Photo, "At the Smithsonian." HJ.
Artifact Analysis
Artifact analysis has traditionally been a key feature of ethnography (and autoethnography) Placed in a context, artifacts -- either mundane or holy objects -- can give insight into a culture or subculture. Choose an object of significance to your group and analyze it.
Publish your artifact analysis to a unique page with a specific title. |
|
rubric |
here is a student-created rubric we will edit in class:
1: meaning of artifact and context; relationship between the two
Excellent: The artifact is very related to the overall topic. There should be a special meaning behind the artifact. A personal connection to the artifact is clear.
Good: The artifact is related to the project but special meaning is not clear.
Mediocre: There is not a clear connection between the artifact and the project topic. Significance is not stated.
2: author establishes credibility with audience
Credible sources (not Wikipedia but trustworthy articles or scholarly journals)
Connect to your autoethnography and be somewhat personal
Time-relevant sources
3: layout
Excellent: The layout should have an eye catching clear graphical representation of the artifact.
Picture should support the artifact without ambiguity. The text should be aligned and not take up the entire page to make it look like a journal article.
Good: The layout contains graphical representation of artifact. Text should be aligned.
Mediocre: The layout contains no graphical representation of artifact. Text is disorganized and the page at a first glance does not look “readable.”
4: the analysis adds to the autoethnography as a whole
Excellent: The artifact is not only explicitly related to topic but is also explained and executed in an efficient and personal way.
Good: The artifact relates to topic but does not enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.
Mediocre: The artifact does not relate to topic nor is it explained as having any relevance to one's autoethnography topic.
3 out of 4 need an “excellent” rating for the whole thing to be “excellent,”
3 out of 4 need a “good” rating for the whole thing to be rated “good.
1: meaning of artifact and context; relationship between the two
Excellent: The artifact is very related to the overall topic. There should be a special meaning behind the artifact. A personal connection to the artifact is clear.
Good: The artifact is related to the project but special meaning is not clear.
Mediocre: There is not a clear connection between the artifact and the project topic. Significance is not stated.
2: author establishes credibility with audience
Credible sources (not Wikipedia but trustworthy articles or scholarly journals)
Connect to your autoethnography and be somewhat personal
Time-relevant sources
3: layout
Excellent: The layout should have an eye catching clear graphical representation of the artifact.
Picture should support the artifact without ambiguity. The text should be aligned and not take up the entire page to make it look like a journal article.
Good: The layout contains graphical representation of artifact. Text should be aligned.
Mediocre: The layout contains no graphical representation of artifact. Text is disorganized and the page at a first glance does not look “readable.”
4: the analysis adds to the autoethnography as a whole
Excellent: The artifact is not only explicitly related to topic but is also explained and executed in an efficient and personal way.
Good: The artifact relates to topic but does not enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.
Mediocre: The artifact does not relate to topic nor is it explained as having any relevance to one's autoethnography topic.
3 out of 4 need an “excellent” rating for the whole thing to be “excellent,”
3 out of 4 need a “good” rating for the whole thing to be rated “good.