A personal example of my struggle with identity versus individuality is that of my cultural background. I grew up in South Africa, and have been living in Australia for 9 years. I now have Dual Citizenship. Yet I still consider myself South African. I do not identify with Australian heritage in the way that I do South African, yet the fact that I am also an Australian citizen makes me think I should feel more attached to the Australian culture than I really am. As harsh as it may sound, Australia day means nothing more to me than a day which I get to sleep in on.This “identity crisis” if you will, could be considered both a social as well as individual decision. Culturally, I am of South African heritage, yes socially, I have chosen to share my citizenship with both countries. This is a personal choice, however, as mentioned in the reading, ” the meaning and force of all identities are in constant mutation”. This means that there is no single identity that can define us. This is where individualism creeps in; as the reading suggests that identity pigeonholes our identity.

“Hybridity is a useful concept because groups and individuals do not have a single identity bu several.” This becomes obvious when looking at our own lives and the way in which we define ourselves. We are not defined by merely one thing, but multiple entities such as class; gender; cultural background; social groups; institutions etc. Racism is used as an example in the reading of how identities can hinder our individuality. Discrimination is still a major worldly issue amongst societies, and will continue for generations to come. This is a sad but true fact of society as people struggle for freedom and identity on a daily basis. We’re mostly lucky here in Australia but there are other third world countries that remain under shackles when it comes to class; identity; gender; race etc.

The reading states that “arguably, identity, most of all, is where culture is joined to society and politics”. I found this to be an insightful quote when looking at the issue of identity and individuality in the modern world.

Another category that I fit into, is being a member of generation Y, which was also discussed throughout the readings.  Take for example, the “Kisschasy” song, “Generation Why”, which is one such identity of many members of the generation… I for one, know many people that fit into the lyrics of the chorus “being negative is the best, i’m feeling so dam happy that i’m depressed”. This is one view of many people in regards to us “Gen Y’s”.

 <object width=”480″ height=”385″><param value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/L0SnBOw6UQE&hl=en_US&fs=1&”></param><param value=”true”></param><param value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/L0SnBOw6UQE&hl=en_US&fs=1&” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”480″ height=”385″></embed></object>

But, putting all this together, and thinking about identity in regards to the media, and in particular, the every day lives of individuals, it is hard to not concentrate on the rise of technology, with mobile and social medias, that identity is expressed. Hearn’s reading is about self branding, as she defines it  “a meta-narrative and meta-image of self through the use of cultural meanings and images drawn from the narrative and visual codes of the mainstream cultural identities”, which as a whole, is what an identity is. Technologically, anyone can use this connotation of self branding to project who they want to be identified as, globally across the internet.

Hearn talks about “Intention”, “Improvisation”, and “Inventory”, all as components of self branding.

Invention refers to the idea of reality television programs, and how they use programming about how to become a “notable self or celebrity at the same times as they offer a means to achieve a branded persona”. Take the example of Australian Idol, contestants are expected to show what they want to represent as their identity to the public, whether this be a music style or hair style… everything they do is all going towards this image they want to put out.

Improvisation focuses on the image capital and visual aesthetics, which are common on the internet. Hearn gives the example of photography websites that put photos up for the public to view of general members “partying”. They work as a form of paparazzi, which links to the same connotation as reality tv, where individuals feel they are taking on the form of celebrity.

Inventory, is what I believe is the stongest point of self branding, with the rise of social networking websites and blogs. Individuals choose what they want to put into words and images for anyone who views this to identify them as. Many think of having a personal blog, as self centered, however the fact that pretty much everyone as a part of generation Y has a myspace or facebook account, this just proves that self branding is an extremely evident part of everyday life as they shape identities.

The term identity from one point of view and perhaps most common defines identity as somebody in terms of a trait, which might be anything from a physical feature of the body, a belief, a genealogy or a cultural preference. As a result identity becomes identified by placing individuals into groups who share a particular and common trait creating an issue whereby identity is won at the price of reducing individuality.  For example people are identified in terms of their gender, race or even age.  Therefore identities are not given in terms of what individuals are as a whole, but rather are judged on selected features that they possess. Hence in reality individuals have little power to choose what features will be used to identify them ( for example if a blonde hair woman is very intelligent but is identified as someone who is not intelligent because of the colour of her hair) Society is quick to identify someone  from the external factors rather then internal factors.

