize that their emotional responses to their environment reflect their own biases and may create negative perceptions within themselves are more able to recognize when a situation arises in which their perceptions and attitude create problems. Teachers must also recognize that every student comes to class with their own set of biases and perceptions of the subject, teacher, classroom, etc. and that these biases and perceptions create emotional attitudes that both the student and the teacher need to recognize and respond to. Wormeli states that teachers who wish to be effective in their job must work to be the most affective in their classroom by recognizing their own challenges and understanding each student well enough to evaluate each student’s emotional health. This is a challenging concept which requires that a teacher be introspective and be able to teach that same concept to their students as well. It also requires a teacher to understand enough about each student’s emotional health to recognize when the typical teacher response to a student needs to be modified to promote a constructive, positive learning environment for all. These responses may include changing the ways that lessons are delivered to help students feel more secure in the classroom, responding with kindness when punitive measures would typically be used, giving students the benefit of the doubt, and creating open discussions with students to determine motivations for specific behavior.

Wormeli states that there are seven habits that teachers who want to be highly affective will work to develop. They are: finding joy in others’ success, cultivating perspective and re-framing, ditching the easy caricature, exploring the ethics of teaching, embracing humility, valuing intellect, and maintaining passion and playfulness. In detail, the author describes what each of these habits entail, how to work to develop them, and why they are so important. He ends his article with the statement; “Let us compose virtuous affective habits that will ensure the success of the next generation.” He also suggests that, if we follow his guidelines, we can ensure our own success and emotional wellness - a wonderful outcome indeed.

This article has several strengths that recommend it to potential readers. The author lays out his case for his suggestions very well by mentioning problems many of us face in our work and personal lives, agreed that those problems are negative and need to be changed, and then lays out his suggestions for readers to work to change themselves to help minimize potential stress and difficulties ahead. The author makes clear to readers that emotional health is an integral part of all human beings and asks readers to be introspective about their own biases, feelings, and behaviors and then recognize the emotional needs in others. He suggests that, as each of us work to obtain positive emotional health, we in turn can recognize needs in our students and then respond appropriately to those needs. He acknowledges that sometimes the response will be unusual and having a solid grounding in positive emotional health will set teachers up to make more customized responses to fit the situation and the student’s needs, not necessarily the rule book. When reading the article, the reader is motivated to develop the ‘habits’ for better emotional health by listing problems that all of us face. By describing the negative consequences of poor emotional health in such a way that it creates empathy and understanding in the reader, all readers are motivated to make the changes described and to continue working on them long after the article has been put down and daily life has taken over.

One of the weaknesses of the article is its brevity. Each habit is only lightly described while the positive results of the habit are well described. Therefore, the author makes clear the desired results, but doesn’t give much guidance for how the reader can work to get to those desired results. Giving readers the desire and motivation to get the positive results, but not clearly outlining how to gain those results leaves readers motivated, but potentially frustrated as to what actions to perform to gain the results. While there are a few examples of things that can be done to work towards it, these examples may not be useful to the reader- not all readers will ever be hall monitors, be able to change the policy of percentage grades, etc. Therefore, only extremely motivated individuals who are able and willing to do more research into how to develop positive increases in emotional health will probably be successful. Due to this lack of guidance, the habits seem like a lofty, but unattainable, goal which I believe is the opposite of what the author intended by writing the article.

In the article, the author discusses good positive habits teachers should develop to help students have good emotional health. While the article does mention the need for good emotional health for the teacher, the larger focus is on how the teacher can help the student. I would be interested in knowing what criteria or scenarios teachers can use to determine where they are on the scale of positive emotional health and what they might be able to do to help themselves work towards a solid emotional foundation. I would also be interested in what resources a teacher would be able to use to help themselves or support them in helping their students that would be available to them at their school.

The article gives several examples of behavior that teachers can use to help students develop emotionally healthy habits. Some of these examples include: re-framing situations and perspectives, developing strong attachment to student success, exploring best practices for teacher and student success, and more. I would add that professional environments that make emotional health a priority for all who inhabit its community would create a safe and productive learning environment for all.

