Humanities: Anthropology Subway Paper.
#155744529
Topic:
subway paper
Type of paper:
subway paper
Discipline:
Humanities: Anthropology
Format or citation style:
APA
Pages: 7hrs
Deadline: 14hrs
pick a topic and write
based on what u have wrote for me in the previous subway interview write up.
another writer wrote a interview write up for me, this is the draft paper
can u write based on what he wrote for me?
also, you can add new information
I need a observation write up as well
how about right now
I need a observation write up as well
On the Sunday afternoon, third of November 2019, I interviewed a lady accountant on a subway from New York to Manhattan. She was in mid-twenties, traveling to Manhattan too. The train was partially full, which offered a good ambiance for me to interview a fellow rider on the subway. After creating rapport with the rider, I briefed her on the course I was pursuing and the interview I was required to carry out and after obtaining her consent, proceeded with the interview.
Summary of the Interview
The interviewee was living in New York City and working for an audit firm. Her visitation to one of the relatives provided the opportune moment to meet and talk to her. My introduction and a light moment occasioned the interviewee’s comfort in answering the questions. This interview was made of five questions centered on social interaction and personal space, and aims to establish the major factors that determine personal space in social interaction.
My first question involved definition of personal space. I wanted to find out her understanding of personal space and her perception towards it. According to her response, it is a space she considered to have control over and should not be crossed unless one had permission, approximately a few inches from her. This wasn’t far away from the definition given by Lourenco, Longo, and Pathman (2011), who define it as an emotionally entangled region around the person which individuals feel like “their private place” and should not be infringed without causing irritation by the others.
My next question sort to find out the difference in personal space when in public and when in private space like home. The interviewee had an interesting answer to this question pointing out how she became aware of personal space more when in public than when she is at home. According to her, an intrusion of personal space in the public, like a person brushing against you would sound rude while the same would be normal at home.
My third question sought to find out the interviewee’s reaction to infringement of personal space. I intended to explore the various psychological reactions that the interviewee consciously or subconsciously did when they felt somebody was infringing on their personal space. The interviewee had several reactions depending on the intensity of the infringement. Partial infringement like staring at her was assumed by showing a snobbish body language like looking away. Infringement like touch and push would result in a verbal warning or reporting if it is gross.
The fourth question wanted to find out if the interviewee realized when they were infringing on other’s personal space. I made the interviewee reflect on previous instances she felt she had infringed on other’s personal space or moments she had been reminded of infringing. Her answer “this mostly happens when you are with a person you are comfortable with or only accidentally when you are not used to a person”. On what she did after realizing the infringement of personal space,” I mostly apologies and try not to intrude again”, she said.
My final question sort to find out what factors the interviewee considered when interacting in social spaces like. The interviewee mentioned a few factors which included how friendly the person acted both verbally and in gestures. Age was also a factor, it easier to interact with people of the same age bracket. Gender was also another factor they considered. The interviewee noted that it was easy to interact with a person of the same gender than of the opposite sex.
Interpretation of the Interview
From the interview, I deduced a few findings. The first major point from the interview was that as much personal space is a universal concept, it is also very subjective and varies depending on where a person was and how comfortable they were with the people around them. The other finding; people have a different defense mechanism to cope with infringement of personal space both conscious and subconscious. Another discovery that stood out from the interview is the various parameters that people consider before breaking personal space and socially interacting with others in public space.
During the interview, a few commentaries from the interviewee stood out. For instance, statements like “personal space differ from private and public spaces” made me curious to find out more about the extent to which personal space is subjective. The other commentary that stood out for me was “personal walls are high in public spaces as compared to private spaces.” This sentiment induced my interested in learning more about these parameters.
The interview also raised some vital questions worth pursuing regarding my research topic on finding out major factors that determine personal space in social interaction. For instance, what factors determine how people define and calibrate personal space in both private and public spaces and what is the main defense mechanism people use in public spaces to avoid infringement of personal space? Another concern was about the main factors that people consider during social interaction and to what level do they affect personal space and social interaction.
In conclusion, I would say the subway interview has opened my eyes to several aspects related to personal space and social interaction. The interview also piqued my interest in a few questions worth pursuing and researching on. This exercise will go a long way in enhancing my building insight on ethnography.
Reference
Lourenco SF, Longo MR, Pathman T, Near Space and its Relation to Claustrophobic Fear. Cognition. 2011 Jun; 119(3): 448-53.