Although the above paragraph as some truth to it, Simon During argues that societies, identities and individuals do not exist independently of one another and at a theoretical level, it is meaningless to criticise identities in general for depriving individuals of individuality.

Another point that I found interesting in this week’s reading was how identities can be culturally inflicted and are determined by power relations within a community. A good example used in the reading was an American black person can be identified through a variety of different terms such as a nigger, an African American, a black, a Negro. Each of these terms creates an identity that on the one hand as similar as it marks out the same group but on the hand different has each word can identify an American black person in a positive or negative connotation. At the same time some identity words are used affirmatively by the groups they describe. For example words used by others to define a group in a negative or prejudice way are in fact appropriated by the group themselves. For example if a non black person calls a black person a nigger it is regarded as racial however a black person calling another black person a nigger in deemed socially more acceptable.  Other examples of where individuals have being identified by others as a particular identify and have adopted this identity as there’s are hippies, emos and lads to name a few.

In summary identities constitute the framework of people’s lives. It essential from this reading that we understand that identities are given or inherited. Thus based on whether it is given or inherited people use this framework to choose their own identity that may be based on cultural, material or ideological choices. As a result of this it is impossible not to be identified in some manner.

Our final topic for the blog is “Identity”. The reading I have chosen to analyse is During’s 2005 piece “Debating Identity”. I could lie and claim that it’s because it was the most intellectually stimulating. But the truth of the matter is that it’s the last week, I have two major assignments due within a few days and I wanted to take the shortest reading possible and blog about that.

That said, the idea of identity is one that interests me personally so I tried to delve into the reading as much as possible. And During does make some interesting points. The first one being that identity is largely a cultural construct and that people are made up of many identities rather than one single one. For instance, I personally am male, Australian, of Indian and Fijian descent, am middle-class, enjoy punk rock and hip hop music, a university student…all these things contribute to my sense of identity.

This song is a clear example of one person mocking another group’s sense of identity. Me personally, I’m just glad the emo trend is dying out like Mike Virus promised. I still have to resist the urge to punch them every time I see a leftover one lying around.

I’ve been waiting for a chance to sneak this in for every blog. Now I’m just gonna stick it here cause I can. You all know the words.

The chapter by Weerakkody first helped us familiarise with the practice of three main kinds of research interviews, those being: structured, semi-structured and unstructured – the terms themselves of course being self-explanatory, but it’s worth knowing the features of each in some detail.

We learn that the structured approach to interviewing is normally better suited to quantitative research, where the data researchers seek to acquire is often very literal, not allowing much room for personal opinion (at least not that of the interviewee) – facts and figures mostly.  Hence it is usually obtained via a strict question-answer format.  The real-life example that immediately comes to mind would be the census data the Bureau of Statistics is inclined to collect through surveys (e.g. with multiple choice questions) – this is reinforced by the reading as it did also mention using the structured interview method to gather data based on demographic factors (sex, age, ethnicity etc.).

Comparatively, unstructured interviews sit at the opposite end of the scale because they are flexible – the questions do not necessarily need to be asked in a specific order, and more open-ended questions tend to be asked, in order to obtain “qualitative data that are rich, in-depth and mainly from the point of view of the respondent”.  Though this isn’t research per se I thought of the “The Two of Us” section in the Sydney Morning Herald’s Good Weekend liftout – the questions (I assume are) asked aren’t published but the end result so to speak is often this vivid, textual insight into the relationship between the two people in question.  Unstructured interviews can also be used when studying a substantial number of interviewees from a range of demographic groups, as the unstructured interview allows for a lot of freedom with e.g. the phrasing of questions to appeal to different age categories.

Of course, the technique best suited to our present assessment is the semi-structured interview.  This alternative has the flexibility of the unstructured interview but however is restricted to “specific topic areas” (i.e. in our case the ones we have covered during the course) which not only allows for a certain element of control over the kind of data collected, but takes into account viewpoints from both interviewer and respondent/s.  The research paper builds upon the information gathered from our subject; we must first collect the data and then make our own analyses, so the semi-structured interview therefore seems the most appropriate option.