In InTASC Standard #9, a teacher is supposed to engage in ongoing professional learning, ethical practice, and a continuous commitment towards evaluating curricula, behavior, and how their choices affect those around them. A teacher who is consistently evaluating their behavior and responses to their co-workers and students with a view to helping build positive relationships and learning environments is a teacher who is able to empathize and use problem solving strategies to differentiate responses between different learners depending on their unique needs. Teachers who have strong ethical codes as well as a focus on their emotional health can become more effective people both in their personal and public life. I suggest that school administrators would do well to provide resources to help teachers develop strong emotional health habits thereby giving teachers the tools to teach and help students develop these same positive habits. As childhood is a time of growth, uncertainty, and emotional flux, this is a perfect time to help students learn healthy emotional habits to support them through their lives.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and Neutrality

One thing that I looked at this semester was the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)and the idea and guide they follow of neutrality. I found myself thinking about neutrality and truly being impartial and whether it is possible. After researching this for a few days, I have decided that the International Committee of the Red Cross but remain neutral… and can’t actually do so… and are not seen as neutral in areas where it counts… and therefore should either reclaim its neutrality or ‘let it go’. Some people will not agree with the statements that I made previously so I would like to take this opportunity to explain what my thoughts are on this subject.

The ICRC was ‘started’ in 1876 as a loose organization work towards helping people in need- whether from natural disasters, wars, etc…Part of the original creed was to be neutral and to give help that was not dependent on political, religious or ideological acts or purposes. To provide humanitarian help while remaining neutral allows the Red Cross to be able to get into places more safely then they could otherwise and they can help anyone and not have to worry about who is guilty or who is innocent or whether the war is just or not. That is a great and wonderful mission. With that kind of reputation and example and being able to see how the Red Cross can get into prisons that no one else can get into and war fields and towns under assault and create ‘safe areas’ and help anyone. I guess the problem I see is that I do not feel like as an organization it can ever be fully neutral nor be seen as such.

Any organization, even a non- profit has goals and needs money and volunteers/ employees to accomplish them. So this organization depends on donations and as it is a large organization…. It requires a lot! The 2010 budget for the ICRC is thought to be around 1156 million Swiss francs which comes from voluntary donations from individuals or organizations during annual appeals or emergency appeals for specific situations. However, most of that money doesn’t come from individual donors- over three fourths of their budget comes from governments or states including the US and Canada. It’s not that far a stretch to recognize that these large donors can restrict some ways that their funds are used according to their own political, religious or ideological visions. There is evidence that this happens as US aid is not able to be used to perform abortions no matter the circumstances the woman is in or her life and other countries have placed those same restrictions as well. (As recently as 2013, the United Kingdom removed this restriction from their funding. It is estimated that around 16% of their donations are tightly limited in how and where the funds can be used. So understanding that aid has ‘strings’ to it is a recognition that the organization can only be as neutral as its donations allow it to be. Also, recognizing that the aid is being paid for with donations from countries that are actively encouraging foreign intervention in your country or even actively engaged in war… well, how can that really be seen as neutral? We also need to recognize that this organization is run by human beings who will come with their own biases, prejudices and may not always recognize them. Lastly, the ICRC is and has always been run by people in Switzerland. I am not saying that is a problem, but it doesn’t suggest true international participation or understanding if the hierarchy is also chosen and kept in one country. In fact, it suggests a bias because the country itself gains from the reputation of the organization and the money that pours in helping its economy, its citizens etc… Another example is that ICRC has created a corporate ‘arm’ (Corporate Support Group) which was developed and consists of businessmen and companies both in Switzerland and foreign states to promote economic well-being around the world and to give the organization private sector support. They do restrict members to individuals or organizations that are of “good ethical standing and membership {and} will therefore be restricted to a limited circle of companies whose activities are compatible with the ICRC’s principles and mandate.” It is not difficult for people to look at this arm of the organization and see that it has a bias. Yes, the ICRC wants members that are ethical and in ‘good standing’… however, the public sector always has a bias and that view will not always be swallowed up into best practices. Profit, the business's needs and mission, all those will potential influence where their donations they give are spent and how. Hence, even in neutrality, it is difficult to find a way to be impartial.

