Office Tigers.

The documentary "Office Tigers" is an intriguing look into the world of outsourcing American companies to countries that offer better work for less money. The work ethic of Office Tigers is mesmerizing. Due to the time difference between India and their New York based companies, the operation is literally 24/7 job. The interesting part of this is that the employees do not mind in the least. In fact, one worker said he was honored that he worked a twenty hour day. In the States, if an employee worked a twenty hour day, he or she would want overtime and two or three days off. But in India, they don't seem to mind and come back into work the next day on time ready to put in another twenty hour day. The doors never lock at Office Tigers because someone is always there working and meeting a deadline. I cannot think of a company here that has such a phenomenal work ethic. The employees work for money and money only it seems. When Seth asked if they were working to move up in the world, doing it for pride, or doing it for money, they all chose money. With a video workplace ethnography, the researcher can choose what clips are put into the documentary. This allows the researcher to be able to portray the participants in anyway he or she wants. Joe, for example, comes off as a know-it-all, slave-driving boss only concerned with results rather than the morale of his workers. He has been in India for 6 years and still lives in the same hotel room that he rented during his first weeks in the country. Seth comes across as someone who is not necessarily happy with his current position and takes it out on the employees at times. When Seth asked the employee to name someone with great leadership skills. The employee named Hitler. If you take away the genocide and pure evil, Hitler did rally a country out of a depression and united millions of Germans. Seth demeans the employee the employee and explains that his family suffered because of the Nazis. I believe this was unfair. The employee does not know the significance of what he said because he probably did not experience the problem first hand. Granted, what the employee said probably hurt Seth, but he did not have the right to go off on him like that. Joe and Seth are two examples of how the documentary maker can portray the participants in any light.

We have been talking a lot recently about advertising, its message, and its affect on the audience. The woman who presented the documentary took a rather one-sided, biased approach at the makers of the advertising executives. Personally, I think that she was over-analyzing the adds and put meaning to them that they ordinarily would not have. She spent a great deal of time talking about how they dehumanize women by putting them in provocative poses with minimal clothing. The ads may contain these images, but it is not necessarily intended for men. Much of these ads advertise woman's clothing and beauty products. With few exceptions, women are the consumers buying these product. So women may be in fact be promoting their own degradation by purchasing these products, most likely unknowingly. As for myself, I do not believe I am effected by the advertisements I see. Very rarely does an ad make me want to buy a product. I buy a camera based on its performance and use, not how naked the model holding that camera is. I enjoy watching TV commercials, but that does not mean they influence me or make me think about an alternative meaning. For example, I LOVE the freecreditreport.com commercials (tell your friends, tell your dad, tell your mom) but it does not make me want to get my credit score. So basically, I believe that have a certain appeal that make them catchy or noticeable but I do not believe that America is so desensitized that we enjoy seeing women, children, and minorities be taken advantage of or downgraded.

Interview Types

When I had finished collecting photos for my research project, I then went back to clarify picture meanings through interviews. I had to chose between personal one on one interviews or group interviews/focus groups. Even though focus groups would have been more efficient and economical, I felt that going one on one with my participants would provide the best information. When I sent out the email asking for pictures, I was vague in what I was looking for because I did not want to influence their decisions on pictures. I felt the same thing would happen in a focus group. With everyone together, I foresaw someone saying something and the rest of the group agreeing with them instead of forming their own idea of school spirit. I could have used a devil's advocate, but once a topic is out in the open, the other participants can jump on it and not let go. For those reasons I chose one on one interviews. The interviews I used were semi-structured. I did not follow a specific line of questions and most of the questions were open ended. Also, all the interviews did not have the same questions. The questions focused primarily on each person's individual pictures, why they chose them, and why they think it demonstrates school spirit. The interviews took place at the participants time and place of choosing. The information was not sensitive in nature the students were not concerned very much with privacy. I took notes during the interviews as well as taking mental notes which I wrote down after the interview had ended. Although the one on one interviews took longer and more effort than a focus group, I truly believe that I got better information this way than I would have got with any other form on interviewing.

Participant Selection

One important question that I had to answer when designing my research project was who was going to participate. Since I was going to have to interview the subject after I received their pictures, I wanted people that I knew I could easily get a hold of. This led me to gravitate towards my friends. At the same time, I realized that since they are my friends, they have a lot in common with me and with each other. I thought that this may not encompass the entire campus, but just a subsection of the student body. To try to create an accurate picture of "School Spirit" I was very selective in the people I chose. For example, I chose and even amount of males and females from a variety of majors. These majors included Criminal Justice, English, Education, Pre-Med, Aerospace Engineering, Flight Science, and a Law student. In addition to a variety of majors, these students had a wide range of extracurricular activities and interests. My study included a D-1 volleyball player, intercollegiate athletes, pep band members, APO leaders, RA's, and oriflamme members. After selecting the students, I sent emails asking for pictures which were responded to quickly. In total, I recieved approximately 60 photos. This was a great group of students who was eager to particpate and help me in my research. Looking back on the project, I believe that I painted a fairly accurate portrayal of the students body through students I would easily be able to comminicate with. These students provided me a great understanding of what students feel school spirit is, and I have learned that school spirit is dependant on the person, not necessarily a group a whole. Each person's own personal expiernces formulate what they view school spirit as.