Weerakkody explored the interview process further, going into detail about equipment, sample sizes and such, duration etc. but the other main area I took note of as particularly relevant were possible “confounding” factors so to speak when it came to gathering and analysing results.  These included the social desirability effect (on the part of the responder) as well as any form of interviewer bias that could affect the delivery of the interview and hence any data collected – those were things to watch out for.

The different genres of qualitative research interviews were also introduced in the reading: ethnographic conversations, depth interviews, group/focus group interviews, narrative and postmodern interviews.  I won’t go into the essence of each genre but I believe what our research for the assessment entails falls somewhere between the ethnographic conversation and the depth interview.  The former is generally unstructured and informal, usually taking place over the span of the study rather than just being a one-off thing; depth interviews tend to be more formal, semi-structured interviews – data collection here tends to be packed into the space of a couple of hours as most.  My subject is still overseas and has a busy schedule of her own, so my research and/or “interviewing” tends to be limited to shorter versions of the depth interview over online chat and sporadic emailing.  You make the best of what you’ve got, I guess.

A structured interview is conducted between the interviewer and the interviewee; the questions are either open or closed ended, depending on the outcome the interviewer wishes to achieve. A personal example of this is that I sat on the phone to a man from the ABS for fifteen minutes the other day, answering a number of “structured” questions that he had set out for me to answer. He call’s me once every few months for follow-up questions, and although I’m a little wiery of some of the questions being asked i.e: what degree did your flatmate study?; I am aware that he is merely doing his job and following a strict protocol and therefore I’m happy to help out. I’d imagine that the issue of time can become a problem with qualitative research, as the subject’s are expected to donate their time and in some cases, hours of it; for something that may seem meaningless to them. This is where the concept of “market researchers” and being paid to be interviewed comes in, so as to allure the interviewees into participating in the interview.

A semi-structured interview however, allows for the questions to be open-ended and the researcher is able to put forth their own thought’s or queries, whilst following a basic interview structure. This allows them to gain a more personal response from the interviewees which may further assist in their research topic. I have utilised some semi-structured questions in my interview process, however I do have one or two structured questions; depending on the outcome I was looking to achieve for each question. I had already made up my mind about some of the answers I wanted to gain from the interview and so I posed the questions in such a manner that this will be answered, however for the parts where I was happy to be flexible, I posed semi-structured questions, so that I could gain that more personal response from my subject, without completely losing track of the topic at hand.

Unstructured interviews allow for an in-depth response to be attained, mainly through the interviewees, rather than the interviewer. Questions may be open-ended and vary between topics, in order to gain insight into the interviewees thoughts and insight. This may lead to an entirely different topic for the interviewer, however, if they are using this method of interview; they are likely to be open to this. I did use a form of this interview in my first research assignment, as I briefly questioned my subject on some issues I found interesting when looking at his media log; which allowed me to gain insight into his thoughts about the topic, and helped me come to a more sound understanding of the outcomes I was looking to achieve.

The overall outcome of this reading was that each method, be it structured; semi-structured or unstructured; has its positive aspects when it comes to gaining information for qualitative studies and therefore it is up to the researcher to decide which questions (open or closed) and which interview method will gain the most effective outcomes for their work.

Weerakkody states structured research primarily exists in research to survey respondants. This is done by asking participants the same list of questions, in the same order and with the same wording. This style of interview is fairly common, especially for market research purposes, open-ended questions are posed such as “What is your favourite type of chocolate?” and the interviewer records the interviewee’s answers. A close-ended method is also employed whereby participants in the survey choose the answer applicable from a list of possible choices. For example, the question might be posed like so “What is your favourite brand of chocolate from the list below?” .  This method is generally used in quantitative research and when utilised, researchers know what they are looking for, they collect data and ask certain questions appropriately, in order to get the results desired.

Semi-structured interviews as Weerakkody states are those where the researcher’s interests are limited and specific to a area of study. A list of open-ended questions are posed to the respondants. However, this type of interview structure allows for the interviewer to be able to extend or add questions to highlight individual characteristics of the person being interviewed, if deemed necessary to the research being conducted. For example, this can be seen in TV interviews with a celebrities. Most have a list of topics that are not to be discussed “on air” yet many interviewers use the power of live TV to probe areas of media interest and significance, try to get the truth or “the scoop” as they say in the business.