I guess I do not see that the International Committee of the Red Cross is still perceived as ‘neutral’ as it is trying to say it is. There is evidence that other groups do not see them as neutral or impartial that can be seen when we look at physical attacks on their buildings such as the attack on the ICRC headquarters in Bagdad in 2003 and the attack on their headquarters in Panjshir Valley, Afghanistan in 2013. There are complaints by other NGO’s that have most of the same goals and the Red Cross doesn’t actively work well with them. It suggests that all of these groups including the Red Cross are more worried about their group and its wants/ needs than the people they are serving. Some writers suggest that aid groups actually help further war, make it more likely for violence to happen, and keep it going longer than actually countering and stopping it. That seems counter-intuitive at best, and hypocritical and anti-humanitarian at worst.

So I go back to my original thoughts. I think the organization should remain neutral by reclaiming their neutrality or they need to let it go and be like a lot of the NGO’s that they do not believe are neutral. I think that opening up the hierarchy to people from other countries, amputating their corporate arm and making it totally separate and unrelated, being willing and working towards a most positive relationship with other groups and not accepting funds for their ‘neutral’ agency that have restrictions on them. In fact, I bet that funds might be less likely to be restricted by some countries if the information got out that the funds were only offered with strings attached... as people would then know and be more motivated to work on changing that. Those are my thoughts…

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross, http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs013/1102236947549/archive/1102881847169.html, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/29/red-cross-afghanistan-suicide-bombers

Ethical Concerns for Providers when Dealing with Refugee Populations

There is no doubt that mental health professionals and other service providers can help alleviate the effects of trauma, torture and other crimes that are perpetrated against people and communities due to circumstances, religion, war, etc... Throughout this class, I have learned quite a bit about the consequences to both individuals and groups based on trauma/ torture and have even broadened my views of how those terms should be defined. Between therapies that are individualized or set up for groups (such as a family, community or people with the same traumas and problems in common) and interactions that attempt to alleviate suffering through the use of medical training, pharmaceuticals, neurobiological or cognitive therapies, etc... Many groups and professional have been focused on – and continue to try- to help victims and the society as a whole heal, develop techniques for survival and daily care, as well as trying to improve the quality of health and life of those affected. However, there can be challenges as well as ethical problems that the mental health / medical provider can face in these situations.

One challenge can come in the form of using pharmaceuticals to help the patient deal with some of the symptoms that cause difficulty in their lives. While studies do suggest that medication makes a bigger impact on an individual's symptoms, the issue is not that black and white. How the patient and/or their family feels about medical care in general (or mental health medication specifically) has an effect on how the medication is used and therefore, how successful it can be. An individual's culture may also weigh into the decision to use medical treatments/ medicine of any kind. And how the services are provided might also affect the utilization of those services. Language, economics, and other barriers can cause misunderstandings and challenges as well. A perfect example of this problem can be found in the book, “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” written by Anne Fadiman. An amazing and very sad biography.

Another thing that is very important for the provider to acknowledge and understand is that the trauma itself may be what the provider wishes to treat and focus on... but the provider is still treating a person. An individual with different perceptions, biases, experiences and other ways of seeing and moving through the world. And so while trying to treat the troublesome symptoms of the past trauma, it is imperative that the person being treated isn't seen in the narrow sense as a label or a diagnosis. The patient needs to be viewed and looked at in the 'prism' of their views and life... so recommendations and therapies need to be available to the patient in a way that fits their current set of circumstance and needs. I thought of an experience in my life when I had a few sick animals who lived with me and my family in a one room yurt. The vet said that one cat needed to be fed a special food, another cat needed a different special food and the other cats couldn't eat either food. When I mentioned that I lived in one room, I was told to deal with it. I did figure out a solution that worked, but it took a while and I didn't use the resources that had been offered nor have I been back to that clinic. I probably would have felt differently and used the resources offered if the provider had made them seem possible. Just a thought on that topic.... So making sure that the resources used are more helpful than stressful and really address the 'whole person' are needed. That takes more time and energy as well as an understanding of an an attempt to put your own biases, etc... aside. That is a bit difficult to do for most of us. :) Also making sure that the resources are available to use in a way that works for the client makes them more likely to be utilized and more likely to help the patient with lasting change in their lives... which is the goal!

Another important element – which I touched on in the last paragraph is to make sure that a thorough understand of the person and their culture are attained. By understanding what is important to the individual and what they use to not only make decisions but base most of what is important in their life on.... the suggestions and recommendations that are given by the mental health providers are more likely to not only be followed but misunderstandings are more likely to be caught quickly and early in the process. That helps develop the trust relationship between the provider and the patient as well as help the patient to work harder to help themselves because not only does it matter to them as individuals, the provider has shown that it matter to them too. (Aren't we all more likely to accomplish our goals when we have a friendly goal 'buddy'?) So by having decent understanding of the background and viewpoint of the patient, the service providers can make fewer but more meaningful referrals and help keep the patient on task. An example is not suggesting a patient with PTSD have an occasional drink to relax but maybe a cookie or a walk with a friend instead. If the culture sees nightmares and terrors as a curse from God that must be overcome.... then they are much less likely to take the Ambien to sleep nor will their family encourage them to do so. Telling an individual to eat pork or stop smoking for their health when smoking is part of their religious practices or the eating of pork is against their beliefs will either cause total noncompliance or partial uncompliance as the patient will only do it when they feel pressed to do so or have another compelling reason to do so. It is important that the clinician recognizes what his values are and recognize when he is potentially pushing values and cultural norms on the patient and not actual treatment. I know those examples are not mental health related, but I thought they did help me make the point I was attempting to make. :)

Another thing that it is imperative that mental health providers think about when dealing with challenged and refugee populations is to follow the information and tools that have work in the past as evidenced by studies and their own observations and life experience, but to also recognize that the current work that is being done can give good insights into potential therapies simply because if it appears to be currently working, with so few good studies out there.... if every is in agreement to try something new... that has the potential to help victims now as well as future populations. This kind of flexibility to look outside the box but also to be cautious and thoughtful about trying therapies that haven't had a lot of use and study is a challenging but needed trait in these providers. It is also this flexibility that allows the clinician to look at the individual in a well rounded way, and not just the way that they have been taught to see certain symptoms or mental distress.

Lastly, it is important that the clinician recognize and maintain clear boundaries between themselves and their patients so that both parties can work together for improvement and satisfaction. When the boundaries are loosened, both parties may find it very challenging to continue to work together and to work towards progress in the manner that was possible when the division between the two was clearly laid out. Providing services that also allow the individual to have privacy not only from strangers who do not have a legitimate need to know their information, but also family can also help the patient by making things clearer and less likely to be misunderstood through another person's biases and thoughts mixing into the mix. An example could be when the parties involved have a language barrier – a translator from outside the patients inner circle may make a different translation that a family member or a friend who may interpret what the patient is saying or needs based on what they think the patient needs... not quite the same thing. This kind of translation can also compromise a patient's need and right for confidentiality making services more challenging for them to get and undermining the trust needed between the patient and the provider. The provider must also to make sure to care for and recognize problems that may crop up with themselves from working with this population and take care to not allow themselves to become burned out or harmed in the process of helping others... which can cause them to be unable to continue to help or even to cause more trauma to the patient.

To be a provider to such a challenged population comes with both risks and rewards for the clinician and the patients. Understanding the important ethical concerns that should be addressed can help everyone involved do a better job, be safer, and to help people gain more resiliency and a better quality of life through the therapies. What more can we ask for? :)

Enviromental History - What it is and the Differing Approaches to Study

There are several different ways in which environmental historians approach the field of environmental history. These can be easily seen when an individual looks at the definition of what 'environmental' history is and its focus – the role and place of nature in human life. In this field's infancy, this term might have been easily assumed to only cover political pro or con environmental activity, however this particular field has no simple agenda or focus. This definition is certainly an 'open' one that allows many different ways of looking at the history and interactions of humans and the world around them. However, it appears that the majority of historians use five different approaches when working and studying history in this category. One way is to study the biological interactions between human beings and the natural world around them; this can include disease, unintentional disruptions to native and introductions of non native species, and the over-utilization of natural resources causing extinction. Another approach is to divide the world into a series of categories or 'levels' to categorize human interactions with nature; this can include animal husbandry, farming/agriculture, and other forms of production and how the interactions change the balance of human life and the rest of creation. There is an approach that looks at environmental history through the lens of political and economic transformations of power and the struggle of people to understand and balance their needs vs. the needs of nature (consumption vs conservation.) One approach tends to focus of the 'ideas' that human beings have about nature and how we perceive it in relation to ourselves; these can include art work, accounts of explorers, writers, etc... Lastly, the history of human beings and their environment can also be studied through narrative works- stories and the people who tell them. This approach can focus on man's positive or negative transformations or interactions with the earth and what information and facts can be gleaned from these experiences for more positive future interactions.