Weerakkody states that unstructured interview questions are only suggestive and contain topic areas, to allow for the resondants responses to be unique and pertain exclusively to that particular indiviudal. This is a great tool often used in qualitative research, as it is perfect for researchers who do not know what they are looking for exactly ie Me (in regards to the next assignment).

I find myself agreeing with Ash and freely put up my hand to express frustration with the research process. However, this article has highlighted and answered a few of my questions regarding the next assignment. I am now no longer so frazzled by the idea of the process and feel like I am fully prepared and well equipped to interview my subject.

However, Weerakkody’s analysis of the skill of research interviewing did manage to, as research has a way of doing, throw up some interesting points. One of the first came on the first page, where the different types of research interviews (structured, semi-structured, unstructured) and questions asked in interviews. Questions can be open-ended (where all respondents are asked the same set of questions) or close-ended, where the answers are provided to the interview subject who selects their preferred answer. Often the news media walks a fine line between the two by asking heavily loaded questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWsiz-gOfQ

Structured interviews are generally preferred for quantitative research. For qualitative research projects such as our research paper, it is preferable to take an unstructured approach, where there are no set questions but rather merely a topic areas to pursue through an interview whereby the interviewer asks questions they see fit as pertaining to that area. Questions are generally open-ended. A semi-structured approach is also realistic and plausible.

It has been said that the qualitative approach is most effective when used to discuss controversial issues, such as when dealing with victims of rape. Clearly Kyle Sandilands could be a bit more careful when looking at his topic areas and coming up with questions – course, since he’s a twat, it wouldn’t have mattered either way. This is an example of one of the downsides of unstructured interviews – specifically, that interviewer bias (or, in Sandilands’ case, dick-ness), can often have an impact on the interview’s direction, i.e. when they embed personal opinions into follow up questions. These sort of questions can once again have the effect of being somewhat loaded.

“Signs and Meaning” explores the nature of signs/symbols and how meanings are supposedly derived from them.  Ferdinand de Saussure’s key argument was that meaning in language was not fixed but relational, i.e. dependent on a variety of factors such as context, culture.  However Saussure did theorise that there was always a set underlying (linguistic) system that would establish a basis that would help predetermine what signs meant.  This latter idea went on to be disputed – and while I don’t challenge the fact that Saussure’s model had its flaws (and not just with the idea of structure, what he referred to as langue), I felt familiar with what he seemed to be getting at with the static underlying system.  There is no written code when it comes to symbols and signs of course but there are certain ones that evoke an idea most people can agree on.  The colour red for example is almost universally suggestive of blood and passion; I (personally) doubt that anyone would try to assert that another colour was more evocative of these things.  I would imagine that such a supposedly fixed system would have that concept recorded.  Context would then produce the relational aspect, say passion –> the heart –> love.  Or perhaps passion (in a negative sense) –> anger/violence/bloodshed.

Given the apparent arbitrary quality to signs and meaning it would make sense to speculate about some sort of controlling scheme that worked on a very basic level.  After all, if meaning isn’t necessarily grasped in its intended way due to differences in culture, context and whatnot then how are messages communicated?  I think this goes back to something I remember being mentioned in the lecture, that “meanings become stabilised” and hence predictable to some extent – what we have come to recognise as stereotypes or clichés.  It’s interesting because on one hand there is often so much emphasis placed on breaking such stereotypes, such as in gender politics – the signifier “woman” is raised in the article as a prime example of an idea that relies on context (and is perhaps viewed from too much historical perspective) to acquire meaning.  But continuing my point from before that – we don’t often think or realise that stereotypes are on some level, crucial to broadcasting.  The following advert, while humorous and cleverly done, clearly illustrates “Australian” stereotypes of men and beer:

The collective idea that can be gathered from Marxist linguist Volosinov’s propositions about signs and meaning make sense: signs can adapt and change, and meanings depend on context, including historical context as I briefly touched on before.  Schirato and Yell’s final contention incorporates notions from both models.  Meanings are relational, as is the interpretation of a signifier, and the way in which meaning is produced is dependent on societal and cultural beliefs and knowledge.