Donald Worster, one of the pioneers of the development of this particular historical field, believes that environmental history needs to proceed on three levels. These levels are the study of nature itself, the study of the human modes of production, and the study of patterns of human perception, ideology and values. Each of these levels of study require different skills and appropriate usage of other fields of study to develop a truly precise and accurate end product. The first level asks that the researcher understand how nature has functioned in the past and therefore how it functions without 'us'... or at least how it functions without our current participation. This information can be found through the work of geologists, archeologists, anthropologists, biologists, etc... and allows us a glimpse and insight into the natural world that we can attempt to study, reconstruct, and then try to understand and build a knowledge base. The second level focuses on the human modes of production and as such, focuses not only on how human beings have used forms of production to change their lives, labor practices and economics.... but also how each of these practices has changed the natural world and in turn changed the culture of human beings as well. The last level/idea is to study the ways that humans use and see nature based on human bias, perception, morals/ethics and the stories/myths that become part of how we deal with nature. How we as human perceive nature and ourselves as well as our needs and wants can have quite a drastic change in ourselves and the nature that surrounds us. An example that springs to mind is how the recent hurricane and its future arrival changed the way (at least temporarily) many humans saw the power and function of nature and it became more dangerous and a force to be feared in our minds. Those perceptions and biases will change the way we see nature and interact with it and other human beings even if the change is only temporary. Another example is how we perceive our needs based on what we perceive as natural resources- if we see our needs as high and a part of nature as resources, we can truly make the resource endangered or extinct without careful understanding, limitations/balance, and respect.


Jared Diamond distinguishes between 'proximate' and 'ultimate' factors when predicting the outcome of environmental history. Proximate factors tend to be 'factors' that are the most easily discovered and most recent to the situation of time frame being explored. In my own words, I would use the words cause and effect with the word proximate describing the causes of a situation. Ultimate factors tend to be the situations, etc... that bring us to the current or proximate factors. In my experience, most general history that is taught would be considered to be mostly consisting of proximate factors – ex: American colonists didn't like high British taxes or King George, fought war, won, and created new country. While the factor of taxes and government interference was a issue to be reckoned with and certainly did contribute to the eventual war, the ultimate causes of the war began much earlier and are less securely rooted in easy phrases. Both of the answers that can be sought through these divisional groups are technically correct and will give us a large clear portrait of the subject that were are studying. However, if we only use proximate facts we will lose much of the richness of the history itself. By continuing to ask even more questions and to delve deeper 'into the causes of the causes' as it were, we can truly develop a rich tapestry that can be utilized by all interested parties for full consensus and understanding.

William Cronon, a noted environmental historian, believes that his field is useful for so many reasons. Understanding the 'birth' of this field of history helps us understand how it began and in many ways helps us to understand many practicing historians and their work today. The list of books published over the last few decades that discuss environmental history do appear to lean towards not only understanding the past, but trying to change the future. (Isn't that really what the study of history is really about anyway.... the study of the past so that true understanding can potentially change our actions and our future...? That's one of the things I have always thought anyway.) Mr Cronon believes that all human history has a natural context and that no history can exist by itself- all aspects are interdependent on other groups, factors and influences. Taking the time to look at the human actions that have shaped our times gives up the opportunity to look at how nature and the very earth itself have influenced these us and human interaction. (The Spanish Armada and Queen Elizabeth of England come to mind) Another important reason for these studies is that neither nature nor the cultures that exist in it and mold it are benign or unchanging. Culture itself is really a very simple word that describes a very complex and may I say 'shape shifting' idea. Everyone in a culture in not the same, does not respond the same way to similar situations and has its own bias, beliefs, perceptions and reactions. Nature is not necessary unchanging and stable either -witness the earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters over the last few years for big starters - and neither are we as the human race. (The idea of making an outline and typing it on a machine that would not only help me fix my errors but save the information for a few days was barely thinkable forty years ago.) Another really good reason for the study of environmental history is to understand that as a 'significant' contributor to the history itself, we (humans/historians) develop and write knowledge about our environment and world based on our cultural perceptions and biases about our world and environment. Throughout history we can see where generations of people had different environmental 'absolutes'.... that we no longer see as ever being correct or useful. A historian must be careful to recognize that the historian himself/ herself is biased and study, research, and interpret accordingly. We can never be fully objective about our environment – we are always in it. Lastly, Mr Cronon makes the fairly obvious point that the historian or student of history is not an individual who can predict the future with any certainty or be quite sure as to what policies and decisions would be most useful in public or governmental policy, groups and communities, etc... All the knowledgeable historian can do is to make predictions about what could or may happen and try to affect change for the future based on those predictions. Much as every human being, including myself, finds ourselves making changes in our life and cultural based on who and what we are, what we do... and how the humans and the world and nature around us respond in their own dynamic dance.

There are a few things that I think are very important in the study of history and the environment. I really think that we cannot truly understand ourselves- really understand who we are, what we need, and the way we interact with others and the world without pretty good knowledge of the world around us. Understanding that all human beings do essential see the world differently based on their experiences and environment helps us to understand the large role that nature itself has in shaping us into the beautiful being that each of us is. Understanding how both nature and humanity are really interdependent groups- not entirely separate- helps us to understand how we affect the world we are in, how the world itself changes our behavior, thoughts and culture, which in turn, changes the world.

Another aspect that can be explored is the idea that breaking this particular field of study into more subgroups can potentially give us even more information and help us to remove or at least recognize some of our biases when doing the research. And most historians of all areas of study have found it important to interpret history not just through the general lens (rich, white, male), but to also look acknowledge the differences in historical interpretation when viewed by race, gender and class. Carolyn Merchant- feminist and environmental historian- believes that the interpretation of environmental history when using factors such as race, class and gender cause the historian to ask different questions and to see how environmental factors can be used to justify exploitation, injustice, and even disease and impoverishment. How the individuals in different economics circumstances deal with and change their environment can be quite different from each other and the differing cultures that have been created through environment and circumstances to different racial groups create a different portrait of the historical facts. Gender has also a large piece of the puzzle as woman’s roles and environments have and can vary widely from those of the differing gender. An example is that farming and animal husbandry used to remain mostly in the hands of women (or the poor) until the last century when large scale agribusiness came out on top and these tasks became the work or ownership statistically of the white male. Women tend to also be responsible (and held responsible) by their cultures and society for reproduction and to be responsible for the majority of 'world production' or work, while males tend to be more dominant in history as well as today for relationships of power, structural and cultural systems of governance, and other factors. (I feel I need to stress that I am not suggesting that the majority of men do not work!) By looking at history through the eyes, experiences and environment of race, class, and gender, we are able to see the same environment differently, the differing effects it has on various groups and the perceptions and biases of the historian and the studied groups themselves. The use of extra lenses to view the past only gives us more information about ourselves as individuals, communities, nature and humanity itself.


Thoughts, impressions, comments....? :)

Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique

This week, I spent some time really focusing on the process of getting ready for an oral history interview and what is really involved. I ended up with 13 small paragraphs about different ideas and thoughts on how to interview and collect oral history... and I will share them with you below.

1. The idea of neutrality is described as a skillful way of holding yourself/ body and asking questions that keep the focus at all times on the interviewee and their thoughts and feelings. For instance, having too much rapport or empathy with the interviewee can really side-rail the interview and make it more about you and your feelings and thoughts- and not the person being interviewed... which is certainly not the goal that we are trying to complete(in performing an interview). Also, too much of anything- whether it is emotions, questioning etc... can change the interview and make it more biased, less accurate and focused on the biases, not the whole picture.

2. It is suggested that opening an interview with a question that provokes a detailed answer helps to start an interview with a prompt, purposeful beginning. It lets the interviewee know that the interview has begun and gives both you and the interviewee the cue that you are 'down to business'. Using a question that the interviewee is likely to know and need to give a detailed answer to helps get the interview off on the right track of the interviewee talking... and you listening.. It also should state the main purpose for the interview so that the subject that is to be covered is acknowledged right away.

3. A leading question is a question that sets up the interviewee to answer the question asked in the way that the interviewer seems to wish. This will not necessarily give you the answer you are really looking for. The danger of loaded questions contaminating the interview becomes higher if the 'status' of the interviewer is higher than the 'status' of the interviewee. Loaded questions can also produce answers that are truly difficult for the historian to interpret correctly because the interviewer's bias is so obvious in the original question. To avoid loaded questions, avoid questions that provoke short answers, questions filled with 'emotive' words, and use the interviewers own words to ask more questions- do not make assumptions of what the words mean... ask! Leading questions are less likely to cause problems with the interview near the end of the interview and can be useful when you have had an uncooperative interviewee. At the end you can use these questions to try and pull out more details and get more information. However, even in these situations, keeping the questions as non-'leading' as possible will help to keep the interview unbiased and 'correct.'

4. A negative leading question can be useful for getting comments and thoughts on provocative topics... especially if the historian's research has turned up conflicting information between the research and the information provided in the interview. It is important however, to not use too many of these questions because they can turn the interviewee off of the interview and it is also important to word the question so that the 'challenge' appears to come from a third party and not you- which can cause the interviewee to feel hostile and not as forthcoming towards the interviewer. There are other reasons to be cautious when using a negative leading question, but that covers the important points. They should really only be used when the questions can add to intellectual knowledge and debate or figuring out how the subject deals with adversity.

5. You should only give your opinion when the person being interviewed insists on knowing it. Otherwise, your opinion isn't really important in this instance. Your opinion can only help to bias the interview or even divide you from the person you are interviewing. Even when asked, the interviewer can sometimes use the words in the question to turn the interviewee back to the focus of the interview... and take the focus off of you!

6. Follow up questions are used by the historian to really get the details that you are attempting to have the interviewee provide. Ask for understanding when you feel that something is vague. However, the historian must be very careful to not make the interview feel like the subject is getting the 'third degree'. Questions should be open and indirect... without looking like you are challenging the other person. Some interviews can be fairly useless when they are completed in such a way that followup questions are not really asked.

7. Background research is so useful for a few reasons. Research ahead of time can help you to determine bias or untruthfulness in your potential interviewee. The information can help you during the interview to understand the information that you are being given, help to keep the interview 'on topic', and help you to provide 'useful' leading questions as well as memory nudges for the interviewee that is having a hard time remembering specific things/details. Background details are especially good for helping your interviewee with introspection and helping the individual remember what they 'felt' or 'thought' in the past during certain situations.

8. Approaching a friend or family member about an interview would be done differently than an interview with someone you did not know. First, you already have some rapport with the person that you have developed through your personal relationship. Ignoring your previous relationship while performing an interview would make the interview confused, stilted and any attempt to be 'neutral' would look a little ridiculous. :) However, the interviewer/historian must also carefully analyze the person that they are interviewing and modify their (the historian's) behavior and questions accordingly. Again the interview is about the information and the interviewee and not about you or your relationship with the 'interviewed'. Keeping the interview on track, easy going... but as neutral as possible and focused is the key. The interviewer needs to exercise self restraint in some instances and use rapport, empathy and neutrality to get the information that is sought.

9. Oral history is different from journalism in several ways. Oral history is the legal property of the person/interviewee and can only be used with that person's permission. Oral historians usually try to solve this problem by having a release signed when they complete the interview. Journalists rarely ask for consent to publish and as such they are less likely to get people to truly open up about sensitive personal information. As oral history usually contains such personal information, historians should make no assumptions about publication unless they have consent. Journalists also have the option to bias results in ways that oral historians should not. A journalist can use correct materials in such as way to create a bias in one direction or for political expediency. But while that is not OK for a journalist, many journalists will still do it for reasons of expediency, etc... A historian, in an ideal situation, will not allow societal bias, personal beliefs, etc... to influence the information that he is presenting. The historian will do their best to make sure that the information is as neutral and bias free as possible so that the most accurate picture will be presented. A journalist has the responsibility to report and may use personal information in a way that the person may not feel comfortable with. A historian has the responsibility to do more than just protect the source- if the information is not useful for the current public good and can cause undue injury to those involved, the historian should keep the information safe for a good number of years until the information is can be used in a way that doesn't cause a lot of damage to living people.

10. It is suggested that release forms should be simple and informal... and if you write one yourself... keep it from being legalistic. While some people think the forms should be signed before the interview... it is generally recognized that after the interview process is the best time to do so. While, after the interview you might have problems with a recalcitrant interviewee who has changed his mind, doing the signing before the interview can inhibit the person to be interviewed. Making promises to the one that is interviewed is difficult as well because it may be difficult for you to keep the promises. History can and should belong to everyone so promising that it will not is just one promise that is difficult to keep.

11. Background research itself can raise ethical issues that the historian has to deal with. When you are doing research on living people, you may discover information that is clearly confidential and private. It is important that you realize that specific permission must be gotten for releasing this information- even if you broke no laws to get it. It is very important that the historian does their best to not breach people's privacy or release information that can cause undue harm.

12. It has been mentioned that maintaining a neutral stance during an interview is hard and appears to be manipulative and dehumanizing if you perform tactical and careful planning ahead of time. The idea of neutrality is very important and should be carefully considered, but should not be taken the the other extreme which can inhibit the interview. The historian must remember that being neutral should not cause you to behave unethically or even anti-socially. Making sure that the interview situation is about the interviewee, and not about the interviewer. Keeping things confidential, being sensitive and empathetic, helps to keep the interview unbiased and truly humanistic. Neutrality should be used to gather information and not hinder the gathering... but it also should be slowly put aside if needed to increase communication and understanding by making interpretation. I hope that makes some sense.

13. When interpreting and analyzing your interview, it is important that you treat the conversation and information as serious, important information. Some historians believe that any interpretation of someone else's words is possible inappropriate and ethically challenging.... and a full transcript must be released. Others suggest that the historian, by reinterpreting the interview, puts themselves in a place of higher significance, and that releasing the interview as a full transcript is the only way that the interviewer and the interviewee are on 'the same plane'. Other say that there is always interpretation and if you assert that the interpretation of the historian is unethical, that is 'tantamount' to saying that the interview should have never taken place. I suspect what is being said is that care must be taken to be objective when attempting to interpret an interview... and that the historian should be aware of bias- especially their own.

14. The interview should be put into context if you are planning on using it for a term paper or for general consumption. One reason for this is that reading about someone you do not know can be confusing... and even boring. Most people understand that no life is perfect and is affected by the society and culture around it. So adding the history that affects the person's life is so important and makes the interview interesting and draws the attention of not only historians, but other people.

A Boost!

I got a heck of a compliment today from a college professor- she was already my very favorite, but this really, really made my day! So I thought I would share. Some parts of my life are having some serious challenges, but I am doing OK at school. :)

December 9, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of Badgerdown who has been a student in my 400 level online Discovering and Interpreting Local History course this fall. Badgerdown is an excellent student. Her work is always of the highest quality and she contributes greatly to class discussion. Many times, she has started the discussion on the discussion board and her classmates respond very well to her comments. She is also very helpful and supportive of her classmates in adding her own insights to what they have said. She responded to her classmate’s posts immediately with student introductions which helped me to create a virtual classroom experience. I think that Badgerdown and her classmates have become well acquainted with one another even though they have never met one another. Badgerdown’s work ethic, attitude and passion for history helped to make this happen.

Badgerdown’s work has been thoughtful, analytical and well written. She is a motivated student who completes her work and is willing to interact with the professor on a regular basis. Even though Badgerdown and I have never met, we correspond several times a week. I believe that Badgerdown has added so much to this class based on her own family history research experience and I believe that she has taught me as much as I have taught her. When I ask her a question or a classmate asks her a question about her experiences, she is very willing to answer the question and there have been times when she has gone online and found information that she has then shared with the class; this was never a requirement of the class, but I appreciated her wanting to help and to answer questions.
I consider Badgerdown to be an excellent candidate for your honors program. If she were an UMPI student, I would encourage her to be in the UMPI honors program and I would encourage her to become a history major so that I could have her as a student in more of my classes. When my colleagues ask me if I miss classroom interaction by teaching online, I tell them no and I then give Sonia as an example of the caliber of student I have found through my online courses. I look forward to reading Badgerdown’s comments on discussion board and her papers because she is such a good student and she contributes so much to both her classmates and to me. I highly recommend Badgerdown to your program.
Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
University of Maine at Presque Isle

This is one of the most positive letters I have ever received in the sense that I am painted in such a good light. That isn't something I have grown used to... but I think I would like to hear good thoughts like this more often. I am going to celebrate with a sushi dinner tonight and enjoy the confidence and sense of worth that I have built up this semester. :)